Australian Political Discourse on TikTok

TikTok is a video social networking site whose popularity surged during COVID-19. Initially thought of as a trivial entertainment platform where its user base upload videos of themselves dancing and lip-syncing, scholars have since become interested in how TikTok has the capacity to shape political discourse. The purpose of this article is to add to the literature by critically examining TikTok’s influence on the Australian political landscape. It considers if the short form memetic, reproducible and entertainment nature of TikTok contributes to spreading misinformation or influencing opinion about Australian politics and politicians. This is thought through by taking concepts from media theories including Uses and Gratification, Habermas’ public sphere, Two-step flow, Cultivation theory and social capital. Each theory presented a common ground that TikTok has a major political influence due to its viral nature. This has a significant effect on the political opinions amongst the adolescents. Furthermore, affecting the democratic process due to low credibility of news from uninformed individuals. 

Introduction:

TikTok is a social networking site founded in 2017 (https://www.tiktok.com/transparency). It was initially dismissed as a trivial entertainment application, primarily as a young audience took to it to upload dance choreography and lip-syncing videos. As the user base increases and the application sees growth in content of a political nature, TikTok has begun to earn the attention of academic scholars who have realised that the application provides unique features for persuasive discourse (Zulli and Zulli, 2020; Serrano et al, 2020; Rosso, 2020), establishing political legitimacy (Rosso, 2020) and is a more convenient application for spreading messages (Compte and Klugg, 2021).

Political based studies on TikTok have primarily focussed on partisanship and political activism in the United States (Zulli and Zulli, 2020; Serrano et al, 2020), India (Vijay and Gekker, 2021), and Spain (Cervi and Marín-Lladó, 2021). While the limited academic research on TikTok has established the application as a legitimate medium for influencing political discourse, research has not explicitly considered the potential political influence that TikTok has in Australia. Market researcher Roy Morgan reports that, in 2020, 2.5 million Australians had downloaded TikTok; 850,000 Australians downloaded it in the first half of 2020; and Australians spend more time on TikTok than YouTube (Roy Morgan, 2020). Videos with the hashtag #auspol have 238.2 million views on TikTok, with #aussiepolitics totalling 1.4 million views (TikTok, 2021). This article aims to bridge the research gap, by taking concepts from media theories including Uses and Gratification, Habermas’ public sphere, Two-step flow, Cultivation theory and social capital to reflect on the features of TikTok and consider this alongside examples of videos of an Australian political basis to ascertain if TikTok has potential to contribute to misinformation spreading or influencing political discourse in Australia.

Methods:

TikTok does not provide a programming interface to share user and behaviour data, therefore video examples, hashtags, and engagements such as ‘likes’, comments were collected manually. A combination of literature review, the author’s personal experience and observations and the execution of media theories form the basis of the discussion.

Uses & Gratification Theory

Uses and Gratifications Theory emerged in the 1940s by Katz and Foulkes (1962), which explains “what people do with the media, what uses they make of what the media now gives them, what satisfactions they enjoy, and, indeed, what role the media plays in their personal lives” (Katz and Foulkes, 1962, p. 377; Katz et al., 1973).

Uses and gratification research has unveiled multiple motivations for consuming media (Bryant, 2013; Reinecke and Vorderer, 2013; Oliver, 2008). Sharing, relaxation, passing the time, escape, and information seeking are some of these motivations. Furthermore, a growing body of research (Oliver and Bartsch, 2010; Ryan and Deci, 2000) examines how people use media to meet higher-order needs such as finding meaning and weighing values. Today all types of media, from radio to social media, have been studied from a uses and gratifications standpoint. According to Urista et al.’s (2008) study, the majority of individuals utilise social networking sites for surveillance purposes, while some claimed the desire to be “in the know” and exhibit “social know-how” (Quan-Haase and Young, 2010).

As the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic expands worldwide, social media platforms such as TikTok have become increasingly important in conveying information. Simultaneously, platforms have been chastised for profiting from widespread “fake news” and COVID-19 hoaxes—an “overabundance of information” defined as an “infodemic” by the World Health Organization (WHO; 2020). Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison (2020) condemned COVID-19 news on social media as “gossip and nonsense” during a press conference on March 18, 2020. Recent research suggests that TikTok can be a potent network to spread health-related information (Basch CH, Hillyer GC, Jaime C, 2020; Ostrovsky and Chen, 2020), official government information (Jiang J, Wang W, 2020), and political discussions to younger people (Serrano et al., 2020). Recent research has indicated that TikTok users are motivated to consume by entertainment, passing the time and escapism (Lawrence, 2020)

It is evident from many Australian political TikTok videos that users are seeking political gratification in the form of both information and entertainment from this platform. There has been growth in memetic content on Australian politics on TikTok where critical issues of political events are used as a form of entertainment. Bucknell and Kottasz (2020) found that the gratification of entertainment/effect was the primary driver behind TikTok use in adolescents, although this could also be a potential insight into TikTok use in all groups. TikTok users adopt spectacle to elevate ‘politics as entertainment’ (Serrano et al. 2020 p. 9) which indicates that a new method of political communication is undertaken via TikTok. For instance, TikToker Bronte Crawley created a dance based on an audio remix by another TikToker, Danny Stern. It scorned the former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s speech where she highlighted the number of COVID-19 cases discussed in a press conference which was later metamorphosed into a gratification of a joke. The use of the For You Page ‘helps participants enjoy consuming without having to search for content they like’ (Lawrence, 2020 p.46), which gratifies entertainment needs and unavoidably exposes users to politically entertaining content. The video track mocking Berejiklian’s speech was trending and viral in Australia for some time and replicated through user-generated content for assumed entertainment purposes. The TikTok user base exposed to content like this may inevitably view such videos and form opinions without political background knowledge.

Additionally, Cheung et al. (2011) indicate that the Uses and Gratification theory explains that users are conscious of their needs and their conduct is goal-oriented on social media. The search function of TikTok allows a person to seek out content, for example, searching hashtags such as ‘auspol’ or ‘aussiepolitics’ which might satisfy the information-seeking behaviour of those interested in ‘knowing more’ about Australian politics. However, as videos are short-form, often based on opinion through user-generated content or created with an entertainment nature, this does not provide adequate context and information to ensure users can form fully informed opinions about Australian political issues.

Overall, the information-seeking activities and entertainment gratifications satisfied through TikTok could be damaging to the Australian democratic process.

Habermas’ public sphere

The Public Sphere theory was first developed by Jürgen Habermas in 1962. According to Habermas, the public sphere is regarded as a social environment in which public opinion can be created. It is primarily open to all citizens and is formed in every interaction where individuals get together to form a public. (Habermas, 1991).

The public sphere, according to Habermas (Habermas, 1989), is a space where “private people gather together as a public” intending to use reason to advance critical knowledge, which leads to political transformation. The Internet, notably social media sites, is structured in ways that satisfy the requirements of a public realm; many researchers have investigated this potential, most of whom are presenting theoretical claims without empirical data (Fuchs 2012; Jenkins 2006; Loader and Mercea 2011; Papacharissi 2010; Sørensen 2016). Many other researchers (Baumgartner and Morris 2010; Gladwell 2010; Van Dijck 2012; Wolfsfeld, Segev, and Sheafer 2013) including Habermas (2006), have criticised the claim that social media platforms have revived the public sphere. 

Although, social media platforms such as TikTok have users that have created their own public sphere in the app to discuss opinions and political views with one another. This is more like a niche community form. According to Jenkins (2006), contributing information “may, on one level, facilitate the flow of ideas throughout the media landscape; on other levels, ensure an increasingly polarised political debate.” Additionally, Yochai Benkler (2006) emphasizes the appearance of a networked public sphere by stating “The ability of effectively communicate into the public sphere enables people to reorient oneself from passive readers and listeners to prospective speakers and participants in a conversation”. Undoubtedly, TikTok is becoming a powerful force of shaping opinions where individuals are actively participating and creating a political spectrum.  

Social media may have rejuvenated the public sphere by allowing individuals “to challenge discourses, share contrary perspectives and publish publicly their own ideas and opinion” (Loader and Mercea, 2011). This can be witnessed through the Australian political TikToks where users are talking about the country’s politics and a specific hashtag called #auspol has 238.3 million views. Proving our aforementioned statement by Jenkins on an increased inversed political debate (Jenkins, 2006) is a separate part of the platform. For instance, the prime minister of Australia Scott Morrison with the Chief medical officer, Brendan Murphy stood at the podium to speak about the new COVID-19 measures to halt the spread of the virus. Probyn among other reporters had numerous questions to which the prime minister answered “Andrew, I’m sorry but you don’t run the press conference, OK?” This took a typical TikTok route where some users videoed themselves in a 15-second audio clip lipsyncing to Morrison’s admonishment. Whereas the other part of the platform used it as a chance to comment and criticize Morrison’s relationship with the press (ryantheh – the account of one such person for reference). Then there were a separate group of people who saw Probyn as the “real hero”, even suggesting that he is fitting to take Morrison’s place (remysgirl – the account of one such person for reference).  

Shirky talks about social media noting that “The networked population has greater access to information, more possibilities for public speaking, and a stronger ability to take collective action.” (Shirky, 2008).  Thus, TikTok processes politically relevant content that forms public opinions and there is a distribution of influential interests. Although a short lipsynced video without any detailed understanding of the topic can have damaging effects on democracy and hence false idea formation.

Two-step flow theory

The two-step flow theory was developed in 1948 by Paul Lazarsfeld, Benard Berelso, and Hazel Gaudet. This theory was formulated after researching voters decision-making system during the 1940 U.S presidential election. According to this theory, “Ideas often flow from radio and print to the opinion leaders and from them to the less active sections of the population.” (Lazarsfed, Berelso, and Gaudet 1940).

Scholars such as Katz and Lazarsfeld’s ideas led to the recognition of the function of social contacts in filtering information emerging in mass communication, showing the critical communicational role of opinion leaders. It has been demonstrated that opinion leaders could use social media to influence larger groups of individuals and more distantly linked “following” with e-word of mouth (Acar & Polonsky, 2007; Li & Du, 2011). Social media is a place with online communities where people develop cyber identities and gain an online presence while making friends and interacting with other consumers. (Osetreicher-Singer & Zalmanson, 2012). Today, amongst all the social media sites, TikTok is one the fastest growing channel in the world. TikTok’s spectacular rise to stardom has brought in several notable changes in the entertainment as well as the political world. 

News consumption is closely linked to political communication on social media platforms like TikTok, with a considerable section of the public adopting social media services as their primary source of knowledge about global events. According to Katz & Lazarsfelt (1955), People are more influenced by interpersonal connection than by media (broadcast) content, which is particularly relevant today given the public’s decreasing attention to the news. This involves users that indulge in political conversation based on the content that they see. Opinion leaders use user-generated content to show off their skills and abilities in a one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many mode online (Li & Du, 2011). 

Australian politics has always been in the trend on TikToks with millions of views and active participation by the viewers directly or indirectly. Opinion leaders are more likely to communicate with the people as a result of their involvement in the topic ((Engel et al. 1990, p. 161). This indicates that opinion leaders have thorough background knowledge about the subject/topic they discuss. In the case of TikTok, these are more like influencers – people who have a community that gets influenced by their content, irrespective of the expertise. For example, the Australian political trend on TikTok is skyrocketing where “influencers” have opinions that they reflect on their audience. For example, a TikTok account named “Young workers Australia” with 1.2 million likes is an account where a group of individuals post videos that talks about politics and criticize the liberal government. More such accounts are entirely based on Australian politics and activism. 

Even though such influencers hold a huge fanbase, the credibility behind their content cannot be weighed since they are influencers and not opinion leaders. Therefore, forming opinions from a 15-second video from individuals with low credibility government is futile. Moreover, this is harming the democratic process.

Cultivation Theory

Cultivation theory was formulated by George Gerbner in the 1960s. It is a sociological and communications framework to inspect the lasting outcomes of media, primarily television which was the dominant form of mass media at that time (Gerbner, 1967, 1969a, 1969b, 1973). Gerbner took a macrosystems approach to his presentation. He was less interested in the impact of specific message elements and more interested in broader meanings across the media landscape. 

The internet’s revolutionary arrival drastically altered communication norms. People spend a lot of time on the internet and social media, and what they see online shapes their perceptions of the world. This rapid transformation has resulted in the formation of network communities (Bayraktar & Amca, 2012), which have long since replaced the TV audience as media users. The impact of television viewing was the focus of cultivation research. Cultivation research on the impact of various media kinds, particularly in the digital or online setting, are few and far between, with only a few emerging. 

Although, Gerbner was only interested in the impact that a far greater range of communication had on the general population as individuals were exposed to media messages in their daily lives. This can be measured through short videos apps that are distinct platforms exclusively designed for people to engage through user-generated video content (Chen, He, Mao, Chung, and Maharjan, 2019). For instance, TikTok is a platform where content-based interaction is mostly dependent on the video curation by the applications recommendation algorithm (Bhandari and Bimo, 2020). TikTok recommendation algorithm tailors video content for the individual user’s ‘for you’ page (Anderson n.d,) that is entirely based on the continuous previous user engagement with similar video content through video viewing time, commenting, liking, and sharing. This way TikTok learns the users’ video preferences (Simpson and Semaan, 2021) which means when it comes to political discourse on these platforms, the algorithm contributes to presenting similar data that fuels the user engagement. 

In Australia, there is a dynamic discourse occurrence due to similar kinds of data presented to the audience. This leads to wide networking where people communicate and engage based on similar political views, hence generating political opinions. Proved by searching a hashtag like #aussiepolitics with 1.4 million views.

Although Gerbner’s theory may not adequately explain the discourse as there is no consideration of the interpretation of the video content. But it does consider how the platform cultivates such messages massively due to its UGC algorithm. 

Social Capital

Social Capital is “The frameworks of relationships among people living and working in a specific society that enables that society to function successfully”. According to this theory, individuals engage in social interactions and networking to produce profits. “Investment in social relations with expected returns” (Lin, 2001)

Traditional social capital research has demonstrated the benefits people can derive from their social networks: strong relationships provide emotional support (thus bonding capital), while weak ties supply non-redundant information and various views (bridging capital) (Granovetter, 1973; Harraka 2002). Furthermore, social media frequently blurs audience boundaries (viewers are collapsed into one general audience) (Marwick and Boyd, 2010). To make matters even more complicated, social media platforms provide public and private communication options that can be further defined as directed communication (i.e., liking, tagging, or commenting) or more passive engagement (i.e., silently consuming what is on your newsfeed) (Burke, Kraut, and Marlow, 2011). 

Amongst the conventional social media networks, TikTok’s initial usage was considered as a “recording tool rather than a social media app” (Omar and Dequan 2020). Indeed, documenting oneself was the most essential motivation to use TikTok. Whereas later through its features like duet videos and reacting to videos, the users started engaging and forming a sphere with views. As per the aforementioned theory, people have formed social networks on such platforms with like-minded users. Politics is one such discourse that has been frequently discussed amongst these networks. 

The Australian political discourse has become an active trend on this platform. Often people discuss or criticize the government by aiming at the COVID-19 pandemic situation and how the government is assumingly not working to the people’s expectations. With hashtags like #aussiepolitics with 1.4 million views, it is predominant to note that a huge network is formed where people are actively and passively engaging. Although is it mindless to accept the video knowledge as factual without any background knowledge or check-up. Since TikTok has time and again been accused of spreading misinformation amongst the people (Igoe, 2019). These kinds of uninformed activities can have a blow at the democratic process and jeopardize the government to an extent. 

Conclusion:

From the above-mentioned media theories, multiple conclusions can be drawn. One common ground for all the theories was noted where TikTok has an active Australian political discourse and involves thousands of participants in the same. Although this discourse is more memetic, entertaining, and scorning towards the political leaders and government. TikTok users are constantly picking videos from various political events and creating iterations by producing memetic content, opinionated pieces, and mocking videos. The data set was formed by applying theories like Uses and Gratification, Hebermas’ Public Sphere, Two Sphere Theory, Cultivation theory and Social Capital. Each theory presented information about how TikTok is a distinct platform where users are not only circulation content and responding but also becoming an active presenter of the information. It is a place where Australian political communication is highly interactive, and this has been noted by various government leaders and health care officials in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, TikTok has become a breeding ground for information that has very less reliability and credibility, yet people are engaging in the same for self-gratification. This public sphere has given birth to “opinion leaders” who are influencers that create networks to discuss politics. Furthermore, creating damaging effects on the democratic process. The absolute decision making through a mere 15 second video on politics is a mindless thing to do. 

Referencing:

• Acar, A.S. and Polonsky, M. (2007) Online Social Networks and Insights into Marketing Communications. Journal of Internet Commerce, 6, 55-72.

• Aparajita Bhandari and Sara Bimo. 2020. TIKTOK AND THE “ALGORITHMIZED SELF”: A NEW MODEL OF ONLINE INTERACTION. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research.

• Basch CH, Hillyer GC and Jaime C (2020) COVID-19 on TikTok: harnessing an emerging social media platform to convey important public health messages. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health.

• Baumgartner, J. C., and J. S. Morris (2010) “MyFaceTube Politics: Social Networking Web Sites and Political Engagement of Young Adults.” Social Science Computer Review 28(1):24–44.

• Bayraktar, F., & Amca, H. (2012) Interrelations between virtual-world and real-world activities: Comparison of genders, age groups, and pathological and nonpathological internet users. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), 263-269.

• Benkler, Yochai (2006) The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Bossen CB and Kottasz R (2020) Uses and gratifications sought by pre-adolescent and adolescent TikTok consumers. Young Consumers 21(4): 463–478.

• Bryant J (2013) Psychology of Entertainment.

• Burke M, Kraut R and Marlow C (2011) Social capital on facebook. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

• Cheung, C.M.K., Chiu, P.Y. and Lee, M.K.O (2011) “Online social networks: why do students use Facebook”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1337-1343.

• Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard. 1990. Consumer Behavior. 6th ed. Chicago: Dryden.

• Establishing the Truth: Vaccines, Social Media, and the … (n.d.). Available from: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/vaccines-social-media-spread-misinformation/ (accessed 2 October 2021)

• Fuchs, Christian (2012) “The Political Economy of Privacy on Facebook.” Television and New Media 13(2):139–59

• Gerbner, G. (1967). An institutional approach to mass communications research. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Communication theory and research: Proceedings of the First International Symposium (pp. 429–445). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

• Gerbner, G. (1969a). Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass-mediated public message systems. AV Communication Review, 17(2), 137–148.

• Gerbner, G. (1969b). Toward ‘cultural indicators’: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems.

• Gerbner, G. (1973). Cultural indicators: The third voice. In G. Gerbner, L. P. Gross, & W. H. Melody (Eds.), Communication technology and social policy (pp. 555–573). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

• Gladwell, Malcolm (2010) “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” New Yorker.

• Granovetter MS (2003) The Strength of Weak Ties. Networks in the Knowledge Economy.

• Habermas J (2006) Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory 16(4): 411–426.

• Habermas, Jürgen [1989] 1991 The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

• Harraka M (2002) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, by Robert D. Putnam. Journal of Catholic Education 6(2).

• Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.

• Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.

• Jiang J, Wang W. (2020) Research on Government Douyin for public opinion of public emergencies: comparison with government microblog. J Intellig. 39:100–106. (Citation has been translated from the Chinese language.)

• Jürgen Habermas (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991. p. 175-177.

• Katie Elson Anderson. [n.d.]. Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: it is time to talk about TikTok. Library Hi Tech News 37.

• Katz E and Foulkes D (1962) On the Use of the Mass Media as “Escape”: Clarification of a Concept. Public Opinion Quarterly 26(3): 377.

• Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press.

• Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B and Gaudet H (2021) The peoples choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

• Li F and Du TC (2011) Who is talking? An ontology-based opinion leader identification framework for word-of-mouth marketing in online social blogs. Decision Support Systems 51(1): 190–197.

• Lin, N. (2001) Social capital. A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Loader, B. D., and Dan Mercea (2011) “Networking Democracy? Social Media Innovations and Participatory Politics.” Information, Communication and Society 14(6):757–69.

• Loader, B. D., and Dan Mercea (2011) “Networking Democracy? Social Media Innovations and Participatory Politics.” Information, Communication and Society 14(6):757–69

• Marwick AE and Boyd D (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1): 114–133.

• Oestreicher-Singer G and Zalmanson L (2013) Content or Community? A Digital Business Strategy for Content Providers in the Social Age. MIS Quarterly 37(2): 591–616.

• Oliver MB (2008) Tender Affective States as Predictors of Entertainment Preference. Journal of Communication 58(1): 40–61.

• Oliver MB and Bartsch A (2010) Appreciation as Audience Response: Exploring Entertainment Gratifications Beyond Hedonism. Human Communication Research 36(1): 53–81.

• Omar B and Dequan W (2020) Watch, Share or Create: The Influence of Personality Traits and User Motivation on TikTok Mobile Video Usage. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 14(04): 121.

• Ostrovsky AM and Chen JR (2020) TikTok and Its Role in COVID-19 Information Propagation. Journal of Adolescent Health 67(5): 730.

• Oxford definition: “Social Capital | Definition of Social Capital by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Social Capital”. Lexico Dictionaries 

• Papacharissi, Zizi A. (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in A Digital Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Pew Research Center. 

• Quan-Haase A and Young AL (2010) Uses and Gratifications of Social Media: A Comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5): 350–361.

• Reinecke L and Vorderer P (2013) Well-Being and Media Use. The International Encyclopedia of Communication

• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78

• Serrano JCM, Papakyriakopoulos O and Hegelich S (2020) Dancing to the Partisan Beat: A First Analysis of Political Communication on TikTok. 12th ACM Conference on Web Science.

• Shirky, Clay (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin Press

• Sørensen, M. P. (2016) “Political Conversations on Facebook: The Participation of Politicians and Citizens.” Media, Culture and Society 38(5):664–85.

• Urista, M., Dong, Q. and Day, K. (2008) “Explaining why young adults use Myspace and Facebook through uses and gratifications theory”, Human Communication, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 215-229

• Van Dijck, José (2012) “Facebook as a Tool for Producing Sociality and Connectivity.” Television and New Media 13(2):160–76. 
• Wolfsfeld, Gad, Elad Segev, and Tamir Sheafer (2013) “Social Media and the Arab Spring: Politics Comes First.” International Journal of Press/Politics 18(2):115–37.

• Zhuang Chen, Qian He, Zhifei Mao, Hwei-Ming Chung, and Sabita Maharjan. 2019. A study on the characteristics of douyin short videos and implications for edge caching. In Proceedings of the ACM Turing Celebration Conference-China. 1–6

WHO Reference: https://www.who.int/news/item/11-12-2020-call-for-action-managing-the-infodemic

Scott Morrison press conference reference: https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/coronavirus/fake-news-scott-morrison-blasts-coronavirus-misinformation-on-twitter/video/8577946675beea235ab5689dd4939