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
Lost in Space
Courts have resisted such arguments in the past. It's going to be an uphill battle for those legal theories.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A procrastination in of itself
When was the theory last tested in court? I imagine that algorithms (and knowledge of them) may have changed a fair bit since then.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The Unknown
Re: Section 230
I believe Section 230 works off the assumption of plausible deniability and the acknowledgement that it's not reasonable to fully police every individual on large websites. Actively promoting and profiting off that type of content kind of removes the plausible deniability part, and thus this ruling shouldn't contradict Section 230. I think.
Edited by Karxrida on Mar 24th 2024 at 11:57:14 AM
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Lost in Space
Via X, a California court has dismissed X Corp's lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), et. al. The suit claimed breach of contract for allegedly "scraping" data from the platform that was then utilized to publish reports about X. Said reports, calling the platform out for abetting hate speech, allegedly cost X Corp tens of millions of dollars in advertising revenue. CCDH moved for dismissal on anti-SLAPP grounds.
The judge's ruling (full text here) is scathing, observing that X Corp was attempting to conceal a defamation case under the guise of a breach-of-contract case. The highlights are as follows:
- CCDH was engaged in "protected activity" - specifically newsgathering.
- All of X Corp's alleged damages arose from the publication of CCDH's report and not from the alleged breach of contract. In other words, had CCDH merely scraped data and not published it, there would have been no harm.
The court does not opine on whether the contract (X's Terms of Service) was factually breached, merely that X Corp's lawsuit is fatally flawed in that it cannot demonstrate damages arising directly from the alleged breach. Specifically, it claims "reputational" damage, and that can only arise from a defamation claim.
To summarize: X Corp should have brought a defamation suit, but that suit would have failed on its merits because CCDH was engaging in protected speech.
So much for Elon Musk's crack legal team.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 25th 2024 at 6:54:11 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Shadow Bug
>Said reports, calling the platform out for abetting hate speech, allegedly cost X tens of millions of dollars in advertising revenue.
Nelson Muntz Laugh.gif
Edited by TheDarkMantis on Mar 25th 2024 at 4:38:23 PM
"That we continue to persist at all is a testament to our faith in one another."
Surrounded by weirdoes
They might be decent at their jobs, but they keep getting thrown into senseless fights they can't win. And their boss doesn't listen.
Wake me up at your own risk.
Lost in Space
I don't feel too bad for the lawyers. They're getting paid handsomely for this stuff, win or lose. Or at least they should be. If not, that's on them.
ETA: It's worth noting that the judge did not attempt to address many of the parties' claims and counterclaims, such as whether X Corp actually suffered damages or whether CCDH was being "bullied" by a big company. Rather, the judge found that X Corp's suit was fatally flawed in that it could not demonstrate that the alleged damages arose from breach of contract rather than from the exercise of speech.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 25th 2024 at 12:50:05 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
This is basically the outcome I predicted. And I still think that the reason they didn't bring a defamation suit is because they'd need to prove that the things being stated were wrong.
Which X cannot do.
Edited by Zendervai on Mar 25th 2024 at 12:47:33 PM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Lost in Space
Correct. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. This was X Corp's attempt to end-run a defamation suit by claiming breach of contract, which the judge categorically rejected. The judge also noted that CCDH's actions could be defined as newsgathering, which is a protected act under the First Amendment.
ETA: The ruling highlights the value of anti-SLAPP statutes, which allow defendants to avoid expensive discovery procedures by showing that a lawsuit is prima facie likely to fail on First Amendment grounds.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 25th 2024 at 1:00:36 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Can a website be held accountable for its comment section? I'm thinking of cancelling my subscription to the Boston Globe because I don't like the idea of giving money to something that has such horrible comment section community.
Never trust anyone who uses "degenerate" as an insult.
Lost in Space
Short answer: no. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act expressly shields sites from liability for things like comment sections, nor does it establish any duty or obligation to moderate them.
(This is in the United States, of course. I don't know what laws apply outside of it.)
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 26th 2024 at 9:12:10 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
With Gov. Ron De Santis' signature, the Florida law banning 13 year olds and under from having social media accounts is official. If a 13 or under is found to have an account, that's a fine of $50K plus court/legal fees. Minors who are found to have an account, can have an adult sue on behalf of the minor to award $10K to the minor. 14 and 15 year olds need parental consent. Law is scheduled to take effect next year, January 2025. So, that's about 9 months to make preparations, either to follow the law or pull out/block access from the state, or get the courts involved. Guess we'll see how this goes.
Redmess
To add to that no, this is a big part of what makes the internet the internet today. Not holding websites (including news sites) liable for the content their users post on them is a big part of what keeps the internet open and free.
SO what's this I'm hearing about Truth Social getting a lucrative merger deal?
Optimism is a duty.
Lost in Space
Truth Social, or more specifically, "Trump Media & Technology Group Corp", went public today via SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company) merger as NASDAQ:DJT, a fairly common strategy for businesses looking to get into the stock market without going through a formal IPO (Initial Public Offering). It's often used by tech companies that are not yet revenue-positive.
The initial offering price was $50/share and it is, as I type this, sitting at around $71 a share. This gives Trump's roughly 60% stake an estimated market value of around $5 billion. It's worth noting that, according to the terms of the merger, he can't cash out for six months, but the board could vote to allow him to do so.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess
Wow, that sounds like a nice deal. Seems like his money problems are over for the time being.
Musk must be so jealous.
Optimism is a duty.
Lost in Space
Trump has found that it's far easier to grift people by offering them a platform to be openly racist than with real-estate fraud.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess
Yeah, and clearly it's paying off big time.
Optimism is a duty.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Eh, not really. He's still a huge risk for any bank and him getting any money requires Truth Social to stay at that level long-term. The brand is super toxic, so it'd be hard to see any of the really big investor firms really paying attention to it and I wouldn't be surprised if the value just trends downwards. After this initial spike, there's going to be a big question: why would anyone want these stocks? Which kills trading and starts lowering the price, bit by bit.
The other element is that in his lawsuits, this now gives a big fat target for anyone suing him. Before, all of his "money" was tangled up in dozens of different things that were extremely hard to liquidate or even valuate. This is no longer the case and there is precedent for forcing people to sell shares and liquidate assets in order to pay court mandated fees and damages. And he's got one hell of a backlog of cases where he owes money that he never paid because the courts couldn't figure out how to make him pay it, and that protection has evaporated.
The other element is that Trump has never had this much money in shares before and it creates a question of if he's smart enough to like not immediately cash all of it out when the six months expires, which would just completely ruin the stock.
Edited by Zendervai on Mar 26th 2024 at 11:06:51 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Lost in Space
Trump is a grifter's grifter and swims in those circles. I'd be very surprised if the stock price survives past that six month blackout period as all of the early bag holders cash out, assuming they don't get "board approval" to do it early. We shall see.
Truth Social is almost the definition of a meme stock as its valuation has nothing to do with its financial situation. It's still losing money hand over fist, and nothing about that has changed because of the IPO. People are getting in on it to be associated with the Trump brand. It's an ideal scenario for a rug pull.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 26th 2024 at 11:25:15 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess
While that is true, I think that is discounting his huge following, who have already demonstrated they are willing to give Trump money for the cause. While it may not remain at 5 billion, I'm not going to hold my breath on it collapsing entirely either.
Optimism is a duty.
Lost in Space
Well, yeah, it's far too early to make predictions. Hype can sustain a meme stock for quite a while, but not forever.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess
Yeah, but I can't tell just how much is hype, and how much is actual serious backing. Truth Social is clearly worth something to plenty of right wingers.
Optimism is a duty.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
The question is not how much people are willing to pay now. It's how much people are willing to pay once the stock is open for trading. The hardcore Trumpists have already bought in and they'll have to get other people to buy in, which is much harder.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Lost in Space
In the long run, stocks trade on fundamentals. If Truth Social can't grow its revenue to be greater than its costs, its stock is objectively worth nothing. The cash infusion from the IPO will help keep it operating, but can't fix its profitability.
Anyone buying the stock is doing so for one of a few reasons:
- To buy in on Trump hype, either out of true belief or, well, cynical belief.
- Because they think the platform will sort out its fundamentals over time and become profitable.
- To take advantage of people doing the first two.
It's always difficult to assess how much of a meme stock's trading is pure cynicism vs. genuine belief. The number of permutations is immense. All we can say with any significant certainty is that, unless Truth Social starts making money, the stock price won't last forever. In that event, there will be winners and bag holders, just like every other time this has happened.
What matters in the short term is whether Trump can access this windfall of cash for his own purposes, such as funding his campaign and/or paying off his legal obligations. The "true" market value of his company is mostly irrelevant.
ETA: I suppose it's also important to ask whether fraud (e.g., insider dealing) was involved in the IPO, but that's something we can only speculate over until/unless a case is brought.
ETA 2: If this venture is successful, I have to wonder if politicians will start funding their political campaigns by creating shell companies and IPO'ing them, allowing well-heeled investors to dump money that would be illegal to donate directly.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 26th 2024 at 12:32:35 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Line 158 in the court document cites that Payton Gendron didn't initially start watching hateful videos. The algorithm passively and progressively pushed him towards related videos that increasely leaned towards "substantial hateful and violent" content, thus leading to desensitization.
Likewise on Reddit, which did the same thing, in addition to easily connecting him to individuals that gave Gendron dangerous supplies from a recommended "tactical gear" subreddit.
If it can be proven that these social media algorithms are "defective" in this manner, Section 230 is no longer available defense. They would be subject to usual laws that punish manufacturers for a dangerous product.
Edited by XMenMutant22 on Mar 24th 2024 at 5:34:48 AM