By "social media" we mean any large computer network that allows people to interact in shared communities. The big ones of course are Facebook, Twitter (X), and Instagram, but we can't forget newer platforms like Discord and Slack.
Dedicated video sites are off-topic here and YouTube has its own separate thread
.
What we should discuss in this OTC topic are news items, business operations, and activities by the networks themselves, not specific things posted by users. Those should go into threads appropriate to the subjects of those posts. For example, if an actor tweets about a film, we'd discuss that in the Media forum topic for the film, not here. If Facebook changes its policies, that could be discussed here.
The politics, motives, competency and wider business activities of the owners and leaders of social media companies (e.g. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg) are also off-topic — except in situations where they are directly making specific policy for the platform.
Talking about a particular Instagram policy change (or a high-profile ban on a specific user) directly announced by Mark Zuckerberg would be acceptable in this thread, speculating about Zuckerberg's wider motivations wouldn't be.
The thread's also not about "dumb thing [public figure] said on [social media platform]". If there isn't a specific thread related to the subject of the statement (e.g. US Politics), then it's probably gossip and not worth talking about.
created back in 2020 that we never opened. Unfortunately, it's a little stale, so bumping it isn't going to work very well, but I would like to restart it. The reason I'm doing so is that the Computer Thread seems to have become the de facto place for this sort of talk, and it's a big tonal clash with talking about computer tech.
The hot topic of the day is Elon Musk's bid to acquire Twitter. We first discussed it in the Computer Thread, starting roughly here, and I am not going to rehash the entire discussion. Instead, I am going to resume from the last post:
CNBC: Twitter is reportedly taking another look at Musk takeover bid
Twitter's board is reportedly meeting with Elon Musk and may seek to negotiate on his buyout offer. Musk claims to have secured $46 billion in funding to buy the company at a valuation of $43 billion and is preparing to make a tender offer to its shareholders.
While the board has passed a poison pill, it could be facing resistance to that from groups of shareholders and will want to talk things out rather than face a hostile takeover. It's also possible that Twitter's stock could crash if the offer fails to go through.
Another possible topic was originally posted here.
Ars Technica: EU to unveil landmark law to force Big Tech to police illegal content
Following on from the recently passed Digital Markets Act, which requires large tech companies to unbundle first-party software from hardware platforms, the proposed Digital Services Act will require medium and large social media platforms and search engines to police hate speech and disinformation while adding additional protections for children against targeted marketing.
It also bans "dark patterns", which manipulate or trick people into clicking on ads or other content. The article doesn't explicitly say what that means, but I assume it includes things like disguising ads to look like parts of a site's user interface, hiding "close" buttons, and such.
For large companies, the requirements would go into effect immediately. For medium companies, they would have a grace period to implement the changes.
Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner, has warned that Big Tech has become “too big to care.”
This phrase, "too big to care", intrigues me. It's an indictment of the idea that these companies have decided that growth and engagement metrics overwhelm any sense of social responsibility.
In my opinion, a law like this would be impossible in the United States, since it would be challenged (likely successfully) on First Amendment grounds.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 12th 2023 at 11:24:56 AM
A Self-inflicted Disaster
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It seems that unfortunately, children not being welcome in public places is becoming a global phenomenon.
I do think that banning children from using social media is, at best, a bandaid. What we really need is better media literacy education. I don't know if exposing a child to social media is that worse that exposing your racist uncle to social media, as the latter can vote.
Edited by minseok42 on Apr 11th 2024 at 7:59:10 AM
"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow
I mean that line about invading Sephora wasnt a joke... that's like been all over social media the last month people complaining that Sephoras have been invaded by gaggles of 10 year olds that roam around and make makeup cocktails ruining all the product, being disruptive to the employes and the customers and so on.
The reality is "kids will find a way" isnt that much of a defence because the ways they find are going to be even worse.
Edited by Imca on Apr 11th 2024 at 11:48:01 PM
Like reflections in the glass!
It is in many ways an (il)logical extreme of the rugged individualist mindset. The death of the capacity to socialize at all.
The sad thing is that this doesn't seem to be on the radar of politicians. Or rather, they don't realize that much of society's ills is a result of the third place becoming extinct and people being forced into digital platonic caves.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Apr 11th 2024 at 7:55:29 AM
Shadow Bug
Don't realize? or don't care?
"That we continue to persist at all is a testament to our faith in one another."
I think there is a beginning realization that helicopter parenting is bad, see "free-range parenting laws". It's not an entirely trivial problem to fix, though. It's also much easier to cherry-pick an anecdote in favour of social media bans than against it, and since most people can't statistics nor separate out emotional reaction from policy advice, folks treat them as persuasive.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Redmess
Uh, yes we care about kids getting hurt, and I daresay most people do. Lets not wallow in this kind of "everyone is just terrible" cynicism, please.
Optimism is a duty.
Oh, bother.
You miss the point. Stuff like bans and warning labels aren't really about protecting people, legally speaking. It's more about doing what's needed to avoid being liable when people get hurt on your property or using your product.
They are about covering your own ass.
Corporations don't place warning labels out of the goodness of their heart or to protect anyone. They do it because they are told by the government that if they don't do at least that much, they're liable if anyone gets hurt by their products or services.
If corporations were willing to do this out of genuine concern for kids, there wouldn't have been a need for government regulation requiring this in the first place.
Edited by M84 on Apr 12th 2024 at 5:05:49 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Team Rocket Boss.
Social Media for kids is certainly a topic worth discussing since there are studies that show extended use can lead to depression, which is why I don't use Twitter.
The problem is that the reverse is also true, I know for a fact that I on the other hand was very depressed and isolated as a kid until I found social media.
Though it was more forums and less twitter back then, it was the one place I could actualy go to escape bullying and find people who shared intrests.
I didnt get that in real life until my second to last year of secondary school... at which point it might as well have not existed since that is followed by university prep and university destroying it agian.
Team Rocket Boss.
Deepest sympathies for what you had to go through. That shit can hurt, and it's never easy to say goodbye.
I'm happy that social media helped you out and enabled you to socialize, but I think it's still important the properly vet what sites kids go to and stay with regularly. The internet is full of creeps and sites that aren't appropriate for children and even mentally scar them.
So I'm in favor of letting kids go to social media sites and talk about common interests but I think there at least should be oversight because some information and interactions are not meant until you are older. There's a certain level of maturity needed that not every kid has to be safe on the internet.
I'll teach you a lesson about just how cruel the world can be. That's my job, as an adult.
Figure of Hourai
"Every interaction children have must be be under observation and scrutinised" might seem like a good thing on the surface, but then you're running into the flip side of how that will cause a lot of problems from children being unable or unwilling to talk about things. LGBT+ youth, for instance. Like, children need some independence and capacity for secrets, which is a tricky balancing act.
And creating a world where you basically can't go anywhere until you're an adult (and in certain places, unless you have a car) and your ability to interact online is under constant surveillance and limitation? That's not a healthy combination at all.
Avatar Source
Oh, bother.
This got overshadowed with the Brazil stuff from a few days back, but Twitter managed to fuck up an attempt to change to X.
Gizmodo: Elon Musk’s X Goes to War With Twitter.com, Creating a Phishing Nightmare
Basically, a few days ago the site would automatically change any mention of "twitter.com" in a url to "x.com".
It was quickly pointed out how this was a phishing risk.
The site has apparently fixed this and the change is no longer automatic. Still, it's not a good sign that whoever's managing this stuff at Twitter didn't think of this on their own.
Edited by M84 on Apr 12th 2024 at 7:20:45 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Team Rocket Boss.
Well I think it's better to be on the side of caution, but I'm not advocating for EVERY single interaction a child goes on the internet to be scrutinized, but more a general oversight. No letting them on certain sites and letting them know that if internet strangers make them uncomfortable, then they should stop talking to them.
I do get the importance of kids needing a safe space for things their parents won't really understand, trust me, I do. But with all the unfiltered information and risk of being exploited, I think a certain level of oversight is needed.
I'll teach you a lesson about just how cruel the world can be. That's my job, as an adult.
Well, most parents aren't going to have time to oversight their children all the time. There is also the question whether the children would like this helicopter parenting, and for that matter, whether it might be harmful.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Figure of Hourai
This also goes right back into the whole 'what is or isn't child appropriate depends on who you ask and unfortunately far too many people will say anything LGBT related is adult and bad'. Plus the eternal futility of trying to deny that teens are teens.
Avatar Source
Movie and TV Goddess
So in terms of Twitter, how come more people discuss things on Twitter despite how toxic the site is? Is there any other social media sites where there's at least some moderation in making sure that people don't say too many offensive things?
I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!
Like reflections in the glass!
Accessibility goes a long way.
Like fore most of the sites lifetime, Twi X had 130 character posts as it's thing. That meant that posts there were easier to swallow because you can't really cram anything more complex without multiple posts. It also made finding sound bites and easily decontextualized statements easier than robbing infants of candy.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Apr 15th 2024 at 12:34:50 PM
Its also again the large user-base, people use twitter because that's where every one else is... which I know sounds like a bit of a circular argument, but like it really is also one of the main driving factors in social media popularity...
Why would I Generic Twitter user go to a different social media website if the celebrities, personalities, and random people I care about aren't already there.... that's the primary draw.
Twitter got lucky by being one of the first to get going in its niche, and now that it is there isn't much that is going to stop it short of the servers imploding.
Edited by Imca on Apr 15th 2024 at 5:57:01 PM
Movie and TV Goddess
Yeah...that's definitely going to drive away a lot of people from Twitter...
I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!
Oh, bother.
Accounts will still be able to follow or browse for free
Where does it say it goes away after three months?
Disgusted, but not surprised
In a reply.
Since I know that twitter doesn't show tweet chains any more if your not loged in, I will save every one the effort and post it here
"This is only for new users. They will be able to do actions for free after 3 months"
Edited by Imca on Apr 15th 2024 at 9:29:48 PM
Shadow Bug
The bird's zombified corpse has been set on fire. Again.
"That we continue to persist at all is a testament to our faith in one another."
In fairness, I'd argue competition from social media is actually part of what's caused the decline of "third spaces".
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"