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
So, what, you're going to post a bunch of pirated content on Twitter so the UK will ban it? Good luck with that.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
I think they meant "If the site's purpose was to host pirated materials it would get banned". Obviously Twitter is protected from the content its users post by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millinium Copyright Act.
Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Jan 4th 2025 at 1:14:27 PM
Once Upon A Time.Right, so why even say it? I know we're addicted to cathartic expressions of anger, but that's not how we conduct discussions in OTC.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The U.K. is highly unlikely to ban Twitter, there has already been significant pushback on the idea of banning children under 16 from being on Social Media for health reasons.
Likewise any ban based on foreign interference in domestic politics would have the inevitable question about other platforms which have been alleged to be used or have the potential to be used that way. Tik Tok probably being the most obvious example but you’ve also got what Cambridge Analytica did via Facebook.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWe could discuss more about how Social Media exploits hate to keep it's users addicted.
I'm reminded of an old content creator I knew who opened up about their addiction to constantly getting into fights with other users because of how much fun they found it despite it hurting them in the long run on social media. And it did.
They say Social Media friends are no substitute for RL friends, but I wonder if that applies to enemies as well.
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"And just as Social Media can help people find like minded individuals, there's also the flipside where you can find people who have opposite viewpoints as yours and pick a fight with them online, and in many ways, that can be more addicting than the traditional use of Social Media.
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"Social Media sites are commonly designed to put you into contact with such people. Part of social media addiction and radicalisation is that alongside filling your feed with people who agree with you (both are slightly more extreme) it also fills your feed with people who firmly disagree with you (often with an extreme opposing positon), as that’s a very good way to drive up engagement. There’s probably a ratio of ally posts to enemy posts that’s most optimal for engagement that has been worked out somewhere.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
brilliantly encapsulated by xkcd's comic I've found
From my experience the pull of getting into conflict with someone through social media is exceptionally strong,and avoiding obvious bait is a lot harder then I had anticipated,realising it's by design does help me step back on occasion I've found.
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverYou know the hover text for that comic is actually very optimistic in retrospect. It suggests a world where staying to argue could result in the person that is wrong changing their position to one where they are right, instead of them doubling down on their wrongness and calling you a bunch of names.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe same could be said of TV Tropes, y'know. While there's no point in arguing with trolls, I have had plenty of positive online interactions, including cases where minds were changed by the introduction of new information or critique. It's not often, but it does happen.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We're part of the "civil internet" precisely because we enforce civility so strictly. There's no obvious reason why the rest of the social media landscape couldn't do that, other than losing outrage engagement. Which is why they don't, of course.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Part of why other sites won’t do it is that a major part of their draw is the ability to act without serious consequences, without that what are they offering consumers? This is why you see such pushback on making sites do serious age gating, as to do them the site would need to partially de-anonymise all users and most users either don’t consider non-anonymous usage valuable or don’t consider what the site offers valuable enough to trade in their anonymity for it.
People trade their anonymity for services every time they walk into a pub or restaurant, but I lot of people seemingly wouldn’t consider it a worthwhile trade to use Reddit.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI've said this about Twitter, that the reason that it's current owner is basically sending a message though his own actions, to all it's alt right users ACROSS THE GLOBE that they can mock and bully all sorts of left leaning users ACROSS THE GLOBE without facing any serious consequences, and that the leftist users can't leave because Twitter is the major platform they need.
Edited by RedHunter543 on Jan 5th 2025 at 4:41:03 AM
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"Talking about left wing and right wing in relation to Twitter (which is US based and I believe mainly US used) is probably closer to US politics than we should be getting.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyranability to act without serious consequences
So, this comes back to a fundamental point that I keep trying to express. To enforce consequences on social media (and on the Internet as a whole), people will need to give up a certain amount of anonymity along with the "fundamental freedom" to act as they choose.
Whenever anyone brings this up, there is an outpouring of resistance even from people who acknowledge the truth of the above, and that resistance comes from all sides of the political spectrum. "If I can't be anonymous, then I might be a victim of harassment." "Consequences for my actions is an abrogation of my freedoms." "You can't make me not be an asshole." "My government might suppress my speech if they can identify me."
The system can't work if everyone has their own personal reasons for not having to follow rules or be subject to consequences. So, either we have an anarchic Internet in which anyone can be as much of a dick as they please, or we have a regulated Internet that stifles certain freedoms in exchange for safety and civility.
These are the choices. Pretending otherwise is just delusion/motivated reasoning.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The fear of government monitoring also fundamentally ignores the fact that the government can already monitor you as a source if it so desires. Your ISP know (or can know if so they so desire) everything you’re doing online and they’ve no interest in protecting you if the government comes a knocking.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe fear of a Big Government is both an irrational fear and a justified concern,depending on where you are in the world but what I've noticed is that it's a universal fear because no seems to trust their government,it's like some people can't tell the difference between doing something very illegal on the internet that would justify your ISP turning over your records to the government and doing something perfectly legally but the government deciding to persecute you anyway
have a listen and have a link to my discord server

I once watched half of Morbius on Twitter thanks to a friend. Does that count?
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"