arXiv preprint ·
Fear Doesn't Go Viral, It Lingers: Spread, Affect, and Discourse of Food-Fear Content on TikTok
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
TikTok has become a primary channel for nutrition information, and alongside evidence-based content, it hosts a growing stream of \emph{fear-based} wellness messaging that frames ordinary foods as ``toxic,'' ``poison,'' or things to ``never eat.'' Prior work has extensively studied political and public-health misinformation and audited the accuracy of health videos, but to the best of our knowledge, no work has examined how everyday food-fear content spreads and how audiences respond to it. To investigate this, we collected 97,234 TikTok food and nutrition videos, labeled them \textit{Fear} or \textit{Non-Fear} with a zero-shot multimodal classifier built on Gemini~3 Flash that is validated against human consensus (Cohen's $κ=0.81$), and analyzed more than 1.1M comments and 272K parent-reply pairs. Contrary to the intuition that fear ``goes viral,'' fear videos reach fewer people than non-fear videos. Their distinctive signature lies in dynamics: they are shared more per view (1.7--2.1$\times$ after controls) and their discussion persists longer (comment half-life 1.62$\times$ after controls). These shifts are modest in size but hold after controlling for reach. Comments on fear videos are more negative, angrier, and more disgusted, yet negativity is \emph{not} more self-reinforcing: negative comments draw negative replies at the same rate as in non-fear threads, while positive comments are far less likely to stay positive. Fear threads are contested rather than one-sided, with both more corrective and more alarm-amplifying replies. Fear discourse concentrates in frames about industrial ingredients, contaminants, and institutional distrust, and its repertoire of frames widens over 2020--2026. Our results argue for persistence-based rather than virality-based signals when platforms seek harmful health content.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Social & Information Networks
Joint Independence Testing for Latent Position Random Graphs
Do "True" and "False" Add Up to One? Complement Consistency in LLM-Agent Opinion Simulations
AskGLP1: A Knowledge Graph LLM Agent for Exploring GLP-1 Experience from Online Patient Narratives
Learning the Past from the Future: Retrospective Reconstruction in Temporal Interaction Networks
ArchiveLens: A Generative Spatial Knowledge Framework for Semantic Reconstruction of Historical Maps
Get the few papers worth your time in Social & Information Networks every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.