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
It's enough to pay salaries for the staff, but I wouldn't say TV Tropes is raking in the cash otherwise. It has motivated some positive changes, though. One of the big projects aimed at increasing our revenue was video examples.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yikes about Wowhead. Glad I don't go there on a regular basis anymore after dropping the game and Blizzard entirely.
"That we continue to persist at all is a testament to our faith in one another."Such a baffling person, do over the top with praising America despite having never left Malaysia to begin with. However I'm not sure how much relevance we can het out of discussing him here. He may he a particularly notable user of Twitter due to the above reasons and being a Musk fanboy but he's still just a user. He's in trouble because of what he said which is both a freedom of expression and a Malaysian politics topic rather than a social media one, and it's an issue of what he said rather than where he said it so that he said it on Twitter isn't really relevant either. He was tweeting under his own name so it's not like Twittwr rolled over and gave up his data which Musk admitted he's been doing for countries that threaten to block Twitter.
So in short while it's amusing that he's suffering the consequences for years of being toxic it's also entirely off topic.
Edited by Shaoken on Feb 14th 2024 at 8:00:33 PM
"I don't think having ads or an algorithm are part of the definition of a social network/social media. Most social media platforms have that, yes, but that doesn't mean it's strictly part of the definition."
From a business perspective, it's core to what social media are. Selling user profile data to advertisers is the standard business model.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.From a business perspective, neither Mastodon the software nor most Mastodon instances are run as for-profit businesses. The functionality to the end user is still similar to commercially run networks like Twitter/X and Bluesky. That is what I meant when I wrote that the question "What counts as social media in the context of the discussion at hand?" is easier to answer than "What is social media?". It's a bit like "What is an RPG?" or "What is a triple A video game?"
On a personal note, I managed to move to a new Mastodon instance and now my "joined" date is 14.02.2024 (or 02/14/24)
Transferring followers/following/bookmarks was a bit tricky as my old instance doesn't really exist anymore, but the admins of both the old and the new instance were very helpful.
The shutdown of queer.af by the government of Afghanistan actually got some news coverage, for example here on The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/12/24071036/queer-af-mastodon-taliban-shut-down-afghanistan
Again, don't register or keep using "haha, funny" domains under the .af tld. But in the context of this thread, this is only really relevant if you want to run your own Fediverse instance (Mastodon or other).
Another edge case for the "Is this social media?" question: online dating services. The intended or alleged use case is different, but the business model and market mechanisms are somewhat similar. Arguably, the incentive for the business to actually provide the end users with a useful product is even lower because successful users leave the service (at least in the context of long-term, monogamous dating, which is what a lot of users want), so the issues with enshittification are even more glaring than on normal social media platforms.
"He betrayed the Staaarks" is not the only problem here.A reminder, from the pinned post:
If someone uses X to say stuff that gets them in legal trouble, that's generally off-topic. Even if it's Musk or one of his associates.
The exception would be if it's somehow regarding social media or the fallout changes social media policies.
He probably also realised how many of his own followers are bots.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Feb 16th 2024 at 6:28:31 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyOff-tangent, but, since they announced that Bluesky is open to the public some time ago, I noticed that the invite codes are no longer there in my part.
ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔|I DO COMMISSIONS|ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔

This site is most definitely for profit. That's the reason the current owners bought the site: because they could make a tidy profit from displaying ads on the site. The company that owns TV Tropes owns many such sites for that reason.
I don't think anyone is becoming a millionaire off of TV Tropes, mind you, but it sure is a valid business model nonetheless. Not all such businesses are giants. Nor are we.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times