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
![]()
No, but it is childish to snark on a name without making any effort to understand its context.
I tried something else with Grok:
Me:
Using a "talk like a pirate" voice, tell me what you know about the explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas on January 1, 2024.
Grok:
Arr, me hearty! On the mornin' o' January 1, 2024, a mighty explosion shook the waters near the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas, 'twas like a cannon goin' off from the depths o' Davy Jones' locker! A Tesla Cybertruck, a vessel not meant for the high seas but the land, pulled up to the hotel's entrance, smokin' like a ship afire. Then, boom! It exploded, leavin' one soul lost to the locker and seven others with minor scrapes and burns.
The authorities, them scurvy dogs, be investigatin' this as a possible act o' terror, with whispers of fireworks and fuel canisters in the truck's hold. They're lookin' into whether 'twas linked to another dastardly deed in New Orleans, where a truck rammed into a crowd. Elon Musk, the cap'n of Tesla, says the blast wasn't from the ship itself but from the cargo within.
So, me matey, the waters be choppy around this tale, with no clear sight o' what lies beneath the surface yet. But rest assured, they're on the hunt for the truth, like pirates chasin' after the biggest treasure.
This is great stuff.
Ooh, damn. I just caught Grok in a hallucination. I accidentally typed "January 1, 2024" when I should have used 2025. Grok regurgitated that date to me. However, it gave me the correct one when I specifically asked.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 3rd 2025 at 1:08:18 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not to veer too far off topic, but you've just described Elon Musk to a tee. It's not like anyone familiar with him should express any surprise about it.
Anyway, I asked Grok why it repeated the wrong date back to me, and it said that it's programmed not to correct factual errors in my prompts unless I ask it to. I then made that request, and it said, "Got it! I'll make sure to correct any factual errors, like the year in a date, when responding to your queries."
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm vaguely aware of the term. Don't quite understand why he decided to call an AI chatbot that, but 'tech things with silly names' is far from new at this point. I think I first learned it from this XKCD
comic.
Blueace: Probably because it sounds like "grog"?
I mean yeah, sounds like an AI chatbot. There's a joke in there somewhere about the whole "Twitter being full of bots" thing.
Is anyone really surprised? Cybertruck looks like something out of Total Recall (1990), the Falcon 9 rocket is named after the Millennium Falcon, SpaceX's autonomous spaceport drone ships are named after AI characters in Iain Banks novels.
The tech industry is full of people who worship 20th century science fiction. Joke about it if you like, but I'm in that same club — generationally, anyway.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 3rd 2025 at 12:23:53 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Yeah chances are if Zuckleburg didn't call dibs, Musk would've seize the metaverse train, purely out as the same id that created Ready Player One
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Jan 3rd 2025 at 4:59:47 AM
Usually without actually understanding it either. It's all very superficial (see also Peter Thiel's constant naming of things after stuff from Lord of the Rings)
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jan 3rd 2025 at 2:39:32 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historySo my understanding is that more kids are watching YouTube than actual TV these days? Is that right?
You’re Gonna Carry That Weight.Historical correction: The term "Metaverse" was coined by Snow Crash. Everything after is borrowing from that Ur-Example.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"More and more I'm coming to believe the UK government needs to ban the dumpster fire formerly known as Twitter.
Musk has been using the site to spread conspiracy rumours designed to attack the current government, as well as stoke racial tensions. It's all clearly part of his attempts to prop up Farage.
Starmer needs to grow a spine, and actually try to do something about this wannabe supervillain.
It actually makes more people more likely to believe their views if they were censored by the government. "The UK government banned our site because of the truths they don't want you to hear." Forbidden Fruit basically.
Since Elon Musk is a vocal "free speech absolutist" (as long as nobody says something he disagrees with), a government banning Twitter would give him an enormous amount of public support.
Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Jan 4th 2025 at 12:35:24 PM
Once Upon A Time.![]()
The people who'd support him are already doing so anyway, nevermind them considering anything a confirmation of their biases.
Anybody who suddenly goes "Oh, I'm now gonna support somebody because their platform's been banned from a country" is at best a deeply unserious person.
Pretty sure it's more about how Twitter's owner is wielding said platform rather than about just what he's saying on it.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jan 4th 2025 at 7:01:45 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyReminder: Elon Musk being an ass on social media is not an appropriate topic for this thread and we will thump as necessary.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Following up in regular mode, it is patently obvious that Britain cannot "ban Twitter", except in the sense of cutting it off for its own citizens, something I seriously doubt will happen. So, this whole debate is moot.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It sounds like some fantasy booze to me, really.
Wake me up at your own risk.