Qualitative study explores communication ethics in TikTok Live for interfaith dialogue, suggesting improvements for inclusivity.
The digital revolution has transformed global communication, creating new discursive spaces for pluralistic societies. This study examines how John Calvin's principles of social ethics can be applied to interfaith dialogue on the TikTok Live platform, which facilitates real-time interaction among users from diverse religious backgrounds. In doing so, this study seeks to bridge the gap between classical theological ethics and contemporary digital communication practices. However, these spaces often face significant challenges, including digital polarization, personal attacks, and the dominance of a single narrative, all of which hinder inclusive discussion. This study employs a qualitative approach within the postpositivist paradigm, combining in-depth observation and participant interviews to explore the ethics of communication in plural digital spaces. The findings indicate that interfaith communication on TikTok Live undergoes a significant discursive transformation, shifting from dialogic exchange toward personalized argumentation, epistemic contestation, and affective escalation. These dynamics are closely linked to platform structures, including algorithmic visibility, asymmetrical participation, and real-time interactional pressure, which reinforce polarization and identity conflicts. Calvin's social ethics perspective, grounded in love, respect for human dignity (the imago Dei), and collective responsibility, offers a normative lens for fostering more responsible interaction. This study recommends incorporating ethical values into algorithmic design, content moderation, and digital ethics education. Beyond its immediate empirical findings, this study contributes to interdisciplinary debates on digital governance, religious pluralism, and communication ethics by demonstrating how theological-ethical frameworks can inform the design of more inclusive, responsible, and sustainable digital public spaces.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Delliana et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: