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
Jupiterian Local
One of the first things Musk did once he officially owned Twitter was dissolve the board of directors and appoint himself CEO. Since he is the sole owner, there are very few limits on how he can run the company compared to a public traded company. In short, there's no one to rein him in because Twitter is now his to do with as he pleases — he has no shareholders or other investors to answer to. He has loans to repay, but that's not the same thing.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Twitter is Musk's private property, and if he wants to set his own couch on fire, that's on him.
The closest thing would be Tesla's boaed since he leveraged his buyout of Twitter against Tesla stock. If things at Twitter got so bad that it seriously affected Tesla they might pull him in for an ultimatum.
Redmess
Yep, CE Os being fired is really only something publicly traded companies can do. This is why going private is somewhat of a power grab, though I'm sure there can be legitimate reasons for doing so as well.
Optimism is a duty.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Twitter going private was completely legit. The stock owners were paid far more than their stock was worth and Musk was saddled with an unprofitable dumpster fire, because he wanted said unprofitable dumpster fire.
Edited by Ramidel on Mar 31st 2023 at 3:44:19 AM
Redmess
I know it's legit, I mean that Musk's motives were mainly to have sole control over the company, he didn't do it out of some idea that it might benefit the company.
Optimism is a duty.
Main Character
Well, that's unfortunate then.
Perpetually Confused
Someone in finance realized the shakedown wasn't working.
Redmess
Does that mean they will retain their old verified status?
And I think it was Musk, rather, who realized that.
Edited by Redmess on Mar 31st 2023 at 4:52:49 PM
Optimism is a duty.
I'd bet against that, given Musk's track record to date.
But changing the verified policy still screws those organizations over, because there's still no distinction that makes the legacy marks "more legitimate" then paid one, doesn't it?
Redmess
How so? Musk is perfectly capable of realizing some strategy isn't working and making an about face. He's been doing that quite often, actually, which is what makes him so unpredictable as a CEO, and which is part of why he causes so much chaos.
He can be stubbornly bullheaded in some ways, and still very changeable in others when it suits him, I don't think that is a contradiction in itself.
I thought the legacy marks were being discarded, but perhaps that will be reversed too now.
Edited by Redmess on Mar 31st 2023 at 5:04:34 PM
Optimism is a duty.
The article also states that the 10,000 most followed organizations will not have to pay for the new checkmarks. They don't get to retain the old ones.
So, let's hang an anchor from the sun... also my Tumblr
Perpetually Confused
There's 2 new badges. The blue one for twitter blue users. Companies and orgs get a gold badge instead which costs 1000 a month. So presumably the top 10,000 are just getting free gold badges.
So the people who could probably pay without too much loss are the ones exempt. The rest of the plebs gotta fork over the cash though.
Hey, wait a minute.
…but the original point of the checkmarks was to say “this account with a celebrity’s name really is that celebrity”. The twitter account of Random-Dude doesn’t need verification.
Elon’s destroyed the whole purpose of the system.
And yes, he’s immediately violated his own rule.
Edited by Galadriel on Mar 31st 2023 at 9:15:06 AM
Redmess
To be fair, Twitter paying itself for a checkmark would be a bit silly.
Exactly, most regular people don't really need to be verified in the first place, which is part of why making them pay for verification is such a non-starter. Most regular users aren't in all that much danger of having fake accounts made for them.
Edited by Redmess on Mar 31st 2023 at 7:50:13 PM
Optimism is a duty.
And that's exactly the problem. Musk can recognize there is a problem, but can't recognize what the actual problem is. The New York Times said they wouldn't suscribe to Twitter Blue, not because they couldn't pay, but becuase they don't see a reason to pay. And that's probably the sentiment of most of the others.
He seems incapable of seeing anything in a non-monetary way. He sees people refusing to buy Sulfuric-Acid soap, and thinks the problem is the price is too high.
Jupiterian Local
Musk thinks that Twitter verification is a seal of approval, a signifier that this person is worth listening to. He thinks that people are willing to pay for that kind of clout, and he's doubling down on the idea by making verified users favored by the algorithm and therefore more likely to be seen by other users.
What Twitter verification is actually for is to prove that the account is who they say they are. Whether it's a celebrity, a journalist, a company, a nonprofit, a government entity, or whatever. If it's got a check mark then you could be reasonable sure that they are who they appear to be.
Musk's idea of what Twitter verification is makes it useless for what its actual intended purpose is. Checkmarks are now meaningless for determining the authenticity of an account. Because Musk is an idiot.
Edited by NativeJovian on Mar 31st 2023 at 2:42:48 PM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Redmess
Well, it's not sulfuric acid, there is real value in being a verified user. It's just that people and companies don't see any real value in paying for it.
I could maybe see paying a small one-time fee to get verified by an actual human being, but not a high one, and certainly not a subscription, that last one probably being the main thing turning companies off.
Edited by Redmess on Mar 31st 2023 at 10:27:22 AM
Optimism is a duty.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
There really is no inherent value to being verified that's worth paying for. It was literally created to make impersonation of public figures as difficult as possible. That's the entire reason it exists. Changing it to anything else or requiring people to charge for it completely kills the whole point.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Anka Aquila
If anything, this is just going to make it easier for bots to impersonate other people.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
Well, at least they'd have to pay money to do so. But if Musk thinks that people wouldn't spent money out of petty spite, he probably hasn't looked in the mirror for a very long time.
Redmess
Nevermind.
Edited by Redmess on Mar 31st 2023 at 11:41:31 AM
Optimism is a duty.
And I doubt there are enough investors to make a difference, anyway...
Wake me up at your own risk.