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.
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
Child kidnapped by predator who groomed him over Twitter/Discord Police unable to get relevant from Twitter despite warrant.
Given the subject matter I'll do my best to summarise. The child (who has been returned safe to his parents) was groomed by a man over a number of social media platforms, including Twitter. The parents did find out and notified police who were able to identify that there was grooming based off the stuff publicly on Twitter, but they weren't able to get a prompt response from Twitter to get the groomers details and as a result the boy was kidnapped. This happened right after Musk culled the number of employees at Twitter, and while the police initially submitted the wrong user name when they submitted the right name they heard nothing from Twitter at all for days leading up to the kidnapping.
I vaguely recall people predicting stuff like this would happen after Musk's buyout and mass firings. People also raised the risk of the Verification system getting gutted leading to an uptick of this stuff.
It's not am easy job at the best of times, and while I doubt Twitter will suffer any repercussions from this case I do morally lay this squarely on Musk's shoulders for the lack of timely response.
The only crime Musk could get in trouble for is pissing off other rich people.
So his running of Twitter is bound to step on toes of his investors.
Edited by RedHunter543 on Apr 26th 2023 at 7:25:09 PM
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"Per Zoe Schiffer of Platformer, Elon Musk stole the Twitter handle @e from its owner who for years and through hacking attempts has refused every offer to give the account up.
While it is largely just an ego thing from Musk (who has turned the account into one of his alts) and as owner of Twitter is something that sounds like its within his power to do, I do wonder what the legal implications are over this. The account had a value to it as people have been making offers to buy the account for years, and from past behaviour the owner had no interest in ever selling it. To my knowledge there is no policy on Twitter taking back an account, he hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) broken any other policies, does he have any recourse for what is theft in everything but law?
I think we need a little more context. Was it an actual account in use, or was it basically domain squatting?
If it was the latter, I'd say Musk has every right to take the account handle back. Domain squatting is a shady practice and should not be encouraged.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesGizmodo article on the account stealing.
It looks like the original was squatting on the account but had dealt with hacking in the past. The value of the account could have been $50,000 back in 2014 based off other one letter accounts.
The article also points out that Musk reportedly wants to sell high-value usernames like that.
And yeah, another person who had a one-letter account had to deal with extortion before getting it back.
Edited by M84 on Apr 26th 2023 at 8:16:31 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedI actually read that article back in 2014, Twitter had apparently fucked up and helped the extorted gain access to the owner's email account IIRC.
If Musk plans on selling these accounts and is stealing them from the original owner's that's super shitty. It feels like it should be illegal but I don't think that it is.
As the owner of Twitter, he probably has the right to do so. And since these people are basically squatting on accounts just to sell them for extortionate prices, I don't feel particularly sorry for them, either.
Honestly, if it were me, I'd just ban all such "special" account names altogether.
Edited by Redmess on Apr 26th 2023 at 2:29:42 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesThey're not selling them. These account owners got the accounts legitimately and have kept them for their own reasons. They've been offered money for the accounts but haven't because they're not interested. And this is perfectly within their right to do so. If they used these accounts just to follow other accounts and never tweet that's a legitimate use of the account.
So Musk stealing the accounts to sell them is a shitty thing to do. Legally he's probably within his rights to do so, but he is stealing them from people who use them legitimately to make money for himself. He isn't even in the same ballpark as being in the right.
Imagine if someone created a TV Tropes account so they could follow specific threads. Following your logic they weren't using those accounts.
Edited by Shaoken on Apr 26th 2023 at 10:35:31 PM
I'm not sure if it should be illegal in this circumstances. If these accounts were making content and he stole and some them to capitalise on that work then absolutely that should be illegal. But in this circumstance despite the accounts having a tangible value its not from anything the owners put into the account.
But blaming the account owners is wrong. It's their accounts and they should be allowed to use them and keep them.
Edited by Shaoken on Apr 26th 2023 at 10:40:12 PM
To put it more clearly, a social media site has the right to disallow the use of certain user names, and to reserve them for their own use.
For example, a social media site could forbid the use of "admin" as a user name (for obvious reasons), and then reserve that user name for its own use.
I'm not blaming the users at all. But having such a high profile "special" user name does paint a target on your back.
Edited by Redmess on Apr 26th 2023 at 2:45:04 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesThat's the logic used to blame women who go out late at night for getting harassed.
Also it's a letter. It's not special, it's a single letter.
Edited by Resileafs on Apr 26th 2023 at 10:27:15 AM

Twitter verified fake Disney account, claims dead celebs subscribe to Twitter Blue: Living celebs want everyone to know they didn't pay Elon for those checkmarks.
It sounds like Twitter was always handing out these checkmarks regardless of whether someone wanted them, it's just that they now come with a claim of payment.
Here is the thread from the law prof
.
The main question seems to be whether or not the checkmark text making a claim of payment constitutes an ad/promotion, which the courts seem to be unclear on.
Edited by Redmess on Apr 25th 2023 at 10:50:00 AM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times