Comparison of Social Media Between Tiktok and Instagram to Detect Negative Content Using Natural Language Processing Method
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35746/jtim.v7i3.730Keywords:
Social Media, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Negative Content, Instagram, TiktokAbstract
In the digital era, social media platforms have become essential tools for communication, content creation, and information dissemination. However, with the increasing volume of user-generated content, the spread of negative or harmful content has emerged as a major challenge for platform administrators and users alike. This study aims to compare TikTok and Instagram in their capacity to detect and manage negative content using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. A dataset of 2,000 user comments was collected—1,000 from each platform—through web scraping. These comments were analyzed using a variety of NLP methods, including sentiment analysis tools (VADER and TextBlob), text classification algorithms (Support Vector Machine and Random Forest), and Named Entity Recognition (NER) using the spaCy library. The comparison was conducted based on the classification performance of each NLP technique in detecting negative content, considering metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. The results showed that while both SVM and Random Forest performed well in classification tasks, SVM outperformed the others in terms of overall accuracy and consistency across platforms. Sentiment analysis provided a general overview of content polarity, but it was less effective in detecting nuanced or sarcastic language. NER contributed to identifying specific entities that may be associated with negative expressions, enriching the contextual understanding of comments. This study highlights the potential of combining multiple NLP methods to improve automated content moderation systems. It also underlines the importance of platform-specific characteristics, such as user behavior and engagement style, which influence the nature and frequency of negative content. Future work should focus on improving the handling of contextual ambiguity and sarcasm to ensure more robust and adaptive moderation technologies across different social media platforms.
Downloads
References
G. Kovács, P. Alonso, and R. Saini, “Challenges of Hate Speech Detection in Social Media: Data Scarcity, and Leveraging External Resources,” SN Comput Sci, vol. 2, no. 2, Apr. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00457-3.
I. Naz and R. Illahi, “Harmful Content on Social Media Detection Using by NLP,” Advances, Jul. 2023, https://doi.org/10.11648/j.advances.20230402.13.
M. Rodríguez-Ibánez, A. Casánez-Ventura, F. Castejón-Mateos, and P. M. Cuenca-Jiménez, “A review on sen-timent analysis from social media platforms,” Aug. 01, 2023, Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119862.
M. S. Jahan and M. Oussalah, “A systematic review of hate speech automatic detection using natural language processing,” Aug. 14, 2023, Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2023.126232.
I. Alsmadi et al., “Adversarial Attacks and Defenses for Social Network Text Processing Applications: Techniques, Challenges and Future Research Directions,” Oct. 2021, http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.13980
B. Mathew, R. Dutt, P. Goyal, and A. Mukherjee, “Spread of Hate Speech in Online Social Media,” in WebSci 2019 - Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Web Science, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, Jun. 2019, pp. 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292522.3326034.
Y. Gerrard and H. Thornham, “Content moderation: Social media’s sexist assemblages,” New Media Soc, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1266–1286, Jul. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820912540.
M. Alizadeh, F. Gilardi, E. Hoes, K. J. Klüser, M. Kubli, and N. Marchal, “Content Moderation As a Political Issue: The Twitter Discourse Around Trump’s Ban,” Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, vol. 2, Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.023.
S. Akinboro, O. Adebusoye, and A. Onamade, “A Review on the Detection of Offensive Content in Social Media Platforms,” FUOYE Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, Mar. 2021, https://doi.org/10.46792/fuoyejet.v6i1.591.
N. T. Nguyen, K. Thi-Kim Phan, D. V. Nguyen, and N. Luu-Thuy Nguyen, “Abusive Span Detection for Viet-namese Narrative Texts,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Association for Computing Machinery, Dec. 2023, pp. 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1145/3628797.3628921.
V. Koreddi, N. Manisha, S. M. Kaif, and Y. T. S. Kumar, “Multilingual AI system for detecting offensive content across text, audio, and visual media,” Engineering Research Express, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-8695/ada72a.
Y. Wang, "A Review of Reasons for TikTok’s Global Surge," Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Social Development and Media Communication (SDMC 2021), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-9, Jan. 2022, https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220105.107.
A. V. Bernard, “Expanding ESL Students’ Vocabulary Through TikTok Videos,” Lensa: Kajian Kebahasaan, Kesusastraan, dan Budaya, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 171, Dec. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26714/lensa.11.2.2021.171-184.
J. Guo, “Research on the Influence of TikTok on Teenagers,” 2022.
D. Klug, Y. Qin, M. Evans, and G. Kaufman, “Trick and Please. A Mixed-Method Study on User Assumptions about the TikTok Algorithm,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Association for Computing Machinery, Jun. 2021, pp. 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447535.3462512.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Tri Antaka Jagad Laga, Nur Widjiyati

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.




