Social Media Discussion

[Rumpy]

I dunno, I don't get it myself. The way I understand it, the media wanted to start getting compensated as a way to help with Canadian content, but Facebook and Google balked at having to pay for the right to share that content with the new Bill C-18 (Canadian Online News Act)that was enacted, and so as a way of fighting back, News on Facebook and Google will be disappearing for us. It's had the opposite effect the media and the government were hoping to achieve.

Basically, any Canadian news either shared by people or by the publishers themselves and appearing on people's feeds, it's all disappearing from Facebook and Google, and you'll have to go directly to the publisher's site to view their stories. I don't know what will happen if you try to share something once that goes into effect, though.

Facebook itself has a notice about this:
https://transparency.fb.com/policies/ot ... egulations

Here's their position on the new Bill, and happen to agree with them:
https://about.fb.com/news/2023/05/metas ... -news-act/

The crazy thing about this is that I'm sure publishers will see a decline in viewership, which in turn could affect their bottom-line, especially the smaller publishers.

[Sudy]

I do seem to remember news results showing up in the upper-right pane of Google results. But I didn't think it was more than a click-through blurb. Maybe a headline was a big enough issue, but I wouldn't think so. I imagine the publishers want you to go directly to (and stay) on their site. Searching "x news" still returns "top stories" with a simple click-through headline and top tweets below, but none of them are from Canadian media sources. The pane from the right side of the page is gone.

[Blackhawk]

I'm reading up on it, and it just seems... odd. The premise (as I read it - most stories are about FB/Google, not the logic behind the law) is that people used to pay for news (IE - print newspapers, etc), but now they find the content via social media and the news site doesn't get the revenue . So, they seem to be saying, since social media has their content, social media should pay for it. It just doesn't make sense to me, though, as what they're trying to get tech companies (not just social media - this includes search engines) to pay for isn't stories, it's links. It's links on social media where one person reads a story and shares the link to the story with others, and it's the news sites themselves putting the links out there. It's also links to stories in search engines.

These aren't where people are reading the stories, these are where people are finding the stories to read on the original site. They're trying to get tech companies to pay news services for giving them free advertising. It sounds, honestly, like another case of the tech-clueless trying to legislate tech.

There has to be more to it, as what I've written above just doesn't make any sense.

I mean, it's not like Facebook has full news stories posted so that readers don't have to deal with paywalls. You know, like that one site... Octopi Something .

[stessier]

No, you pretty much got it. To anyone who knows how the internet works, it makes zero sense. I think part of the problem is the Google et al have caved in some other countries (Australia for example), so governments can't understand why they are different...which is the only think that makes sense to me.

[stessier]

Related.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... x-bizarre/

[Blackhawk]

Related.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... x-bizarre/

I really need to read up on things if I'm agreeing with Musk.

"This is bizarre," Musk wrote. "They want us to pay *them* for traffic to their site where they make advertising revenue and we don’t!?"
[snip]
These rights were designed to reduce the "value gap" between publishers and the online platforms that profit off of promoting publishers' content.

Promoting the publisher's content, usually via the publisher choosing to promote it there. It's like me charging a billboard company for putting up my ad.

There has to be some rationale somewhere that I'm just not getting.

[Sudy]

At least I'm not alone in being confused by this.

There's only one traditional news site (local/national 24-hour news) I visit directly on a daily basis. The rest is all searches or links from elsewhere. I certainly don't visit social media sites to find traditional news.

Does traditional news media deserve to be propped up? Yeah, probably. Do exploitative social media platforms have too much money we should find additional, heavy ways to tax? Definitely. But in the existing framework this legal battle doesn't make sense to me. I guess it makes some sense in comparison to a newsstand profiting from selling newspapers, but it's not quite the same thing.

[stessier]

There has to be some rationale somewhere that I'm just not getting.

From that Ars article, this is the true rationale.

News organizations like AFP pushed for the neighboring rights legislation as the bulk of online ad revenue shifted away from news publishers to giant social media platforms. The concern remains that if platforms don't share ad revenue, quality news organizations will be forced out of business.

Nice concern, but the proposed solution is - well, not rational. It boils down to "you have money and I want money, so give me your money."

[Rumpy]

I'm reading up on it, and it just seems... odd. The premise (as I read it - most stories are about FB/Google, not the logic behind the law) is that people used to pay for news (IE - print newspapers, etc), but now they find the content via social media and the news site doesn't get the revenue . So, they seem to be saying, since social media has their content, social media should pay for it. It just doesn't make sense to me, though, as what they're trying to get tech companies (not just social media - this includes search engines) to pay for isn't stories, it's links. It's links on social media where one person reads a story and shares the link to the story with others, and it's the news sites themselves putting the links out there. It's also links to stories in search engines.

These aren't where people are reading the stories, these are where people are finding the stories to read on the original site. They're trying to get tech companies to pay news services for giving them free advertising. It sounds, honestly, like another case of the tech-clueless trying to legislate tech.

There has to be more to it, as what I've written above just doesn't make any sense.

I mean, it's not like Facebook has full news stories posted so that readers don't have to deal with paywalls. You know, like that one site... Octopi Something .

Yeah, the odd thing is, they never really explained the purpose of it to consumers. In a roundabout way, they want money for their clicks, and they weren't getting it via articles linked through FB or Google. Bill C-18 was supposed to rectify that, but instead there's been a blowback.

Won't personally affect me much since I go straight to the source anyway, but from time to time, I'd click through on something interesting on my feed. It will suck for publishers who won't see their news shared at all through FB now. This isn't really beneficial to anyone, and I'm gonna guess the Bill is going to end up being rolled back at some point.

[Blackhawk]

I wonder how long it will be before traffic drops so much that the news companies are lobbying to reverse this.

If they really want money, tell them to fix online advertising. Once the ads aren't flashing, popping up, playing audio, or running on software (as opposed to being a simple image), I'll turn my ad blockers off and happily feed them credit for my eyeballs.

[LordMortis]

If they really want money, tell them to fix online advertising. Once the ads aren't flashing, popping up, playing audio, or running on software (as opposed to being a simple image), I'll turn my ad blockers off and happily feed them credit for my eyeballs.

Unwanted sound, drain on resources, and blind acceptance of advertisers that may include malware are my requirements.

[Rumpy]

Unwanted sound, drain on resources, and blind acceptance of advertisers that may include malware are my requirements.

Tell me about it. Ever since I started using NoScript years ago, pages have run way more smoothly. It's not so much the advertising that's the problem, but the pages leaden with scripting that slow things down. Obviously advertising is part of that problem, but they're not the only problem anymore.

I wonder how long it will be before traffic drops so much that the news companies are lobbying to reverse this.

I give it 6 months to a year. Then they'll say: This was a bad idea. We're not getting the views we used to get before the Bill went into effect.

[stessier]

I wonder how long it will be before traffic drops so much that the news companies are lobbying to reverse this.

I give it 6 months to a year. Then they'll say: This was a bad idea. We're not getting the views we used to get before the Bill went into effect.

They don't care about views and the bill doesn't try to get them more views. They are saying that the advertisers aren't coming to the News sites because they are going to Big Tech instead - doesn't matter how many views the News sites are getting. It's strictly about a transfer of money from one group to another.

[Rumpy]

I wonder how long it will be before traffic drops so much that the news companies are lobbying to reverse this.

I give it 6 months to a year. Then they'll say: This was a bad idea. We're not getting the views we used to get before the Bill went into effect.

They don't care about views and the bill doesn't try to get them more views. They are saying that the advertisers aren't coming to the News sites because they are going to Big Tech instead - doesn't matter how many views the News sites are getting. It's strictly about a transfer of money from one group to another.

Of course, but you don't see the correlation? Once the news isn't being shared via social media, that means less eyeballs on their websites driven by the shared news. They are getting less traffic. They are making less money. And forget looking up the news on Google too. All that is lost traffic that many websites count on.

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

Social media turns into in-person giveaway turns into riot.

A famous video game influencer known for streaming on Twitch is in custody after a giveaway event attracting thousands of young people sparked pandemonium in Manhattan's Union Square.

The Friday afternoon event advertised by Kai Cenat, one of the most popular streamers online, grew out of control well before its scheduled 4 p.m. start time. Police estimates suggest the crowd size eventually climbed to a "couple thousand people."

Cenat had told his online followers to come out to Union Square where he would be handing out free PlayStation consoles and gift cards, among other items.

What exactly turned the crowd unruly isn't quite clear, but by 3:30 p.m. people were seen chucking garbage at police and taking down barriers around the perimeter. Witnesses reported seeing others throwing chairs and bottles. One person had a bruise on his face and he said he was pushed to the ground.

The commotion prompted the highest level of police mobilization by the NYPD. According to a spokesperson, the department called on an estimated one thousand officers to respond to the escalating situation.

[Kraken]

The story I read didn't say whether this fellow actually had the swag with him.

[Isgrimnur]

Or whether this event was cleared with officials.

[Max Peck]

Or whether this event was cleared with officials.

It was not.

The event was spontaneous and came together without a city permit, Chief Maddrey said. The police learned of the gathering from a social media post around midday, he added. By 3 p.m., he said, “the post had gone viral.”

At that point, he said, “the event grew exponentially, rapidly, vast.”

[GreenGoo]

There really hasn't been a single act (ok, maybe I missed a few) of the current Canadian government regarding internet or internet providers where I haven't contacted my MP to urge them to vote against. Always followed by a form letter explaining to me, his simple constituents why it's a good idea. Which is hilarious as most MP's don't even understand the ramifications of what they are pushing. "hilarious"

Sigh.

[Max Peck]

X user “super pissed” that Musk ordered takeover of his @music account

About a week after X commandeered the popular @X account from longtime Twitter user Gene X Hwang, another user has reported that X has taken over his popular account, @music.

"16 years ago, I created @music and have been running it ever since," Jeremy Vaught, director of engineering at the nonprofit Life Happens, posted on X. "Just now, Twitter/X just ripped it away. Super pissed."

But not so super pissed that he's going to stop using TwitterX or stop being a Muskophile.

Vaught is mostly a Musk fan, as he's interested in Musk's electric cars and space developments. He said that this experience with X hasn't tainted his opinion of Musk or his relationship too much with X as a platform. He's holding out hope that Musk has a long-term plan for where Musk is taking X, but like many users, he's struggling to adjust to the rebranding. Vaught still refers to the platform by its original name.

"Twitter's not dead to me at this point," Vaught told Ars, even if "it's a super huge bummer" to lose the @music account. "Sixteen years is a long time to invest in something and then just have it ripped out from underneath you," Vaught said.

[Carpet_pissr]

Cult.

[Isgrimnur]

"There is no problem until it's my problem."

[Alefroth]

I've got no desire to use Threads on a mobile device. I hope they have a browser version in the works.

Looks like I've only got a few weeks to wait-

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/04/metas-t ... says-.html

[Zaxxon]

"There is no problem until it's my problem."

...and then I'll decide it's not really a problem.

[LordMortis]

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... erg-2023-8

I had that I know this because, news...

Elon Musk bragged about lifting '45 lb weights' on Friday. Now he says he has to get an MRI on his neck and back and may need surgery before his cage match with Zuck.

Donald Musk is starting with the excuses as Zuck presses for a firm date.

[Blackhawk]

Musk's X to pay legal bills of people 'unfairly treated' for posting on platform

"If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill," Musk said in a post on X late on Saturday, adding that there will be no limits to funding the bills.

"And we won't just sue, it will be extremely loud and we will go after the boards of directors of the companies too," Musk said later in response to a post about nothing changing behavior in the U.S. faster than a threat of legal action.

Does that include the people that Musk himself fired for posting on TwitX?

I'd really like to see Musk sue himself and go after his board of directors. Or at least kick his own ass in a cage match.

[gilraen]

Is he going to fund their legal bills like Trump promised to fund the legal bills of guys getting arrested for punching protesters at his rallies?

[Rumpy]

[
Does that include the people that Musk himself fired for posting on TwitX?

I'd really like to see Musk sue himself and go after his board of directors. Or at least kick his own ass in a cage match.

That's what I was wondering. He'd have to kick his own ass and apologize to anyone he's wronged. Of course, that would require a change in behavior which he just won't do. Because it likely doesn't apply to himself. But it does read like a parody.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's right out of the modern conman playbook. Trump has perfected it.

"I did this thing? You say I did this thing? YOU DID TTHIS THING!!!! YOU DID THIS THING AND I'M GOING TO SUE FOR IT!!!!!"

[Zaxxon]

'Unfairly' is doing a lot of work in that statement.

[GreenGoo]

Is he going to fund their legal bills like Trump promised to fund the legal bills of guys getting arrested for punching protesters at his rallies?

Yes.

[Smoove_B]

I guess we'll see if this is the decision that kills Twitter. Err.... X:

The social media app targeted news sites including The New York Times and Reuters as well as competing social media platforms such as Facebook, Threads, and Bluesky by slowing down the load times for links posted on Twitter.

All affected sites take longer to load than other sites such as The Washington Post and USA Today, meaning the slowdown is affecting the targeted sites’ bottom line. A page’s load speed affects an article or site’s search engine rankings, with quickly loading sites appearing higher on Google which prioritizes sites that load in no more than 2.5 seconds.

My feed is getting weirder, that's for sure. And a substantial portion of the people I follow have bailed. I'm honestly amazed it's lasted this long given everything he's done (or encouraged).

[Blackhawk]

A page’s load speed affects an article or site’s search engine rankings, with quickly loading sites appearing higher on Google which prioritizes sites that load in no more than 2.5 seconds.

How does that affect Google page rankings? Does Google time the page load time directly, or does it somehow pass its links through XTwitter? If it's the redirect that they're slowing down, wouldn't that just delay the 'start' of the timer?

[Zaxxon]

A page’s load speed affects an article or site’s search engine rankings, with quickly loading sites appearing higher on Google which prioritizes sites that load in no more than 2.5 seconds.

How does that affect Google page rankings? Does Google time the page load time directly, or does it somehow pass its links through XTwitter? If it's the redirect that they're slowing down, wouldn't that just delay the 'start' of the timer?

I endorse this take. Technically, the site not loading well is t.co.

[msteelers]

A page’s load speed affects an article or site’s search engine rankings, with quickly loading sites appearing higher on Google which prioritizes sites that load in no more than 2.5 seconds.

How does that affect Google page rankings? Does Google time the page load time directly, or does it somehow pass its links through XTwitter? If it's the redirect that they're slowing down, wouldn't that just delay the 'start' of the timer?

I dabble in SEO. I’m far from an expert, but still deal with it on a daily basis. I don’t think Twitter throttling load speeds would impact other sites. If they wanted to harm their SEO I would think the better thing to do would be to make them nofollow links.

Again, I’m not an expert so I could be wrong.

[Smoove_B]

Awkward:

At least two brands have said they will suspend advertising on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, after their ads and those of other companies were run on an account promoting fascism. The issue came less than a week after X CEO Linda Yaccarino publicly affirmed the company’s commitment to brand safety for advertisers.

The nonprofit news watchdog Media Matters for America documented in a report published Wednesday that ads for a host of mainstream brands have been run on the account, which has shared content celebrating Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Ads for brands including Adobe, Gilead Sciences, the University of Maryland’s football team, New York University Langone Hospital and NCTA-The Internet and Television Association were run alongside tweets from the account that had garnered hundreds of thousands of views, CNN observed.

[Jaymann]

Awkward:

At least two brands have said they will suspend advertising on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, after their ads and those of other companies were run on an account promoting fascism. The issue came less than a week after X CEO Linda Yaccarino publicly affirmed the company’s commitment to brand safety for advertisers.

The nonprofit news watchdog Media Matters for America documented in a report published Wednesday that ads for a host of mainstream brands have been run on the account, which has shared content celebrating Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Ads for brands including Adobe, Gilead Sciences, the University of Maryland’s football team, New York University Langone Hospital and NCTA-The Internet and Television Association were run alongside tweets from the account that had garnered hundreds of thousands of views, CNN observed.

Looks like they need to add 4 more lines to that X.

BTW do they still call them tweets or are they now Xeets?

[Alefroth]

They are technically referred to as posts now.

[Carpet_pissr]

Xits, pronounced ‘shits’