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
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Good. Once, I watched a good number of them and I was recommended to do more. I didn't like that. Maybe if Youtube Shorts becomes a separate thing to take over the niche Tik Tok provided for non-PRC residents, that would be swell so that incidents like what I experienced never happen again.
Redmess
Youtube Shorts is already aping Tik Tok, so that's already happening.
Optimism is a duty.
Owl House / Infinity Train / Inside Job Fan
The Wrap is once more claiming that Gen Z is more interested in livestreams and videos on social media than movies and tv. I don’t think it’s an accurate sample, though.
https://www.thewrap.com/gen-z-viewing-habits-streaming-social-media/
Well that's not really fair, they're different kinds of entertainment.
Twitter has implemented a new TOS regarding posting people's private information, the most notable being you can't post information on the identity of an anonymous user. This is absolutely a response to Stonetoss getting his name revealed and shows how quickly Musk will change the rules to help out the alt-right when they complain.
I fully expect this policy to be enforced when its alt-righters who get their information revealed and ignored when it's the alt-right revealing information.
Edited by Shaoken on Mar 21st 2024 at 9:10:04 PM
That might get them in trouble with the European Union, which has tougher privacy laws than the US.
Would it? In principle the rules aren't that unreasonable, it's just that the moderation for the site has always been softer kn rigjt-wing personalities than theirnusual victims.
Sure, but it would be easy to have a claim that the 2 people moderating the site are not enforcing the laws fairly, and in addition that the defamation suit against Media Matters isn't going well (I don't think it's dismissed yet, but it's really not looking well), it would not be hard for the EU to conclude that due to improper moderating management, Twitter would have to be banned in it.
Even if the EU wasn't as big a market as they would claim (I'll assume it's not), what's to prevent say, Canada to also ban Twitter ?
Edited by Thesegougou on Mar 22nd 2024 at 8:28:07 PM
I'm not crazy, just creatively different.
Calendar enthusiast
Well, it finally happened. Threads.net is now part of the Fediverse. Mastodon.social is federating with it, but most of the rest of the Fediverse has said No.
Like reflections in the glass!
Professional Forum Ninja
🍊orange fursona🧡
Oh boy, more data for Zuckerberg.
Don't know if this was posted already but The Supreme Court ruled that public officials cannot block users on social media.
Professional Forum Ninja
It has and the criteria where they can be sued under first amendment grounds is it they are using an account in official capacity.
If not, then they can ban.
Edited by tclittle on Mar 24th 2024 at 12:05:51 PM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
The Unknown
I don't know all the details but it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling at face value tbh.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Calendar enthusiast
To be clear, they can still mute people, just not block them.
Ukrainian Red Cross
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
The difference is that muting doesn't hide their posts from the muted person, so if they say something important, it's not being hidden.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Per CNN: A New York State judge, this past Monday, has ruled that YouTube and Reddit must address lawsuits about their content feeds.
Specifically, how their algorithms have allegedly made it easy to feed impressionable people (like youths) alt-right/ white supremacy content. As was the alleged case with Payton Gendron, who committed a mass shooting in Buffalo, NY in 2022.
“However, plaintiffs contend the defendants’ platforms are more than just message boards,” the court document says. “They allege they are sophisticated products designed to be addictive to young users and they specifically directed Gendron to further platforms or postings that indoctrinated him with ‘white replacement theory’,” the decision read.
“It is far too early to rule as a matter of law that the actions, or inaction, of the social media/internet defendants through their platforms require dismissal,” said the judge.
That's going to slam headfirst into federal supremacy - Section 230 is pretty clear that social media sites aren't responsible for what gets posted on them except in specific circumstances.
(This is before we even get to questions of free speech and the First Amendment, btw.)
If I understood the above correctly, the case is not about the companies responsibility for what people post on their platform, but about the fact that they have algorithms that deliberately promote a certain type of content to a young audience in order to profit.
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
Movie and TV Goddess
It has been a bit troubling lately about how Youtube Algorithms tend to recommend videos that most people don't want to see, like I've been getting a lot of recommendations for drama themed videos, even though I don't want to watch those drama videos. So, I can see how this is becoming a problem if You Tube recommended videos that are inappropriate to a younger audience.
I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!
Jupiterian Local
Yeah, Section 230 makes it clear that platforms aren't responsible for stuff that users upload — but if the platform is actively pushing that content via algorithm, that's a different thing.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
A procrastination in of itself
Yeah, person A posting a hatful video isn’t the responsibility of the platform, but the algorithm then pushing that hatful video to a kid who goes on to commit a mass shooting, that may well be about to become the responsibility of the platform.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
That's Dr. Title, thank you!
There's also the problem of targetted political ads on social media, which might be the single best argument for an ad blocker.
Giving the Shorts function its own space?
Wake me up at your own risk.