I don't. Its very unlikely with the age they gave and the total population of users.

Like I said in the first comment, with a sample 10 or 20, its to be expected the median and average would vary a lot.

It is very unlikely, given the age they provided of the average, the median would stoop as low as a kid's age, under 13, or even under 16.

Here

Disclaimer: that is monthly active users. Though the second theory, while total number of users will be different than this graph, I imagine that the older the person is, the less likely they will continue using the app, or use it less often per month. As in monthly active users will skew lower in age than the total number of users.

So then maybe at one point in time, lets say hourly, the age of active users on TikTok may be very low.

​

See how nuanced we are getting?

Itll never be one data point. With how big TikTok is, single data points lose value.

It doesn’t matter though.

None of them; mode, median, or mean are close to the age of kids.

You are bringing up mute points

You’re right. My statement should read “more” normalized.

The difference in mean and average is not applicable to the discussion at hand. There is a difference, but, most likely, not enough to warrant a change in discussion. Aka the point still stands “users on TikTok are older than most think”

repeats first comment

With 150 million people it’s becomes very normalized and the average is closer to the median.

Can’t compare a sample of 10 to 150 million.

Yes the average and median are different but the median is still near whatever they said the average was.

What does this refute?

Did this study only use what is feasible to mine today? And not take in effect “tomorrow”?

You would think at this point we would have enough data on innovation, especially in the field of mining and extraction, to forecast the feasibility number’s growth.