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
Like reflections in the glass!
Very unlikely to be honest. Even with China's backing and the possibility of college protestors pointing out the stifling of their voices (Tik tok was blamed as a cause for pro-palesteinan sentiment), I don't think they have a shot of overturning the ruling.
Lost in Space
It really depends on the court that takes the case. Since it's a matter of international/federal law, it goes to federal court by default, and could go as far as the Supreme Court.
The salient question is whether the national security interests expressed in the law are sufficient to override ByteDance's inherent First Amendment rights. Honestly, I have no idea where that will fall. I expect it to depend on the court's interpretation of Congress' motives. Is it a "transparent excuse" to prohibit speech, or is it legitimate?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess
Perhaps the more interesting question is, do you think Tik Tok should win the case?
Optimism is a duty.
Lost in Space
It's a really hard question, to be honest. Whenever I consider one side's argument, I also see the other's.
On the one hand, it's obviously causing problems with addiction, toxic parasocial relationships, and misinformation. On the other hand, so are most other social media apps. If Congress is really that concerned about privacy and data manipulation, where's the law banning Facebook?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess
Yes, this is a bit of a case of "it's okay when we do it".
Optimism is a duty.
reluctant author, willing misanthrope
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Going after the arguably easiest case to create a legal precedent to make going after the others easier?
I know, I know, wishful thinking...
Lost in Space
The tie between data collection and political disinformation orchestrated by China is what creates the prima facie case against TikTok, and it is a legitimate concern. "Stop manipulating us with your platform and we wouldn't be having this conversation."
In a real sense, it is better if we do it to ourselves than for someone else to do it to us, but I don't know if that's enough of a reason to justify this law.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The tie between data collection and political disinformation orchestrated by China is what creates the prima facie case against TikTok, and it is a legitimate concern.
It's why I avoided TikTok, which I said before in this thread. My country is being bullied by the PRC and TikTok can be used by the PRC to spy on Philippine residents like me and then you have the squabbles in the West Philippine/South China Sea.
Edited by HallowHawk on May 8th 2024 at 9:29:35 AM
A procrastination in of itself
That counter-argument requires Facebook to only do political manipulation on behalf of US entities.
If Facebook are willing to do political manipulation for the PRC if paid then there’s no real difference between that and Tik Tok doing it because they have been ordered to.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Jupiterian Local
The thing is, none of these things are why the law was passed. The justification is not "social media is harmful to its users and the government has an interest in mitigating that harm", it's "TikTok, as an arm of a foreign adversary, is harmful to national security, and the government has an interest in mitigating that harm".
The "foreign adversary" part is important because that's an official designation issued by the Secretary of Commerce (since it's used for economic sanctions) with a whole legal process behind it. Point being that it would be difficult to use this law against arbitrary targets. That makes it less likely that the courts will strike it down as a government overreach — because the reach is, in fact, fairly limited. And there is a very long and solid legal history of the government being allowed to do things for national security purposes.
Of course, I'm not a legal expert and we don't actually know what TikTok's legal argument is going to be, so I couldn't even guess how the case is likely to turn out.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Like reflections in the glass!
So is there any reason why I'm seeing Be Real parody fanart pop up on reddit?
Wouldn't "Do first amendment rights even apply to a Chinese company" be a more posing question there...
While the constitution does apply to foreign residents, I do not think the mater of if it applies to foreign companies who are operating primarily outside the US is settled is it?
Edited by Imca on May 9th 2024 at 3:28:28 AM
Lost in Space
Dunno. That's why I said it'll be at issue in the lawsuit.
The Constitution and its amendments do not say anything about their protections extending only to US citizens or residents. If you are in the country, you get free speech. "In the country" includes doing business here, although you also have to comply with business laws and regulations.
In addition to the First Amendment issue, ByteDance may have a claim that the law is a de facto bill of attainder: that is, it declares the company guilty of a crime and sentences it to punishment without trial.
Similarly, it may have a claim that the law declares a hypothetical illegal thing that it might do and punishes it in advance.
These are all points that will likely be raised by its lawyers.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess
Good question. Can the US government censor foreign media? I'm pretty sure they did for propaganda uses during WWII, but I'm not sure how that worked legally.
Optimism is a duty.
A brief reading from that other wiki suggests that it wasn't a government enforced censorship of information during World War II, but a voluntary association which just so happened to include basically all private parties that were capable of transmitting any information into or out of the US, organized as the Office of Censorship. FWIW, the Supreme Court was OK with it at the time on grounds that "it protected free speech from tyranny"
Obviously, ByteDance is not going to cooperate like that now, so it doesn't work as a precedent.
Professional Forum Ninja
Edited by tclittle on May 8th 2024 at 8:33:35 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Owl House / Infinity Train / Inside Job Fan
Yeah, that’s been happening a lot with consoles…
The Owl House and Coyote Vs Acme are my Roman Empire.
Shadow Bug
....did they even give a valid reason for this?
"That we continue to persist at all is a testament to our faith in one another."
Professional Forum Ninja
There's been no reason given, but we can assume it's the API costs or Musk's unstablizing the platform.
Edited by tclittle on May 8th 2024 at 8:43:34 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Twitter started charging to use its API last year.
No one wants to pay.
Shadow Bug
Oh, right.
Still annoys me heavily, especially considering how it's otherwise a major hassle to share screenshots on the switch.
"That we continue to persist at all is a testament to our faith in one another."
Professional Forum Ninja
We have to hope the recently acknowledged successor has a better way of sharing pictures.
Considering it's Nintendo, I'm not going to hold my breath until I have the successor in my hands.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
What I cannot find is if there is any credible evidence that Tik-Tok can spy on people for China. Every article I find wears its bias on it's sleeve either for or against.
Never trust anyone who uses "degenerate" as an insult.
Redmess
Good point, there is plenty of fear about it going around, but is there any evidence for it?
Optimism is a duty.
How likely is TikTok to win the lawsuit? Because it doesn’t seem like they plan to sell.
The Owl House and Coyote Vs Acme are my Roman Empire.