Social media thread (aka Twitter's meltdown + other stuff)

[herzlos]

Mar 26, 2024 9:33:30 GMT -5 easye said:

The idea that you get access to a pool of self-selecting marks makes a lot of sense to me.

However, I had heard that the number of users was relatively small and their daily interactions were limited because, there was no one to fight with on Truth Social. Perhaps such talk was overblown?

I think there's about 5 million users but only about 2 million are active. Whilst there's no-one to fight with, there's still plenty to get worked up about in an echo chamber.

[easye]

Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers

www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/tech/net-neutrality-is-back/index.html

Washington
CNN
—
The US government on Thursday banned internet service providers (ISPs) from meddling in the speeds their customers receive when browsing the web and downloading files, restoring tough rules rescinded during the Trump administration and setting the stage for a major legal battle with the broadband industry.

The net neutrality regulations adopted Thursday by the Federal Communications Commission prohibit providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from selectively speeding up, slowing down or blocking users’ internet traffic. They largely reflect rules passed by a prior FCC in 2015 and unwound in 2017.

"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."

[herzlos]

I went onto Truth Social the other day to see if someone was for real. I had no idea how close of a Twitter rip off it was; It took me a moment to realize I wasn't still on Twitter.

[easye]

Enshitification

www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251072726/ai-spam-images-facebook-linkedin-threads-meta

AI-generated spam is starting to fill social media. Here's why

On Facebook, in many cases, it appears that the platform's own algorithm is boosting AI posts.

When researchers at Georgetown and Stanford universities investigated more than 100 Facebook pages that routinely post AI content — sometimes dozens of times a day — they found that many are engaging in scams and spam.

[easye]

www.npr.org/2024/10/08/g-s1-26823/states-sue-tiktok-child-safety-mental-health

More than a dozen states sue TikTok, alleging it harms kids and is designed to addict them

More than a dozen states, led by California and New York, are suing TikTok for allegedly duping the public about the safety of the popular video app, claiming it was deliberately designed to keep young people hooked on the service.

The lawsuits, filed separately on Tuesday in 13 states and the District of Columbia, argue TikTok has violated consumer protection laws and contributed to a teen mental health crisis.

The bipartisan group of attorneys general is seeking to force TikTok to change product features that they argue are manipulative and harm teens. The suits are also asking courts to impose financial penalties on the company.

It is the latest headache for TikTok, which is trying to fend off a U.S. ban of the app slated to start Jan. 19, unless the company severs ties with ByteDance, its China-based parent company.

[adurot]

I mean, they’re not wrong…

[easye]

www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-31042/elon-musk-kamala-harris-facebook

An Elon Musk-backed political group is posting fake Kamala Harris ads on Facebook

Did you see those Kamala Harris ads on Facebook? Be careful. They might have duped you.

A series of ads that look like they are from the Harris campaign are spreading falsehoods about her current policy positions, including that she wants to institute a mandatory gun-buyback program and give Medicare benefits and drivers’ licenses to undocumented immigrants. One of the ads asserts Harris wants to ban fracking. None of this is true.

The Facebook ads have collectively been viewed millions of times in swing states, posted by an account dubbed “Progress 2028,” a name suggesting a liberal counterpart to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.

Jeebus, the internet has been so enshittified.

[Haighus]

Oct 31, 2024 10:06:10 GMT -5 easye said:

www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-31042/elon-musk-kamala-harris-facebook

An Elon Musk-backed political group is posting fake Kamala Harris ads on Facebook

Did you see those Kamala Harris ads on Facebook? Be careful. They might have duped you.

A series of ads that look like they are from the Harris campaign are spreading falsehoods about her current policy positions, including that she wants to institute a mandatory gun-buyback program and give Medicare benefits and drivers’ licenses to undocumented immigrants. One of the ads asserts Harris wants to ban fracking. None of this is true.

The Facebook ads have collectively been viewed millions of times in swing states, posted by an account dubbed “Progress 2028,” a name suggesting a liberal counterpart to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.

Jeebus, the internet has been so enshittified.

Isn't that just straight libel?

Also some of those sound good, like banning fracking.

[Disciple of Fate]

I guess it might not be libel because they're not defaming her character? The people NPR spoke to certainly seem to think it's completely legal.

[Haighus]

Oct 31, 2024 10:10:08 GMT -5 Disciple of Fate said:

I guess it might not be libel because they're not defaming her character? The people NPR spoke to certainly seem to think it's completely legal.

Fair point.

It seems like it shouldn't be legal though. There is clear deception at play. Thinking about it, would this not constitute fraud?

[Disciple of Fate]

But in what sense is it fraudulent? They aren't pretending to be the Harris campaign and they're not directly asking for something, that picture doesn't even say 'vote for Harris' or something. I think the bar for fraud here is very high.

[skyth]

If I made the rules, the 1st amendment would not cover attempts to intentionally deceive people.

[herzlos]

Surely the metric is whether your average person is mislead, like trademarks. The aim here is obviously to mislead people to not vote for Kamala.

[Peregrine]

Oct 31, 2024 13:00:54 GMT -5 skyth said:

If I made the rules, the 1st amendment would not cover attempts to intentionally deceive people.

It's a nice idea but the implementation would not be viable. Even for something as fundamentally dishonest as these ads the creators could easily argue in court that they are using a rhetorical device to warn of things they believe Harris will do. And they could easily make that case. She may not have technically said those specific words but all three of those example ads are believable policy positions. Banning fracking is absolutely in line with left-wing environmental policy (and a good idea!) and Harris is absolutely opposed to gun rights. The only one that is even remotely questionable is expanding medicare to immigrants but it's a believable extension of actual plans to expand it to all legal residents and it would certainly be the simplest way to handle the costs of covering them (at least in a world where "die on the streets without help" is not a morally acceptable solution).

The real issue here isn't the legality of the dishonest ads, it's that we've gutted education and critical thinking skills to create a mob of low-information voters who can be fed whatever propaganda the people in power want them to see. People should immediately see right through this kind of low-effort trick and it should be limited to the same fringe media sites running all the ads for dick pills, gold investments, etc, but we've created a huge market for it and there's no reputational cost to legitimate media if they publish it.

Oct 31, 2024 13:11:54 GMT -5 herzlos said:

Surely the metric is whether your average person is mislead, like trademarks. The aim here is obviously to mislead people to not vote for Kamala.

The issue is that trademark law doesn't rely on confusion alone, deceptive use of trademarks becomes fraud because it's directly obtaining something of value by deception. Merely using a trademark without selling something doesn't violate trademark law no matter how misleading it is.

As an example consider the "stolen valor" stuff. It's legal to pretend to be a veteran, walk around in uniform with medals you didn't earn, etc. It's blatant lying but clearly protected speech. It only becomes illegal if you use the lie to obtain something of value, like claiming a veteran discount a store offers even though you aren't a veteran. If all you do is stand there in uniform and let people say "thank you for your service" all anyone can do is call you a pathetic loser.