TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Social Media Thread

Go To

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.

One exception is Truth Social, due to its connection to Donald Trump. As there is a forum ban on US Politics, all discussion of Truth Social is off-topic and posts about the platform may be thumped.

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, then it's probably gossip and not worth talking about.


     Thread OP 
So, I was looking for a dedicated social media thread and apparently there was this one 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 Nov 8th 2024 at 5:16:31 PM

Blueace Surrounded by weirdoes from The End Of the World Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Surrounded by weirdoes
#9401: Apr 23rd 2023 at 12:25:15 PM

Rich people live in a videogame, really.

Wake me up at your own risk.
Perseus Since: Nov, 2009
#9402: Apr 23rd 2023 at 12:39:17 PM

By all means, let him find out first-hand why every single Conservative Twitter Clone has died a miserable death.

Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#9403: Apr 23rd 2023 at 12:43:30 PM

Him saying he bought twitter coz it's the world's town square and needs protecting, to only turn Twitter useable only if you pay a subscription fee would be the perfect finale for this entire debacle.

Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#9404: Apr 23rd 2023 at 1:21:59 PM

Britain first Party, a far-right group previously banned on Twitter, Banned on Facebook has now gotten a gold checkmark as a verified organization. This means all their affiliates get a blue checkmark and are now boosted.

amitakartok Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
#9405: Apr 23rd 2023 at 1:44:06 PM

A lawsuit is super expensive, and what are you going to get for damages? Twitter's in the red right now since its saddled with all the debt from having been purchased and the advertisers ran away. What are you gonna seize? The office chairs?

Is it possible to have a lawsuit whose objective is explicitly defined as seeking not monetary damages, but completely driving the defendant out of business altogether?

Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#9406: Apr 23rd 2023 at 1:45:29 PM

Sure, he'll just declare bankruptcy, which like, if you got money to burn I guess. But you still gotta declare financial damages.

So the free Twitter Blue subscription are impossible to cancel out of

Edited by Ghilz on Apr 23rd 2023 at 1:46:08 AM

SatoshiBakura (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#9407: Apr 23rd 2023 at 1:58:09 PM

Someone please sue Musk's ass.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#9408: Apr 23rd 2023 at 2:02:51 PM

"Is it possible to have a lawsuit whose objective is explicitly defined as seeking not monetary damages, but completely driving the defendant out of business altogether?"

No. And sue him for what? Twitter is his personal property. Before the law, if he wants to set it on fire and let it burn, he has a perfectly legal right to do so. Hell, he could publicly declare that his purpose is to ruin Twitter, and that would be perfectly all right legally.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#9409: Apr 23rd 2023 at 2:40:23 PM

Yeah, suing people just to drive them out of business is highly immoral and illegal, for reasons that should be obvious when you give it a second thought.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
fredhot16 Don't want to leave but cannot pretend from Baton Rogue, Louisiana. Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: Too sexy for my shirt
Don't want to leave but cannot pretend
#9410: Apr 23rd 2023 at 2:45:52 PM

And if those people are having a deleterious effect on the business they and you are using?

A board of directors, for example, can unseat it’s leader with an injunction if it can show that the leader’s behavior is harmful to the health of the company.

Edited by fredhot16 on Apr 23rd 2023 at 2:50:04 AM

Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9411: Apr 23rd 2023 at 3:09:53 PM

As a customer you have no legal right to a company continuing to produce a functioning product unless they do so under some kind of legislative mandate (as utility companies often do).

As board of directors have power because they are legally part of the ownership structure.

The only people who Musk is legally accountable to for what he does with Twitter would be his co-investors, so the government of Saudi Arabia.

Edited by Silasw on Apr 23rd 2023 at 11:12:00 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#9412: Apr 23rd 2023 at 3:12:39 PM

Twitter doesn't have a board of directors anyway.

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#9413: Apr 23rd 2023 at 3:56:13 PM

With regards to Musk not facing any real risk if Twitter collapses, I'd argue that's not true. He did finance his loan with the help of Saudi Arabia, there is no world where they don't come looking for their metaphorical pound of flesh if he flushes their investment down the toilet. On top of all of Elon's own money he keeps spending to pay off the loan repayments.

This will hurt him financially, it's already knocked him off being the richest man in the world, and it's entirely self-inflicted.

All of this did get me curious about the aberration woes Twitter is facing, namely that due to the agreements in place that Musk inherited that they had to be paid for by Twitter, had to be held within a reasonable distance from the fire worker's home, and that in several states they could target Musk personally, but it doesn't look like there are any recent updates. The last one was Twitter screwing around with private judges back in Feb.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#9414: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:06:21 PM

Sure, but that board of directors explicitly has that legal power. A regular Twitter user, on the other hand, has no legal power to compel Twitter to go bankrupt, or to shut down. Which is a good thing, because otherwise malicious lawsuits could be used to shut down businesses that a customer doesn't like.

Only the government has the power to shut down businesses through the legal system, and even then there would be a strong burden of proof.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
coinneach from Mordor Since: Apr, 2012 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#9415: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:06:46 PM

Rhianna Pratchett has confirmed that her dad's account has a blue tick, which neither she nor anybody else paid for.

[cue enraged orangutan ooking]

Let's see what fresh fuckwittery the dolts can contrive to torment themselves with this time.
Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#9416: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:07:26 PM

Yeah, suing people just to drive them out of business is highly immoral and illegal, for reasons that should be obvious when you give it a second thought.

It absolutely is legal. You just don't write that it is your goal in the lawsuit. You find something to sue for, and use that to drive the company out of businesses via damages. It's happened several time. Probably the most famous case is when Peter Thiel financially backed Hulk Hogan's lawsuit of Gawker over them leaking his sex tape. Thiel's explicit goal was to drive Gawker (who had leaked that he's gay), out of business. So he put out a legal team to find someone who had a case against Gawkers and was in a jurisdiction that could land a good judgement. And he succeeded. Hogan won a 140 Million $ Judgement and Gawkers went into bankruptcy.

Edited by Ghilz on Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:09:59 AM

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#9417: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:18:21 PM

Alright, it's sort of legal, then, though I question the morality of it. It is certainly a sleazy sort of lawsuit.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#9418: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:24:24 PM

Sadly legality and morality very often have nothing to do with one another.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#9419: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:25:01 PM

Very true.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9420: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:32:59 PM

Yeah it tends to only happen if a rich person’s life is out in danger, which is what Gawker did to Thiel by outing him as gay while he was in Saudi Arabia.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#9421: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:44:06 PM

Yeah, I don't think Joe Regular is getting away with such a lawsuit.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#9422: Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:53:37 PM

Yeah it tends to only happen if a rich person’s life is out in danger, which is what Gawker did to Thiel by outing him as gay while he was in Saudi Arabia.

To be clear Thiel never sued for that either. Plus it's not like he was in any danger. Like he's a German-American Billionaire. The Saudis weren't gonna lynch him over an article in Gawker. By how own word this was entirely about Gawkers meddling in his own business and violating his privacy (and to be clear in this case, Gawkers had it coming for this and a ton of other shady shit). And yeah, being a billionaire helps. This was entirely through hiring a crack legal team to make this happen for Hogan and footing all the bills.

But yeah the odds of that happening to twitter are... very low. First of all you'd have a hard time proving the blue checkmark did enough damage to warrant much of a settlement. But also the primary affected party is, well, dead.

Edited by Ghilz on Apr 23rd 2023 at 4:54:36 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#9423: Apr 23rd 2023 at 7:16:37 PM

Rhianna Pratchett has confirmed that her dad's account has a blue tick, which neither she nor anybody else paid for.

When I saw that accounts of the deceased were getting checkmarks, that was literally the first one I wondered about. Didn't go check, though.

JethroQWalrustitty Since: Jan, 2001
#9424: Apr 23rd 2023 at 10:17:10 PM

One of the amazing things is watching the new blueticks not understand why celebs don't want it anymore.

It's like if someone bought a night club because they thought the VIP was elitist, and now that anyone who pays $8 can get into the VIP, all the celebs leave and the VIP is just full of people who paid to be there.

I keep saying, the product of every social media is its userbase. Musk is way too socially inept to understand how to work that kind of business.

Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#9425: Apr 23rd 2023 at 10:23:05 PM

Dude these lobotomite mouth breathers are so dumb it's comical. Seen one accusing the Auschwitz museum of virtue signaling when they said they hadn't paid. Seen not one but two attest that people go to Starbucks and pay extra to have their name written on the cup.

Like legit the people with checkmarks are the dumbest people alive. And twitter boosting their replies to the top is hilarious.

One guy complaining it's unfair the rich are getting free checkmarks and another comparing this to free school lunches. Weird way to learn socialism I guess but whatever works.

Like you may accuse me of being harsh but seriously go on twitter and look at the replies it's all checkmarks at the top and the just the dumbest takes. Just a foam of idiots with no understanding of the world floating to the top.

Any post about science or medicine is flooded with climate deniers and antivaxxers in the replies.

And they are all so bitter that celebrities and companies are distancing themselves from twitter blue and the general derision it gets. It's amazing.

Edited by Ghilz on Apr 23rd 2023 at 10:28:13 AM


Total posts: 18,668
Top