Deinfluencing TikTok During the Cost-of-Living Crisis: Neoliberal Logics of (Over)Consumption Across Popular Media
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the economic recession of 2008, media texts blamed individual consumers and their reckless and wasteful consumption of designer goods and extravagant homes for contributing to the financial crisis. Within the current context of the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis has led to increases in the cost of everyday necessities. At the same time, social media influencers promote excessive consumption of expensive viral products that are often discarded upon purchase. Responding to these socio-cultural events, deinfluencing became a viral trend on TikTok, where users post videos encouraging viewers to purchase certain products rather than other more expensive options. Positioning deinfluencing as an example of cultural responses to financial crises, this article highlights the parallels between deinfluencing and previous discursive articulations that emerged during the 2008 global financial crisis. Deinfluencing reproduces longstanding cultural formations of consumer citizenship while also reacting to the overconsumption promoted by the digital economy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it