Tag Archives: Social & Online Media

The Onion won the auction for Infowars and was given ‘clear next steps to complete the sale,’ CEO says

Posted on by

After a judge on Thursday ordered an evidentiary hearing into The Onion's winning bid to purchase Infowars, Alex Jones’ site resumed operations and claimed the sale has been blocked. But Onion CEO Ben Collins countered this in an update posted on Bluesky and X on Saturday, writing, “We left the hearing with clear next steps to complete the sale.” According to Collins, a court date has been set for a week from Monday, when the process is expected to be completed, and Infowars asked for permission to continue publishing in the meantime. “The long and short of it: We won the auction and — you're not going to believe this — the previous InfoWars folks aren't taking it well,” Collins wrote.

“On Thursday, the person overseeing the auction told us that The Onion’s bid for InfoWars, along with the Connecticut Sandy Hook families, won,” Collins wrote in the thread.
“We haven’t heard anything that changed that — except, of course, from the guys currently running InfoWars, doing InfoWars stuff.” Jones has unsurprisingly called the auction “rigged,” and in a livestream on X said that lawyers for Elon Musk’s social media site have gotten involved and attended the hearing, Mother Jones reported.

The Onion only went up against one other bidder in the auction for Infowars: First United American Companies, which is associated with a website that sells Jones’ supplements. The company reportedly bid $3.5 million. The dollar amount of Global Tetrahedron’s (The Onion’s parent company) bid has not been disclosed, but it’s been backed by families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims. Per Bloomberg, trustee Christopher Murray, who is liquidating Jones’ estate, said these families have “agreed to waive their potential recovery and give it to all other unsecured creditors” that Jones owes.

“There was a status conference with the judge overseeing the auction on Thursday, shortly after we were deemed winners,” Collins, who formerly covered disinformation and online extremism as a reporter for NBC News, wrote in the thread on Saturday. “The judge had some questions about process and some assets. We’re glad he’s doing that, since our bid with the families is clearly the best and transparency is even better.” He added further down: “We expected all of this, obviously. Buying this site was always going to be fun later on, but annoying right away. The fun part is still to come.”

Collins’ plan for Infowars is for it to “relaunch as the dumbest website on the internet.” The nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety will reportedly be the sole advertiser at launch.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/the-onion-won-the-auction-for-infowars-and-was-given-clear-next-steps-to-complete-the-sale-ceo-says-222134454.html?src=rss

The suddenly hot Bluesky says it won’t train AI on your posts

Posted on by

Bluesky, which has surged in the days following the US election, said on Friday that it won’t train on its users’ posts for generative AI. The declaration stands in stark contrast to the AI training policies of X (Twitter) and Meta’s Threads. Probably not coincidentally, Bluesky’s announcement came the same day X’s new terms of service, allowing third-party partners to train on user posts, went into effect.

“A number of artists and creators have made their home on Bluesky, and we hear their concerns with other platforms training on their data,” Bluesky posted (via The Verge) on Friday. “We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so.”

In a follow-up post, the decentralized social platform clarified that it does use AI to help with content moderation. “Bluesky uses AI internally to assist in content moderation, which helps us triage posts and shield human moderators from harmful content,” the company posted. Bluesky also added that it uses AI in the algorithms powering its Discover feed.

“None of these are Gen AI systems trained on user content,” Bluesky stressed.

The Verge points out that Bluesky’s robots.txt (the policy that dictates what outside parties can scrape from a website) doesn’t prevent OpenAI, Google or other leading GenAI companies from crawling its data. The company justified that potential hole by pointing to the platform’s open and public nature. “Just as robots.txt files don’t always prevent outside companies from crawling those sites, the same applies here,” spokesperson Emily Liu told The Verge. “That said, we’d like to do our part to ensure that outside orgs respect user consent and are actively discussing within the team on how to achieve this.”

Although Bluesky is still the underdog in a race with X and Threads, the platform has picked up steam after the US election. It passed the 15 million user threshold on Wednesday after adding more than a million in the past week.

A report from web analytics company SimilarWeb noted that the signup surge coincided with a spike in X deactivations. It found that “more than 115,000 US web visitors deactivated their [X] accounts” on November 7, “more than on any previous day of Elon Musk’s tenure.” In parallel, “web traffic and daily active users for Bluesky increased dramatically in the week before the election, and then again after election day.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/the-suddenly-hot-bluesky-says-it-wont-train-ai-on-your-posts-220034195.html?src=rss

ADL’s report on racist Steam Community posts prompts a letter from Virginia senator

Posted on by

A damning report from the Anti-Defamation League published Thursday on the “unprecedented” amount of racist and violent content on Steam Community has prompted a US Senator to take action. In a letter spotted by The Verge, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) asked Valve CEO Gabe Newell how he and his company are addressing the issue.

“My concern is elevated by the fact that Steam is the largest single online gaming digital distribution and social networking platform in the world with over 100 million unique user accounts and a user base similar in scale to that of the ‘traditional social media and social network platforms,’” Warner wrote.

The senator also cited Steam’s online conduct policy that states users may not “upload or post illegal or inappropriate content [including] [real] or disturbing depictions of violence” or “harass other users or Steam personnel.”

“Valve must bring its content moderation practices in line with industry standards or face more intense scrutiny from the federal government for its complicity in allowing hate groups to congregate and engage in activities that undoubtedly puts Americans at risk,” Warner writes.

Congress doesn’t have the ability to take action on Valve or any platform except to shine light on the problem through letters and committee hearings. The Supreme Court overturned two state laws in June that prevented government officials from communicating with social media companies about objectionable content. 

This also isn’t the first time that Congress has raised concerns with Valve about extremist and racist content created by users or players in one of its products. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary sent a letter to Newell in 2023 to express concerns about players posting and spouting racist language in Valve’s multiplayer online arena game Dota 2.

We reached out to Valve for comment. We will update this story if we receive a statement or reactions from Valve.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/adls-report-on-racist-steam-community-posts-prompts-a-letter-from-virginia-senator-214243775.html?src=rss

EU fines Meta $842 million in a Facebook Marketplace antitrust case

Posted on by

The executive arm of the European Union isn’t shying away from slapping major tech companies with hefty fines. The European Commission has fined Meta €797.12 million ($842 million) for violating antitrust regulations.

The EC says that by tying Facebook Marketplace to Facebook and “imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers,” Meta “abused its dominant positions" in the social networking space. Regulators determined that all Facebook users are “regularly exposed” to Marketplace, even if they don’t want to be. To that end, the link between the two services gives Meta “a substantial distribution advantage which competitors cannot match.”

In addition, the EC found that third-party classified ads services that advertised on the likes of Facebook and Instagram were subject to unfair trading conditions. “This allows Meta to use ads-related data generated by other advertisers for the sole benefit of Facebook Marketplace,” regulators contended.

The fine was determined based on the duration and extent of the infringement, as well as Meta’s revenue. The Commission also told Meta to end the practice and avoid repeating such conduct or trying something similar.

Meta said it will appeal the ruling. “This decision ignores the realities of the thriving European market for online classified listing services and shields large incumbent companies from a new entrant, Facebook Marketplace, that meets consumer demand in innovative and convenient new ways,” it claimed.

The company is trying to appease European regulators on other fronts. The EC said in the preliminary findings of an ongoing investigation that Meta violated the Digital Markets Act with its approach to an ad-free subscription, as it required EU users to consent to highly targeted advertising or pay to avoid it. This week, Meta lowered the monthly subscription fee and said it would offer an advertising option that won't use as much of a user's data, though this will include some unskippable ads.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/eu-fines-meta-842-million-in-a-facebook-marketplace-antitrust-case-154111594.html?src=rss

Snapchat will let parents track their kids through Family Center

Posted on by

Snapchat is adding new location tracking abilities to its parental control features. The changes will give parents new visibility into their children’s Snap Map settings and allow them to keep tabs on their whereabouts.

The new features, which will be available “over the coming weeks,” will be added to Snapchat’s Family Center, the app’s portal for parental control features. With the updates, parents will be able to request to view their child’s location or share their own. Parents can also opt to receive “travel notifications” when their child leaves specific places, like their school or home.

Separately, Family Center, which already allows parents to keep tabs on who their children are chatting with, will also allow them to see who their teen has shared their location with in the app’s Snap Map.

That feature could help address some criticism the company has faced about the role its app’s location sharing abilities has played in crucial safety issues. Snapchat’s location sharing has come under particular scrutiny by safety advocates who have alleged it had enabled teens to connect with strangers, including drug dealers and potential predators. The feature was called out in a lawsuit brought by New Mexico’s Attorney General earlier this year over alleged safety lapses at the company.

In its latest update, Snap notes that it bars all users from sharing their location info with users who aren’t already their friends. And the company says it plans to push additional reminders to users about their Snap Map settings “prompting them to be extra thoughtful about their” choices.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/snapchat-will-let-parents-track-their-kids-through-family-center-130004215.html?src=rss

The Guardian is leaving X

Posted on by

The Guardian announced it will no longer be active on X (formerly Twitter) — all its editorial accounts will stop posting on the platform. Users can, of course, still share the outlet's articles on X, and journalists working for The Guardian may link to or embed X posts in their articles or continue using the platform to gather news.

According to the statement, X has become rife with “far-right conspiracy theories and racism” and is simply not worth sinking more resources into. The newspaper would rather spend its time and energy on less "toxic" platforms. Additionally, The Guardian cites Elon Musk as a major reason for moving away, since the results of the recent US presidential election have allegedly shown how Musk "has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse." Essentially, the concern appears to be that continuing to post would be adding fuel to a propaganda machine.

The Guardian isn’t the only news outlet to ditch X: NPR and PBS both left in 2023. Corporations like Apple, IBM, Disney and others still post, but no longer advertise on X. These companies have historically been the social media platform’s biggest source of ad income, as reported by Axios.

The Guardian claims it's able to make this decision because it doesn’t rely on advertising as its main business model. But Twitter was always more about influence than driving traffic, and the returns on investment for publishers have only gotten worse with time.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/the-guardian-is-leaving-x-144549755.html?src=rss

Researcher’s ‘unfollow everything’ lawsuit against Meta gets dismissed

Posted on by

A lawsuit from a researcher who tried to develop a browser extension for Facebook called “Unfollow Everything 2.0" has been dismissed for now, The New York Times reported. Ethan Zuckerman from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University attempted to use the Section 230 tech shield law in a novel way to force Meta to allow him to develop the tool that would wipe a Facebook user's feed clean. 

For background, Zuckerman was inspired by a 2021 project called "Unfollow Everything" that would have allowed people to use Facebook without the News Feed, or curate it to only show posts from specific people. However, Facebook sued the UK man who created that extension and permanently disabled his account. 

To avoid a similar fate, Zuckerman turned to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. While that's mostly designed as a shield to protect tech platforms from illegal user activity, there's a separate clause protecting developers of third-party tools "that allow people to... block content they consider objectionable." He asked the court to recognize that clause and allow him to create the Unfollow Everything 2.0 browser extension without repercussions from Meta.

However, the court granted Meta's filing to dismiss the lawsuit, adding that the researcher could file it at a later date. "We’re disappointed the court believes Professor Zuckerman needs to code the tool before the court resolves the case," Zuckerman's lawyer said. "We continue to believe that Section 230 protects user-empowering tools, and look forward to the court considering that argument at a later time." A Meta spokesperson said the lawsuit was "baseless." 

Meta has shut down researchers before, disabling the Facebook accounts of an NYU team trying to study political ad targeting in 2021. Conversely, in 2022 Meta helped itself to 48 million science papers to train an AI system called Galactica, which was shut down after just two days for spewing misinformation. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/researchers-unfollow-everything-lawsuit-against-meta-gets-dismissed-133051131.html?src=rss

Researcher’s ‘unfollow everything’ lawsuit against Meta gets dismissed

Posted on by

A lawsuit from a researcher who tried to develop a browser extension for Facebook called “Unfollow Everything 2.0" has been dismissed for now, The New York Times reported. Ethan Zuckerman from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University attempted to use the Section 230 tech shield law in a novel way to force Meta to allow him to develop the tool that would wipe a Facebook user's feed clean. 

For background, Zuckerman was inspired by a 2021 project called "Unfollow Everything" that would have allowed people to use Facebook without the News Feed, or curate it to only show posts from specific people. However, Facebook sued the UK man who created that extension and permanently disabled his account. 

To avoid a similar fate, Zuckerman turned to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. While that's mostly designed as a shield to protect tech platforms from illegal user activity, there's a separate clause protecting developers of third-party tools "that allow people to... block content they consider objectionable." He asked the court to recognize that clause and allow him to create the Unfollow Everything 2.0 browser extension without repercussions from Meta.

However, the court granted Meta's filing to dismiss the lawsuit, adding that the researcher could file it at a later date. "We’re disappointed the court believes Professor Zuckerman needs to code the tool before the court resolves the case," Zuckerman's lawyer said. "We continue to believe that Section 230 protects user-empowering tools, and look forward to the court considering that argument at a later time." A Meta spokesperson said the lawsuit was "baseless." 

Meta has shut down researchers before, disabling the Facebook accounts of an NYU team trying to study political ad targeting in 2021. Conversely, in 2022 Meta helped itself to 48 million science papers to train an AI system called Galactica, which was shut down after just two days for spewing misinformation. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/researchers-unfollow-everything-lawsuit-against-meta-gets-dismissed-133051131.html?src=rss

Max is about to crack down on password sharing

Posted on by

Max, the other major platform that ruined years of brand recognition with a bizarre name change, is about to get serious about password-sharing, according to reporting by The Verge. Parent company Warner Bros. Discovery said during a Q3 earnings call that it will begin cracking down on the practice over the next few months, along with some “very soft messaging” to encourage people to pony up.

Chief financial officer Gunnar Wiedenfels said the aforementioned gentle messaging will ramp up in 2025, indicating an eventual mandate. He suggested that folks who share passwords make the subscription costs rise for everyone, as it’s like “asking members who have not signed up, or multi-household members to pay a little bit more.”

The company also announced nearly ten billion dollars in revenue last quarter, along with 7.2 million new Max subscribers. This is the biggest jump in subscribers in the platform’s history. There’s more juice to squeeze out of that lemon, however, as some of those 7.2 million people likely gave a password to a grandkid or something.

Wiedenfels also didn’t rule out the possibility of yet another price increase. He said that the “premium nature” of Max gives the platform “a fair amount of room to continue to push a price we’ve been judicious about.” As for judiciousness, the subscription cost shot up in June of this year and again back in 2023. So, what, price increases are like yearly Madden installments now or something?

Max is merely the latest streamer to put the kibosh on password sharing. Netflix makes people pay to share passwords and Disney+ just started its crackdown back in September.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/max-is-about-to-crack-down-on-password-sharing-174549440.html?src=rss

Max is about to crack down on password sharing

Posted on by

Max, the other major platform that ruined years of brand recognition with a bizarre name change, is about to get serious about password-sharing, according to reporting by The Verge. Parent company Warner Bros. Discovery said during a Q3 earnings call that it will begin cracking down on the practice over the next few months, along with some “very soft messaging” to encourage people to pony up.

Chief financial officer Gunnar Wiedenfels said the aforementioned gentle messaging will ramp up in 2025, indicating an eventual mandate. He suggested that folks who share passwords make the subscription costs rise for everyone, as it’s like “asking members who have not signed up, or multi-household members to pay a little bit more.”

The company also announced nearly ten billion dollars in revenue last quarter, along with 7.2 million new Max subscribers. This is the biggest jump in subscribers in the platform’s history. There’s more juice to squeeze out of that lemon, however, as some of those 7.2 million people likely gave a password to a grandkid or something.

Wiedenfels also didn’t rule out the possibility of yet another price increase. He said that the “premium nature” of Max gives the platform “a fair amount of room to continue to push a price we’ve been judicious about.” As for judiciousness, the subscription cost shot up in June of this year and again back in 2023. So, what, price increases are like yearly Madden installments now or something?

Max is merely the latest streamer to put the kibosh on password sharing. Netflix makes people pay to share passwords and Disney+ just started its crackdown back in September.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/max-is-about-to-crack-down-on-password-sharing-174549440.html?src=rss