Flat Earth v. Connectivity: An Analysis of TikTok Disinformation
Advisor: Aaron Glanzer
Internship Location: Tysons Community Alliance
This research investigates the rhetorical strategies employed in TikTok videos promoting Flat Earth beliefs, specifically targeting users aged 18–30. By analyzing how humor, conspiracy framing, and appeals to authority are used to engage younger audiences, this study aims to uncover the persuasive techniques that contribute to the spread of misinformation on social media. Using an AI-driven text analysis of transcribed video content, this research identifies linguistic and structural patterns in Flat Earth-related content. Additionally, the study explores the psychological and algorithmic factors that amplify such narratives. Findings will contribute to media literacy efforts and provide insights into combating digital misinformation, highlighting the role of platform-specific communication tactics in shaping public perception.
Project Blog
Week 1
Hi everyone, sorry for the long wait time. Turns out it’s hard for me to write about stuff I do. This week, I started gathering data for my project on Flat Earth TikToks. I thought I’d find a few fringe creators, but there’s actually a massive network constantly uploading high-engagement videos. These videos span a wide variety of tones, from dramatic and conspiratorial to humorous and sarcastic, and many of them are tailor-made to go viral.
I started by searching hashtags like #FlatEarth, #NASAisFake, and #DoYourOwnResearch, collecting videos that had at least a few thousand views and were clearly promoting Flat Earth beliefs. I then created a basic spreadsheet to log video links, creators, and initial impressions. My goal for this stage was to collect a large, diverse sample that would allow for pattern recognition later. Already, I noticed recurring tropes and themes that seemed to appear across multiple creators. This was a sign that I wasn’t just dealing with random content, but a coordinated or at least algorithmically amplified subculture.
Another surprise during this phase was how sophisticated some of the content looked. I had expected low-production-value videos, but many were well-edited and clearly designed for maximum engagement. These creators understood TikTok's mechanics—from optimal video length to the use of trending sounds and subtitles. That means they aren't just sharing ideas—they're marketing them. Going forward, I realized I needed to treat this like a serious communication ecosystem, not just a fringe movement.
Week 2
This week I finalized my note-taking system. Each video now gets 10 observations based on a framework I built: rhetorical strategies, emotional appeals, misinformation techniques, and engagement tactics. I categorized these into things like "Appeal to Authority," "Misrepresentation of Science," "Visual Misdirection," and "Engagement Hooks" like calls to comment or like.
I used a color-coded system to tag each observation type and included timestamps and quotes for reference. This made it easier to spot recurring structures and rhetorical strategies used to persuade or manipulate viewers. One example is how many creators open with a dramatic statement or question to draw immediate attention, which TikTok's algorithm rewards with longer watch time. I also started linking creators who reference or duet each other, which revealed a mini-network of Flat Earth influencers working in tandem. This framework will help me stay consistent and scale my analysis as I continue logging all 100 videos.
Creating this structured system also gave me a chance to test a few qualitative coding techniques I had read about in media studies research. I developed a tagging guide to ensure consistency in how I logged tactics across videos. The result is a growing dataset that allows me to filter for trends like "videos using emotional appeals" or "videos citing religious texts." I now have the foundation to not only describe what I'm seeing, but to analyze it rigorously. It makes the next phases of this project much more manageable.
Week 3
I’ve now logged observations for the first 25 videos. Common themes are definitely emerging. Many creators rely heavily on mockery, conspiracy, and personal testimonies over data. Videos often begin with a question or claim meant to provoke doubt, such as "If the Earth is spinning, why can't we feel it?"
One trend that stood out was the use of simplified logic, such as "water always finds its level," presented as unshakable proof. I also saw a surprising amount of religious language or references to ancient civilizations as if history itself validates the Flat Earth model. Dramatic visuals, like distorted photos of the Earth or shaky amateur footage, were used to sow doubt about mainstream science. The creators were not just individuals with a quirky belief—they were strategic and persuasive, consciously or unconsciously leveraging TikTok’s features for maximum reach. By the end of this week, I started to draft short blurbs that summarize the rhetorical structure of each video to keep my notes uniform and accessible.
I also began creating rough groupings of video types to see how they relate to different audience reactions. Some videos lean heavily into comedy or sarcasm, possibly to attract younger or skeptical viewers. Others are extremely serious and almost sermon-like, evoking a kind of spiritual urgency. I want to explore how tone affects comment engagement, and whether more comedic or emotionally intense videos receive more supportive or questioning comments. That’s something I’ll analyze more in future weeks.
Week 4
I finished analyzing videos 26-50 this week. The videos are becoming more visually elaborate and often lean into historical and religious validation of Flat Earth. A lot of creators are bringing up civilizations like the Egyptians or Norse mythology to add perceived credibility, even if the interpretations are highly inaccurate.
There was also a noticeable increase in videos using scientific terminology incorrectly, such as referencing "thermodynamics" or "gravitational anomalies" without context. It’s part of a larger strategy to sound legitimate while bypassing actual science. I started noting which terms appeared most often and cross-referenced that with creator engagement levels to see if pseudo-scientific language was linked to virality. Many of these videos also use green screen effects to insert themselves into space scenes or news broadcasts, which boosts their visual appeal. I’m now grouping similar tactics together to look at how they evolve across the creator network.
I also began identifying recurring visual motifs—like sunset time-lapses, slow zooms of flat landscapes, or intentionally grainy footage. These editing choices help reinforce the message without requiring verbal explanation. Some creators even referenced the same amateur balloon footage, making me wonder if they source from shared content banks. I may follow up by researching where Flat Earthers gather content and how videos are recycled. Understanding the visual ecosystem is just as important as analyzing the text or speech.
Week 5
While watching videos 51-75, I noticed a shift toward influencer-driven content. Flat Earth creators often tag each other, collaborate, and reference more popular voices like Flat Earth Dave or Mark Sargent. This cross-promotion boosts credibility within their community and keeps the content circulating, giving it a sense of legitimacy.
I also observed a trend of creators using the TikTok stitch and duet functions to piggyback on each other's content, creating an echo chamber. It adds a feeling of community and shared mission, which likely contributes to user retention and repeated exposure. Some creators even respond directly to comments in video form, which personalizes the content and increases algorithmic visibility. I began making a mini network map that charts which creators interact the most, and how often certain claims are recycled among them. It’s fascinating to see how misinformation spreads not just through content but through relationships.
There also seems to be a subtle hierarchy within the community—some creators are clearly leaders or originators of trends, while others primarily remix or react to that content. I'm planning to mark primary vs. secondary creators in my dataset. This hierarchy likely affects how quickly new ideas spread or mutate. Next week, I’ll try isolating which creator-originated trends spread the farthest and see if there’s a style or tactic that makes them more infectious.
Week 6
Videos 76-100 were heavy on emotional appeal. Lots of videos framed Flat Earth as a movement of awakening, calling viewers to "do your own research" or "trust your eyes." This tactic plays on feelings of self-empowerment and distrust in established systems, which resonates deeply with certain audiences.
Dramatic music, urgent calls to action, and fear-driven messaging were more common than in earlier sets. Many videos suggested that hiding the truth about the Earth is part of a larger agenda, connecting Flat Earth theory to broader conspiracies. These narratives evoke emotional responses—fear, anger, and pride—which makes them highly shareable. I added a new column in my dataset to track tone and mood, which revealed that emotionally charged videos often outperformed others in likes and comments. It’s not just about the content, it’s about how it makes people feel.
I also tracked how creators used repetition—repeating phrases like "wake up," "they lied to us," and "you've been programmed." These phrases appear over and over across dozens of creators and videos, creating a sense of group identity. By repeating these mantras, creators build psychological consistency and strengthen belief among viewers. It’s similar to how branding works in marketing—simple messages that stick. I’m planning to conduct a keyword frequency analysis to quantify how central these repeated phrases are in driving engagement.
Week 7
With all 100 videos logged, I’m now categorizing the most frequent strategies. So far, emotional appeal, appeal to authority, and distrust in institutions are the most common. Each of these plays a key role in shaping how viewers interpret information, especially when presented in a highly visual, fast-moving format like TikTok.
I’ve started quantifying how often each rhetorical device shows up and ranking them by frequency. I also analyzed comment sections to see how viewers respond, and I’m seeing a lot of affirmation and calls for others to "wake up." It's interesting—and a bit concerning—how quickly these messages gain traction when delivered with confidence. TikTok’s short video format favors intensity over nuance, which helps this kind of content spread quickly. I’m compiling a visual report that maps out the major themes and how they overlap.
I’ve also started preparing preliminary charts to visualize the rhetorical makeup of these videos. One bar graph will show the top 10 strategies by frequency, while another heatmap will show how often multiple strategies co-occur. This should help me detect patterns like which emotional appeals pair best with conspiracy claims or what engagement tactics are linked to high comment activity. My goal is to provide not just examples but a data-driven map of how belief and persuasion function in this subculture.
Week 8
This week I focused on categorizing the videos more deeply beyond just rhetorical strategies. I started grouping them by tone (e.g., angry, playful, curious) and found a surprising overlap between comedic delivery and strong conspiratorial messaging. This helped me better understand how some Flat Earth TikToks gain traction by packaging radical claims inside memes and humor.
I also noticed a new layer of engagement patterns—many of these creators are actively building communities, not just views. By encouraging comments, stitching other creators, or promoting live Q&As, they’re turning what looks like misinformation into a social movement. I logged these patterns in a spreadsheet and marked creators who use these strategies most effectively.
Next week I’ll start testing how consistently these techniques appear across content from repeat creators. My hypothesis is that the more a creator leans into identity-building with their audience, the more likely their rhetoric gets shared—even if it’s extreme or unfounded. This week I also started cross-referencing the marketing strategies I'm using on my internship's social media accounts with the rhetorical strategies I have recorded in the Flat Earth Tiktoks.
Week 9
Hi again. This week was all about cross-referencing what kinds of rhetoric are actually getting the most views and interaction. I compared follower counts, like/comment ratios, and stitch frequency across 100+ TikToks, then layered in whether the videos leaned on humor, fear, religion, or scientific misrepresentation. Some of the most viral ones combined multiple strategies—like using fear-based language and humor and religious framing in under a minute.
I also started tagging which creators seem to be monetizing their content (via link-in-bio offers, sponsored products, or merch drops). This helped separate amateur believers from influencers with clear business models. Spoiler alert: the ones monetizing were more likely to use emotionally charged content, suggest hidden truths, and prompt action (“Wake up before it’s too late!”).
Looking ahead, I want to finish linking these monetized creators back to their most common rhetorical choices. The goal is to sketch out how misinformation becomes profitable—and how it’s shaped intentionally for that reason. I also was able to connect most of the same strategies that the TikTok creators use to the ones that came up in my internship, so I will add that to my presentation.
Week 10
Hey folks! This was a big week—I'm officially wrapping up the final stretch of the project. I finalized my massive spreadsheet of 100 Flat Earth TikToks, organizing each video by creator, rhetorical strategy, emotional tone, visual tactics, monetization cues, and engagement style. From mockery and memes to fear-based narratives and pseudo-scientific jargon, the patterns are now clearly visible—and surprisingly consistent. The more a video layered emotional manipulation with claims of hidden knowledge, the better it performed.
I also completed drafts for Parts 2 and 3 of my “Flat Earth and the Monetization of Our Attention” blog series. Part 2 dives into how these creators intentionally shape their content for emotional impact and virality, often as a gateway to promote products, sell merch, or grow monetized followings. Part 3 reflects on what this says about how misinformation operates on platforms like TikTok, and how the structure of attention-based economies incentivizes these misleading narratives.
With the data collected, categorized, and analyzed, and the writing almost done, I'm preparing final reflections on what I learned—both about Flat Earth content and about how misinformation evolves in digital ecosystems. I'll also be sharing some takeaways about how younger audiences engage with these videos and what makes the messages resonate so effectively. It feels satisfying to see everything come together after weeks of building. Almost there!