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
Industrious Incisors
I think the ones that I hate most are the ones who use the specific defense "I think you should be allowed to say whatever you want, why can't you let me do the same?"
Probably only bothers me so much because of how close some such individuals are to me, but it really doesn't take much to get them to show they don't really believe it.
SoundCloud
so i made a new avatar
nvm
Edited by PhysicalStamina on May 24th 2022 at 11:30:02 AM
To pity someone is to tell them "I feel bad about being better than you."
Redmess
There's an interesting question there too: should the internet be considered a public medium in general? There have been calls to treat internet access the same as other public utilities like water and electricity, and indeed television. In that regard you could see (part of) the internet as a public good.
Interesting follow up question: suppose a public television network has a website with a forum, how would the rules on such a forum work? Are they treated like a private company then?
Optimism is a duty.
Lost in Space
I don't know about the latter, but as for the former, many people (including me) have called for Internet to be considered a public utility in the same manner as phones, electricity, and water. But this causes another issue: not all people have access and it's very difficult for it to be delivered to certain areas. Many governments are trying to fix this problem in various ways (wireless broadband, satellite Internet, etc.), and in my mind it's a prerequisite for such regulation.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
It's the other way around. If it was a regulation that everyone must have access, that forces the telecom companies into expanding their networks. There's no profit into building a line to the middle of nowhere, so they won't do it unless they have to.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Lost in Space
That too. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. But I would certainly support those kinds of mandates.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
So this is kind of interesting. Not taking sides here, and I especially don't trust the source — I don't even want to give it any clicks — but Breitbart is allegedly reporting that Bill Gates "poured millions into [a] dark money fund attacking Elon Musk".
I feel slimy even looking at this, but it makes me wonder how many of these controversies that the media shoves in our faces are rich people using their money to throw garbage at each other.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
In this case, I just bluntly don't buy it. Bill Gates has never had a reason to attack Musk, the two don't actually compete directly, it's blatantly obvious that it's Breitbart just feeding into Musk's own "this allegation is clearly a smear campaign from me going openly Republican twelve hours ago!" thing.
The ultrawealthy don't really smear each other like that. They all know each other and go to the same events on a regular basis. They might not like each other, but none of them are willing to do anything that might get them locked out of the social group.
Bill Gates specifically is a frequent target of accusations like this because of his foundation and because he stays out of visible politics as much as possible, he's a globalist (sort of) and he ends up looking vaguely leftist, at least from the point of view of the deranged right. He's the scapegoat used in cases where Soros doesn't make sense.
But yeah, in general, rich people do have dark money funds, but they're like...for anti-union or anti-protest stuff, they barely care about what they say about each other.
Edited by Zendervai on May 24th 2022 at 1:16:48 PM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Figure of Hourai
By default, I would disbelieve anything that has its source as being alleged by a right-wing propaganda machine.
Avatar Source
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Yeah, always assume Breitbart is lying. They almost always are. And in the rare times they aren't, they're never going to have scooped anyone else.
Edited by Zendervai on May 24th 2022 at 1:19:41 PM
Not Three Laws compliant.
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
If a more reputable source reports on it, then it's potentially news-worthy. But not now.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on May 24th 2022 at 10:21:14 AM
Lost in Space
Someone replied on Twitter that Breitbart will report truth if it supports their narrative, but like I said I have no way to verify the article and no desire to read it.
The idea that wealthy people exist in some kind of solidarity with each other is kind of nuts, though. That's simply not true. They may align on some issues, like whether they should be taxed more or less (it's usually less), but they can have very different political and personal beliefs, and you'd better believe they will put their money where their mouths are in cases of significant disagreement.
I completely believe that they do this sort of thing in general, but we'd need some kind of reliable corroboration on this particular case.
Edited by Fighteer on May 24th 2022 at 1:24:18 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Professional Forum Ninja
Here's the full article:
Breitbart News’ report, based on research and analysis from the newly-formed Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO), analyzed public filings to trace hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from the letter signatories back to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
In total, 11 of the 26 anti-Musk organizations received funding from a Gates-backed entity.
The New Venture Fund, which in 2020 received the largest one-year commitment the Gates Foundation had made in more than half a decade, funds four of the signatories:
- The Center for Media Justice
- The Media Democracy Fund
- The National Hispanic Media Coalition (via the Media Democracy Fund)
- Accountable Tech
The Tides Foundation, also a recipient of Gates Foundation money, funds five of the signatories:
- Free Press
- Indivisible
- NARAL Pro-Choice America
- Media Matters
- Black Lives Matter Global Network
Two other signatories are tied to Gates Foundation money:
- Empowering Pacific Islanders Community (funded by Gates-backed Community Partners)
- Reproaction (a project of Gates-backed NEO Philanthropy)
The open letter’s connection to the billionaire Microsoft founder is significant, as Gates is in the middle of a public feud with free speech advocate Musk. Last month, Gates revealed his $500 million short position against Musk-owned Tesla, prompting Musk to call Gates a “b*ner” killer alongside a meme of Gates as a pregnant man emoji.
Gates is also an outspoken censorship proponent, frequently calling on tech companies to do more to stop “health misinformation” spreading online.
By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Musk threatens to reverse Gates’ strongly desired censorship policies — and now faces the wrath of Gates-funded NG Os.
Recently, Musk asked his 94 million Twitter followers to uncover the funding behind the 26 NG Os who signed an intimidation letter threatening to destroy the company’s advertising revenue if Musk reversed its censorship policies.
Musk followed up his request by highlighting one particular shadowy group, Accountable Tech, musing: “I wonder who funds them”.
His curiosity was prompted by a Washington Free Beacon investigation into Accountable Tech, which sought to get to the bottom of the nonprofit’s financial sponsorship. The Free Beacon visited Accountable Tech’s corporate office in Washington and concluded the organization doesn’t “actually exist.”
Rather, “Accountable Tech” was merely a “registered trade [name] for the North Fund, a shape-shifting nonprofit group that uses aliases to push an array of left-wing causes from a shell office in Washington, D.C.”
Via the Free Beacon:
- Free Beacon then spoke with Caitlin Sutherland, the executive director of the watchdog Americans for Public Trust, who identified North Fund as receiving significant capital infusions from two further nonprofits, the Sixteen Thirty Fund and the New Venture Fund:Sutherland found that the North Fund received $19.3 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund and over $11 million from the New Venture Fund, two organizations that share an address in D.C. Similar to the North Fund, the groups operate under at least 50 trade names—including “Fix Our Senate,” “Floridians for a Fair Shake,” and the “Voter Engagement Fund.”However, the Sixteen Thirty Fund and the New Venture Fund don’t disclose their donors either, leading to a dead end in the money trail.
But the trail may not be so cold.
What is known about New Venture Fund’s dark money funding is this: it is backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Per FFO’s analysis, disclosure files for the Gates Foundation grantee list show a whopping 102 separate cash grants to or through New Venture Fund, totaling an incredible $457 million since 2008.
Source: Foundation for Freedom Online
Philanthropy watchdog Sludge noted that the $70 million in cash grants it identified from the Gates Foundation to New Venture Fund in 2020 is the single largest one-year contribution that the Gates Foundation had made to any other single grantee since 2014, and its second-largest ever.
That figure may be even higher. Influence Watch reports $126 million in 2020, while FFO corroborated at least $85 million that year from public records. Per FFO, Gates funding dropped all the way down to $11 million for 2021, after the 2020 election cycle ended.
The sharp pullback in funding after the 2020 election makes sense, given the political nature of the New Venture Fund’s work. It is the parent organization for what has been described as one of the largest pro-Democrat dark money groups in America, the Sixteen Thirty Fund — which happens to be another megadonor to anti-Musk signatory Accountable Tech.
Via Sludge:
- Sixteen Thirty Fund was a major player in the 2018 midterm elections, but played an even more significant role in the 2020 cycle, spending roughly $60 million funding the most prominent pro-Joe Biden super PA Cs, including seven-figure donations to Future Forward USA, League of Conservation Voters Action Fund, Take Back 2020, Priorities USA, Unite The Country, American Bridge, America’s Progressive Promise, Pacronym and other groups that spent hundreds of millions of dollars combined on anti-Trump and pro-Biden ads. The Republican-led anti-Trump group the Lincoln Project received $300,000 from Sixteen Thirty Fund in 2020.The nonprofits of Arabella’s network spend millions funding other political organizations and dark money groups, such as America Votes and Center for Popular Democracy—but they also spend millions of dollars annually on lobbying the U.S. government.
That means Gates’s biggest one-year act of “charity” in more than half a decade – while running the world’s largest “philanthropy” network – was functionally a pass-through payoff to surrogates of the Joe Biden 2020 presidential election campaign.
So much for ending AIDS, world hunger, and disease — by the numbers, the Gates Foundation’s top priority seems to be electing Democrats.
Musk recently announced he’ll be voting Republican for the first time in 2022. On top of his stated intention to reverse a half-decade of creeping censorship on Twitter, that puts him square in the path of Gates’s philanthropic freight train of paid political proxies. Bill Gates is funding a veritable NGO army — and it is zeroing in on Elon Musk.
Breitbart News requested comment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the other organizations mentioned in this article but has not received a response.
Lost in Space
Yeah, okay. I feel a little ill reading that. Although I don't think there is any dispute that Gates made the donations in question, it's a stretch to interpret the money as specifically targeting Musk.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The fact it's Breitbart reporting on this basically voids any credibility this report has. Call me when a reputable outlet reports on this.
Figure of Hourai
And if donating money to pro-democracy causes somehow specifically targets Musk, there's a bigger problem at hand than potential billionaire shit-flinging. <_>
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Oh, it seems to just be "Bill Gates donated to these things that funded these things that called on people to boycott Twitter if Musk goes all freeze peach on it". Typical malicious bullshit, really.
Edited by RainehDaze on May 24th 2022 at 6:40:41 PM
Avatar Source
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
It's very difficult to frame it as attacking Musk. Those signatories...they're primarily charity groups or advocacy groups for various minority and indigenous groups.
There's very good reasons to not want Musk to be in charge of twitter and 11 of the signatories happening to be vaguely connected to Bill Gates means very little. I mean...all of them have at least one layer of separation, Gates isn't controlling it that closely.
The article is a smear tactic against Gates to prop up Musk as the new hero of the Right that takes the opportunity to go after a bunch of groups that support minorities and vulnerable people. It's not to be taken seriously.
Edited by Zendervai on May 24th 2022 at 1:41:44 PM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Don't want to leave but cannot pretend
Breitbart? I’m pretty sure that any attempt to post news from Breitbart on the U.S Politics thread would get immediately shot with daggers from everybody’s eyes.
Have they ever shown themselves to be more...well, less absolutely shite outside of politics?
Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
It'll be weird if Musk does become a "hero" of the alt-right and Tesla becomes "the electric car you buy to Own The Libs".
Redmess
The Bill Gates story sounds like an attempt to create an enemy for Musk for Republicans to rail against. It seems like an entrenchment of Musk's position in the GOP, if anything.
Optimism is a duty.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
It's just...part of the Breitbart playbook. They do this with basically anyone they think has "converted" to their side.
Not Three Laws compliant.
I actually wanted to be Resileaf
"Welcome to the Alt-Right, here's your sworn Leftist enemy."
I mean it's probably on its way there if the Breitbart report is any indication.
State of Mind
Worth noting that Breitbart articles are regularly among the 10 top performing Facebook posts on any given day.
"What a century this week has been." - Seung Min Kim
Most of the right either doesn't understand the First Amendment or are deliberately trying to twist it to their ends. They think it means (or are trying to make it mean) that a platform must automatically be granted to anyone on the right-wing under any circumstances no matter what and even the smallest voice telling them that they might possibly be wrong in some way is an enormous infringement of their rights.
They don't give a shit about how they look when trying to permanently silence left and minority voices and don't care at all about how hypocritical it is.
Edited by Zendervai on May 24th 2022 at 10:30:06 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.