Australia’s online safety regulators advise that YouTube should not be granted an exemption from a social media ban for individuals under 16, stating that video streaming platforms can expose children to dangerous content.
In contrast, YouTube contends that it should adhere to a proposed regulation indicating that the government will provide exemptions to the platform.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of regulating YouTube? And what implications does this have for a child watching YouTube if it becomes prohibited?
Why did the government consider exempting YouTube initially?
Last November, when Congress introduced legislation banning access to social media for children under 16, then Communications Minister Michelle Roland indicated that YouTube would be exempted.
This exemption was justified on the grounds that YouTube serves “an important purpose by providing youth with educational and health resources.”
The ban on social media in Australia for individuals under 16 is now law. Many details remain unclear – Video
This exemption came just 48 hours after revelations in April by Guardian Australia regarding the minister’s direct lobbying efforts involving the global CEO of YouTube.
This decision surprised YouTube competitors such as Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat. TikTok described it as a “special deal.” YouTube has launched vertical video products like Instagram and TikTok reels, leading its competitors to believe it should be included in the ban.
What led the eSafety Commissioner to recommend banning YouTube?
As new regulations regarding social media platforms were being formulated, the Minister consulted with eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.
In a recent report, Inman Grant highlighted findings from a youth survey indicating that 76% of individuals aged 10 to 15 use YouTube. The survey also showed that 37% of children who experienced potentially harmful content online encountered it on YouTube.
Additionally, it was observed that increased time spent on YouTube correlates with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among youth, according to the Black Dog Institute.
“Currently, YouTube boasts persuasive design elements associated with health risks, including features that could encourage unnecessary or excessive usage (such as autoplay, social validations, and algorithm-driven content feeds),” noted Inman Grant.
“When combined, these elements can lead to excessive engagement without breaks and heighten exposure to harmful material.”
Inman Grant concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that YouTube provides exclusively beneficial experiences for children under 16.
However, it’s noted that children may still view content on YouTube even if they are logged out and thereby prohibited from using accounts.
What is YouTube’s position?
In a recent statement, Rachel Lord, YouTube’s senior public policy manager for Australia and New Zealand, commented on the eSafety Commissioner’s advice which was examined and subsequently supported by Parliament. YouTube views the findings on community opinion regarding the platform’s suitability for younger audiences as being “inconsistent with government commitments.”
YouTube has been developing age-appropriate offerings for over ten years, and in Q1 of 2025, the company removed 192,856 videos for breaching its hate speech and abusive content policies, a 22% increase from the previous year.
The platform asserts its role primarily as a video hosting service rather than a promoter of social interaction. A survey conducted among Australian teachers revealed that 84% use YouTube monthly as a resource for student learning.
YouTube also stated that the eSafety Commission and potentially the Communications Minister may be reconsidering the exemption following pressures from YouTube’s competitors.
What about YouTube Kids?
YouTube asserts that it offers a platform tailored for younger users, restricting both the uploading of content and commenting features for children.
The company does not seek exemptions solely for its children’s products.
When questioned about YouTube Kids during the National Press Club event, it was indicated that the platform is considered low-risk, designed specifically for children, and possesses adequate safety measures. However, it was stated, “I cannot respond until I have seen the regulations.”
Can children access YouTube without an account?
Yes. Inman Grant confirmed that if teachers wish to show videos to their students, they can access YouTube without needing to log in.
She noted that YouTube has “opaque algorithms that create addictive ‘rabbit holes’,” and remarked that when she accessed the site while logged out, her experience was positive, empowering users to engage without being subjected to addictive technological features.
In response to YouTube’s assertions on Thursday, Inman Grant reiterated that the call for exclusion from the ban aims to “allow young Australians to access YouTube’s diverse content.” However, she clarified that her advice does not imply that children will lose access to YouTube’s educational resources.
“The new law strictly restricts children under 16 from holding their own accounts. They will not be able to access YouTube or other services while logged out,” she added.
“There is nothing preventing educators with their own accounts from continuing to share educational content on YouTube or other platforms approved for school use.”
What are the next steps?
The Minister will finalize the guidelines and identify the social media platforms covered by the ban in the upcoming months.
A trial on age verification technology is expected to be reported to the Minister by the end of July, which will establish the technology platforms must implement to prevent access for users under 16.
The government has announced that the ban is anticipated to come into force in early December.
Source: www.theguardian.com
YouTube Revives Efforts to Include Platforms in Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban
YouTube has expressed its discontent with the nation’s online safety authorities for sidelining parents and educators, advocating to be included in the proposed social media restriction for users under 16.
Julie Inman Grant from the eSafety Commissioner’s office has called on the government to reconsider its choice to exclude video-sharing platforms from the age restrictions that apply to apps like TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram.
In response, YouTube insists the government should adhere to the draft regulations and disregard Inman Grant’s recommendations.
“The current stance from the eSafety Commissioner offers inconsistent and contradictory guidance by attempting to ban previously acknowledged concerns,” remarked Rachel Lord, YouTube’s public policy and government relations manager.
“eSafety’s advice overlooks the perspectives of Australian families, educators, the wider community, and the government’s own conclusions.”
Inman Grant highlighted in her National Press Club address on Tuesday that the proposed age limits for social media would be termed “delays” rather than outright “bans,” and are scheduled to take effect in mid-December. However, details on how age verification will be implemented for social media users remain unclear, though Australians should brace for a “waterfall of tools and techniques.”
Guardian Australia reported that various social media platforms have voiced concerns over their lack of clarity regarding legal obligations, expressing skepticism about the feasibility of developing age verification systems within six months of the impending deadline.
Inman Grant pointed out that age verification should occur on individual platforms rather than at the device or App Store level, noting that many social media platforms are already utilizing methods to assess or confirm user ages. She mentioned the need for platforms to update eSafety on their progress in utilizing these tools effectively to ensure the removal of underage users.
Nevertheless, Inman Grant acknowledged the imperfections of the system. “For the first time, I’m aware that companies may not get it right. These technologies won’t solve everything, but using them in conjunction can lead to a greater rate of success.”
“The social media restrictions aren’t a panacea, but they introduce some friction into the system. This pioneering legislation aims to reduce harm for parents and caregivers and shifts the responsibility back to the companies themselves,” Inman Grant stated.
“We regard large tech firms as akin to an extraction industry. Australia is calling on these businesses to provide the safety measures and support we expect from nearly every other consumer industry.”
YouTube has committed to adhering to regulations outlined by former Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, who included specific exemptions for resources such as the Kids Helpline and Google Classroom to facilitate access to educational and health support for children.
Communications Minister Annika Wells indicated that a decision regarding the commissioner’s recommendations on the draft rules will be made within weeks, according to a federal source.
After the newsletter promotion
YouTube emphasized that its service focuses on video viewing and streaming rather than social interaction.
They asserted their position as a leader in creating age-appropriate products and addressing potential threats, denying any changes to policies that would adversely impact younger users. YouTube reported removing over 192,000 videos for violating hate speech and abuse policies just in the first quarter of 2025, and they have developed a product specifically designed for young children.
Lord urged that the government should maintain a consistent stance by not exempting YouTube from the restrictions.
“The eSafety advice contradicts the government’s own commitments, its research into community sentiment, independent studies, and perspectives from key stakeholders involved in this matter.”
Shadow Communications Minister Melissa Mackintosh emphasized the need for clarity regarding the forthcoming reforms from the government.
“The government must clarify the expectations placed on social media platforms and families to safeguard children from prevalent online negativity,” she asserted.
“There are more questions than answers regarding this matter. This includes the necessary verification techniques and those platforms will need to adopt to implement the minimum social media age standard by December 10, 2025.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
How Your Social Life May Influence Your Risk of Dementia
Groundbreaking research indicates that middle-aged individuals in the initial stages of Alzheimer’s disease may become more sociable.
Utilizing data from nearly half a million Britons over 40, the study revealed that those at a high genetic risk for Alzheimer’s are more likely to enjoy positive social lives, have happy family relationships, and experience less isolation.
“This finding was remarkable for us,” stated Dr. Scott Zimmerman, a senior researcher at Boston University. BBC Science Focus.
“We anticipated finding evidence of withdrawal from social networks, possibly due to changes in social activities and mood regulation. Instead, we encountered the opposite.”
Research published in American Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that individuals showing early signs of Alzheimer’s may engage more with family and friends, noting subtle changes in cognitive functions, and may receive additional support through daily interactions.
Dementia has often been linked to feelings of social isolation and loneliness. However, it remains unclear whether such loneliness is a risk factor for developing Alzheimer’s or if social withdrawal stems from the disease itself.
These findings imply that adults genetically predisposed to Alzheimer’s are unlikely to withdraw socially years prior to a formal diagnosis when significant symptoms emerge.
“Their social life may expand,” explained co-author Dr. Ashwin Kotwal, an associate professor of medicine at UCSF. He noted that this study does not contradict previous research on Alzheimer’s and social withdrawal but rather enhances the understanding of the relationship.
“This study suggests that the connection between social isolation and dementia risk, supported by other research, is not simply a result of early symptoms leading to withdrawal,” said co-researcher Dr. Louisia Chen, a postdoctoral researcher at Boston University. BBC Science Focus.
“This underscores the importance of maintaining social connections for better brain health.”
In addition to genetic predispositions, various lifestyle factors can influence the development of dementia, including exercise habits, smoking, blood pressure, glucose levels, sleep patterns, mental health, and medication use.
These modifiable factors may explain around 30% of Alzheimer’s cases, with loneliness potentially being one of them.
“In an era marked by decreasing social engagement, we hope families, communities, and policymakers will explore ways to foster healthy social interactions throughout people’s lives,” remarked Dr. Jacqueline Torres, an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics. BBC Science Focus.
read more:
About our experts
Dr. Scott Campbell Zimmerman is a senior researcher in epidemiology at Boston University’s Faculty of Public Health.
Dr. Ashwin Kotwal is an assistant professor of medicine in the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine’s Department of Geriatric Medicine. He co-leads UCSF’s social connection and aging lab, focusing on the health impacts of loneliness and social isolation among older populations.
Dr. Louisia Chen is a postdoctoral researcher in epidemiology at Boston University’s Faculty of Public Health. Her work focuses on how social determinants over the life course contribute to the risks and disparities related to dementia.
Dr. Jacqueline Torres is a social epidemiologist at the UCSF School of Medicine and an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics. Her current research examines how policies, families, and communities influence population health, particularly during middle and late stages of life.
Source: www.sciencefocus.com
How Misinformation on Social Media Fuels the Tension Between India and Pakistan
An unseen conflict unfolded earlier this month as missiles and drones flew through the night sky separating India and Pakistan.
Following the Indian government’s announcement of Operation Sindoah, rumors of Pakistan’s defeat rapidly circulated online, fueled by military strikes on Pakistan and extremist assaults in Kashmir, which prompted condemnation from Delhi towards Islamabad.
What initially started as a mere assertion on social media platforms like X quickly escalated into a cacophony boasting India’s military strength, labeled as “breaking news” and “exclusive” on one of the country’s leading news channels.
These posts and reports claimed that India had downed several Pakistani jets, captured pilots and Karachi ports, and taken control of Lahore. Additional unfounded claims suggested that the powerful chief of the Pakistani military had been arrested and a coup executed. A widely shared post stated, “We’ll be having breakfast in Rawalpindi tomorrow,” referencing the Pakistani city housing the military headquarters amidst the ongoing hostilities.
Many of these assertions included videos of explosions, collapsing buildings, and missiles being launched from the air. The issue was that none of these were factual.
“Global Trends in Hybrid Warfare”
The ceasefire on May 10th momentarily steered both nations away from the brink of full-scale war after an intense escalation in decades, triggered by extremists targeting tourist sites in Indian-controlled Kashmir—resulting in the deaths of 26 individuals, mostly tourists from India. India swiftly condemned Pakistan for the atrocities, while Islamabad denied involvement.
Even with the cessation of military hostilities, analysts, fact-checkers, and activists have meticulously tracked the surge of misinformation that proliferated online during this conflict.
In Pakistan, misinformation also spread widely. Just before the conflict erupted, the Pakistani government lifted a ban on X, which researchers later identified as a source of misinformation, albeit not at the same magnitude as in India.
Claims of military victories from Pakistan circulated heavily on social media, paralleling an uptick in recycled AI-generated footage that was amplified by mainstream media outlets, prominent journalists, and government officials, leading to false narratives about captured Indian pilots, military coups, and dismantling India’s defenses.
Additionally, fabricated reports circulated that claimed Pakistan’s cyber attacks had largely disabled India’s power infrastructure, and that Indian troops were surrendering by raising white flags. Particularly, video game simulations became a favored method of disseminating misinformation about Pakistan that portrayed India in a favorable light.
A recent report on social media conflicts surrounding the India-Pakistan situation, released last week by the civil society organization The London Story, elaborated on how platforms like X and Facebook have become fertile grounds for spreading wartime narratives, hate speech, and emotionally charged misinformation, leading to an environment rich in nationalist fervor on both sides.
In a written statement, a representative from Meta, the parent company of Facebook, claimed to have implemented “significant steps to combat misinformation,” including the removal and labeling of misleading content and limiting the reach of stories flagged by fact-checkers.
Joyojeet Pal, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s Faculty of Information Studies, remarked that the magnitude of misinformation in India has “surpassed anything seen previously,” impacting both sides of the conflict.
PAL has noted that misinformation campaigns have outstripped the typical nationalist propaganda prevalent in both India and Pakistan.
Analysts argue this exemplifies the emerging digital battleground of warfare, where strategic misinformation is weaponized to manipulate narratives and heighten tensions. Fact-checkers point out that the proliferation of misinformation, such as old footage and misleading military victory claims, mirrors earlier patterns seen in Russia’s initial stages of its conflict.
The Hate Research Centre (CSOH) based in Washington, D.C., has tracked and recorded misinformation from both nations, cautioning that the manipulation of information in the recent India-Pakistan conflict is “not an isolated occurrence but part of a larger global trend in hybrid warfare.”
CSOH Executive Director Raqib Hameed Naik stated that some social media platforms experienced “significant failures” in managing and controlling the spread of disinformation generated from both India and Pakistan. Out of 427 key CSOH posts analyzed on X, many garnered nearly 10 million views, yet only 73 were flagged with warnings. X did not respond to inquiries for comment.
Initial fabricated reports from India predominantly circulated on X and Facebook, often shared by verified right-wing accounts. Numerous posts openly expressed support for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, which is known for its Hindu nationalist stance. Some BJP politicians even shared this content.
Examples circulating included 2023 footage of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza incorrectly labeled as Indian strikes against Pakistan, and images from Indian naval drills misrepresented as proof of an assault on Karachi Port.
Images from video games falsely portrayed as real-life footage of the Indian Air Force defeating a Pakistani JF-17 fighter jet were circulated, alongside scenes from the Russian-Ukrainian conflict being claimed as “major airstrikes in Pakistan.” AI-generated visuals of purported victories for India were also disseminated, as well as manipulated videos of Turkish pilots presented in fabricated reports of captured Pakistani personnel. Additionally, doctored images were used in misleading reports about the assassination of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Many of these posts, initially generated by Indian social media users, achieved millions of views, and such misinformation was later featured in some of India’s most prominent television news segments.
“The Fog of War Accepted as Reality”
The credibility of Indian mainstream media, already diminished by the government’s strong influence under Modi, now faces difficult scrutiny. Several prominent anchors have issued public apologies.
The Indian human rights organization Citizens for Citizens (CJP) lodged a formal complaint with the broadcasting authority, citing “serious ethical violations” in the coverage of Operation Sindoah across six major television networks.
CJP Secretary Teesta Setalvad stated that these channels have completely neglected their duty as impartial news sources, turning into “propaganda collaborators”.
Kanchan Gupta, a senior adviser to India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, refuted claims of governmental involvement in the misinformation efforts. He asserted that the government is “very cautious” about misinformation and has provided clear guidelines for mainstream media reporting on the conflict.
“We established a surveillance center operating 24/7 to monitor any disinformation that could have a cascading effect, and a fact check was promptly issued. Social media platforms collaborated to eliminate a multitude of accounts promoting this misinformation.
Gupta noted “strong” notifications had been sent to several news channels for broadcasting rule violations. Nonetheless, he emphasized that the chaos of war is widely regarded as a tangible reality, wherein the nature of reporting—regardless of it being an overt or covert conflict—tends to escalate in intensity.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Jason Citron Steps Down as CEO of Social Chat App Discord
Jason Citron, co-founder of popular social chat app Discord, resigned as the company’s chief executive on Wednesday.
Citron said in a statement that the new CEO is Humam Sakhnini, a 15-year veteran of the video game industry. Sakhnini was previously vice-president of Activision, the game publisher behind titles such as Call of Duty and Candy Crush.
Discord was released as early as this year and is valued at around $15 billion by private investors in 2021. The app is particularly popular among gamers, with over 200 million users.
Citron will remain on the company’s board of directors and will become Sakinini’s advisor, he said in a statement. Sakhnini helped oversee Activision when Microsoft bought it for $69 billion in 2023 and resigned from the company shortly after the acquisition.
in Interview Using VentureBeat, a game publication that previously reported on management changes, Citron said he was “a more builder, an early stage guy” and “hiring someone like Humam is a step in that direction.”
Discord was founded in 2015 by Citron and Stanislav Vishnevskiy.
The company grew over the years and gained particularly popularity during the pandemic, when interest in video games reached its peak. In 2021, Discord discussed acquisitions in the $10 billion range with Microsoft, but no deals were made.
Last year, Citron testified at an online congressional hearing on child safety, where the senator grilled him and Chief Executives of Meta, Tiktok and X on safe lapses on social media platforms.
Discord makes money primarily from premium subscription services, but in recent years it has expanded its advertising by people using the app and revenue from so-called microtransactions.
Source: www.nytimes.com
The US Alleges Meta has Established a Social Media Monopoly
The Federal Trade Commission on Monday accused Meta of creating a monopoly that robbed the competition by buying startups that were on the road, and by launching a groundbreaking antitrust trial that could dismantle a social media empire that changed the way the world connects online.
In a packed courtroom in the District of Columbia, the FTC launched its first anti-trust trial under the Trump administration by claiming that Meta illegally solidified its social networking monopoly when Instagram and WhatsApp were small startups. These actions were part of a “buyer or boring strategy,” the FTC said.
Ultimately, the purchase combined the power of meta, robbing consumers of other social networking options and pulling away the competition, the government said.
“For over 100 years, American public policy has argued that businesses must compete if they want to succeed,” Daniel Matheson, the lead FTC litigant in the case, said in his opening remarks. “The reason we’re here is because Meta broke the deal.”
“They decided that it was too difficult to compete and it would be easier to buy a rival than to compete with them,” he added.
The Trials – Federal Trade Commission vs. Metaplatform – poses the most consequential threat to the business empire of the company’s co-founder Mark Zuckerberg. If the government is successful, the FTC could ask Meta to sell Instagram and WhatsApp, shift the way Silicon Valley does business and change the long pattern of big tech companies that snapped their younger rivals.
Still, legal experts warned that the FTC might be difficult to win. That’s because we have to prove something that the government doesn’t know. This is because Meta, previously known as Facebook, would not achieve the same success without the acquisition. Also, legal experts said it is very rare to unlock a merger that was approved several years ago.
“One of the hardest things antitrust laws are when industry leaders buy small potential competitors,” said Gene Kimmelman, a former senior official at the Obama Administration Department. Meta said, “I bought a lot of things that weren’t pan-out or integration-integrated. How is Instagram and WhatsApp different?
This effort continues a long-standing bipartisan pursuit to reduce the vast power that a small number of high-tech companies have beyond commercial, exchange of ideas, entertainment and political discourse. Despite attempts by tech executives to President Trump, his antitrust appointees have shown they will continue on the course.
The FTC’s case against Meta is the third major technological antitrust lawsuit to be tried in the last two years. Last year, DOJ won antitrust laws against Google because it monopolized internet search. The federal judge will hear debate over the relief package, including a potential dissolution next week. DOJ also completed another exam against Google to monopolize AD technology, which is still decided by a federal judge.
Source: www.nytimes.com
Elon Musk’s Xai Firm Acquires Social Media Platform X for $330 Billion
Elon Musk’s Xai artificial intelligence company has purchased Musk’s X, a social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for $330 billion, showcasing the billionaire’s rapid integration strategy.
The deal, announced on Friday, merges two of Musk’s numerous portfolio companies, including Tesla and SpaceX, potentially aiding Musk in training his AI model, Grok.
In a post on X, Musk declared, “The future of Xai and X are intertwined. Today, we have taken a step towards combining data, models, calculation, distribution, and talent.”
There has been no immediate response from X or Xai representatives to requests for comment. Many transaction details remain unknown, including investor compensation, integration of X’s leadership into the new company, and potential regulatory examination.
Paolo Pescatore, an analyst at PP, described the development as “surprising and somewhat unexpected.” He added, “To some extent, it marks the end of a tumultuous chapter for X.”
Gil Luria, an analyst at Da Davidson & Co, noted, “The $45 billion price tag is no coincidence, exceeding Twitter’s 2022 Take-Private Transaction by $1 billion. This move allows Xai investors to share the value of the business with X co-investors.”
Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual, has accumulated significant power in Washington, D.C., overseeing government efficiency and cost-cutting efforts during the Trump administration through Doge. This positions him to potentially influence the institutions overseeing his business dealings.
Xai investors, now part of the combined entity, expressed no surprises over the deal, viewing it as a merger of leadership and management teams within Musk’s own organization. They rejected the proposed name change.
While Musk did not seek investor approval, both companies are working closely together to deepen integration with Grok.
According to reports, Musk’s Xai startup commenced two years ago and secured $10 billion in funding, valuing it at $75 billion.
In February, Musk made a $97.4 billion bid for Openai, a ChatGpt maker consortium, which was subsequently rejected. Musk co-founded Openai in 2015 with CEO Sam Altman.
Musk has been involved in direct competition with Openai, filing a lawsuit in California federal courts to prevent rivals from transitioning from non-profits to commercial entities. A judge recently denied a request for a provisional injunction to block the conversion.
The widespread adoption of AI software has sparked increased investment and competition in Silicon Valley. Companies are seeking ways to integrate software across various business functions for improved efficiency.
As AI competition intensifies, Xai is enhancing its data centers to train more advanced models. Their supercomputer cluster, Colossus, located in Memphis, Tennessee, is touted as the world’s largest.
In February, Xai introduced Grok-3, the latest chatbot iteration, poised to compete with Chinese AI firms Deepseek and Microsoft-backed Openai. The X platform can facilitate the distribution of Xai products and provide real-time user feedback.
In 2022, Musk acquired X and subsequently Twitter for $44 billion, taking the platform private after its 2013 IPO and stating, “the birds will be released” post-acquisition.
Following the acquisition, Musk restructured the company, urged advertisers to leave the platform, resulting in a significant revenue decline. However, as Musk’s influence grew, the brand eventually returned to X.
Sources familiar with the transaction revealed that seven banks provided loans to Musk for the X acquisition, extending their loans to XK for the X deal, maintaining their book debt for two years, due to heightened interest in exposure to AI companies and improved X operational performance.
After the merger, investors who acquired debts from banks are expected to profit, according to Espen Robak, founder of Pluris Aluation Advisors. He stated, “Even if not fully repaid, the debt holds increased value.”
Additionally, a US judge rejected Musk’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit alleging he misled former Twitter shareholders by delaying disclosure of his initial investment in the company.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Smartphones can benefit children if they steer clear of social media
Smartphones help kids socialize
AYO Production/Shutterstock
A study of over 1,500 children suggests that smartphones are beneficial for mental and social well-being unless they begin using social media.
Justin Martin The University of South Florida surveys state children ages 11 to 13. 25 years of national research To explore the link between digital media and happiness.
The researchers found that 78% of the 1,510 children surveyed owned smartphones, and 21% of these reported symptoms of depression and anxiety. Children with phones were also more likely to report spending time in person with friends.
“We thought ownership of a smartphone was related to negative outcomes or negative measures,” Martin says. “But it wasn’t.”
The researchers found that children with low-income parents are more likely to own smartphones than children with rich parents. The highest prevalence of 87% smartphone ownership was found in children living in households collected between $50,000 and $90,000, while only 67% of children in households who own smartphones over $150,000 have a smartphone.
Martin suggests that this may reflect the school policies that children attended, in response to a greater awareness of negative headlines about the supposed risks of social media affecting their mental health.
But such a ban — Florida was the first US state to introduce in 2023 — could be in a volatile scientific position, Martin says. “We were careful to emphasize associations rather than causality, but children with smartphones probably use them for social purposes and like many adults,” he says.
However, not all smartphone use is a benefit of dirt. The researchers also found that children who said they were often posted on social media were twice as likely to report sleep problems or symptoms of depression or anxiety compared to people who never use these platforms. That said, the study failed to determine whether increased use of social media has led to mental health and sleep problems, or whether the opposite is true, says Martin.
“We recommend that parents and adults consider protecting their children from the social platforms that their children post frequently, or try to avoid posting on social platforms,” says Martin. “Of course, it’s hard to tell your kids. ‘You can use Instagram. You can use Tiktok, but don’t post it.” ”
Children surveyed are evenly divided on the merits of social media, with 34% agreeing that social media is more harmful than good, 33% disagreeing, and the rest are undecided about the issue.
“This is an attractive study that makes an important distinction, especially between smartphones and social media,” he says. Jess Maddox At the University of Alabama. “These two are synonyms for each other, but this study shows that they are not actually the same.”
“These are truly subtle findings and we hope that parents, educators and politicians will not be banned, but will encourage them to think more about their children’s education on smartphones and social media,” she says.
David Ellis At Bath University in the UK, this work confirms similar findings from previous studies, but understanding more work to understand what the data is directing us before deciding what to do about children’s smartphone use is that “the lack of analysis will strengthen conclusions that are more difficult to justify policy changes.”
topic:
Source: www.newscientist.com
Joyce Carol Oates’ Twitter Account: The Last Pure Haven in the Chaos of Social Media | Culture
a
The skeleton is at the center of the T. So, that’s because of Joyce Carroll Oates’s online infamy. In 2021, the award-winning novelist provided her most important contribution to literature: Diabolical
Tweet anti-minating about existentialism in Halloween.
(You can always recognize places where no one feels or feels sad for the lost loved one and death, the one who dies, and the person who likes to break down into bones is just a joke.) https://t.co/1OuMqgw550
– Joyce Carol Oates (@joycecaroloates) October 1, 2021
For beginners, the 86-year-old five-time Pulitzer finalist used the platform on X (formerly Twitter) to share photos of impressive American-style Halloween ornaments featuring dozens of plastic skeletons climbing the front of the house. “You can always recognize a place where no one has experienced much grief for a lost loved one,” she wrote. “Everyone who likes to break it down into bones is kidding.”
This unique take on Halloween tradition was filled with some kind of confused online glee. In an increasingly polarized political world, we rarely encounter such injustice and strong opinions. There is no culture war, nor popular discourse,
Just a thought From Zeus’ forehead it turned like Athena. Or a creepy ghost who pops out at you in a haunted house – you shouldn’t be kidding about it.
emojis are poetry for the non-literate. 🔜🔚 https://t.co/Jp8zq3Ty9C
– Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) October 15, 2024
However, this is not just a one-off phenomenon. In fact, this is one example of a bewildering array of classic Joyce Carroll Oats tweets. This makes another addition to her trophy shelf an attractive case. Winner of the Poet Award on Social Media. I’m not mean here. I really love her tweets and they are one of the only things that bring joy to me on the Nazi awarded platforms rapidly. As Twitter user Kaitlin Ruiz puts, “She doesn’t need to answer specialization. Oracles don’t see consistency.”
It is important to understand that Joyce Carroll Oates has definitive opinions on trance rights (good!) and dinosaur poaching (bad!), skeletons (worrisome!). She doesn’t need to answer any specialties. Oracles are not consistent.
– Kaitlin Ruiz (@kaitlin_m_ruiz) February 21, 2023
Oates is a prolific writer in all aspects of her life. She published 58 novels, and more importantly, she wrote 170k tweets. Her targets are wide and abundant. There’s a political view: dozens of tweets a day
Harris v Trump and
Israel’s war with Gaza. She was one day outright about trans rights and wrote about it
JD Vance’s other small eyes – But she is also not afraid to challenge a whimsical world.
Her cat is pondering the problem with the trolley.
The point is that she posts frequently without agenda to sell anything and has seemingly embarrassing honesty. In an interview, she rejected the medium
“It was short-lived and quickly forgotten.”. However, she feels her relationship with the platform is pure. How to use Twitter.
The unexamined premise of the “trolley problem” is that individuals, as we know, do not have any kind of subjective tendencies, including the Catnip’s drunkenness, the philosophers who have lived in the past, not subjective preferences/unconscious motives/free philosophers. You kill the poor… https://t.co/gze1kcjzyw
– Joyce Carol Oats (@joycecaroloates) May 27, 2024
All thoughts come directly from her huge creative brain, from the online farm to the table. “What we’ve heard about ISIS is pure and punitive. Is there anything fun to celebrate?”
She asked in 2015. “Are there any examples of women getting obsessed with historical events?”
She meditated in 2023. Then there was a time when she posted a really conflicting photo of her
Infected feet online.
Chimpanzees and bonobos engage in genital rubbing to alleviate social tension
Male chimpanzees may have sexual contact during stressful periods
Jake Brooker/Chimhunsi Wildlife Orphanage Trust
Some chimpanzees seem to use sexual behaviors like genital rubbing to manage stressful situations. This shows that our closest living relatives – or in fact, as we thought, isn’t that different from highly sensitive bonobos.
Jake Brooker Durham University in the UK and his colleagues investigated the sexual behavior of non-human primates Rolaya Bonobo Sanctuary The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Chimhunsi Wildlife Orphanage Trust In Zambia. Both sanctuaries contain a mixture of wild and captive-born apes, allowing them to roam freely and forage within them.
Researchers observed 53 bonobos (Pampaniscus) It spans three groups: Lola Ya Bonobo and 75 chimpanzees (Pantrogloid) across two groups of chimhunsi over the course of the feeding event of events, including swings distributing limited supply of peanuts to specific regions.
“Bonobos and chimpanzees both live in extremely complex social structures. Zanna Clayat Durham University. Predicting such feeding events can be stressful due to the competition for those who will first reach the food.
Researchers observed 107 instances of genital contact in bonobos and 201 instances of chimpanzees five minutes before 45 feeding events in five groups.
“This involves placing your hands or feet in another primate's biogenic area, and it could also involve the genital organs that touch each other, like the bonobo's very well-known genital friction behavior,” says Brooker.
This study revealed differences between species. “We found that sex frequency in these situations was more common in other women and female bonobos, but more common among chimpanzee men,” says Clay. It may be related to the fact that bonobos live in patriarchal groups, but chimpanzees live in patriarchal groups, she says.
“By using sex as a social tool to navigate all kinds of social issues, bonobos have given them a bit of a reputation as a kind of sexy hippie ape,” says Clay. “This study shows that the differences between the two species are not as large as previously assumed. Chimpanzees are known to be aggressive and violent, but in reality they have a truly rich repertoire of behaviors used to manage social life.”
“Chimpanzees definitely draw PR short straws compared to bonobos.” Matilda Brindle At Oxford University.
Chimpanzees use sex in ways that go beyond breeding, unlike human sexuality, but we don’t just have sex for breeding, says Clay. for example, Stress reduction It was given as a reason for people to have sex.
Kit Opie At the University of Bristol in the UK, I wonder if the same level of behavior can be seen in wild environments rather than sanctuaries.
The work may also shed light on our last common ancestors, who lived around five to seven million years ago, before humans branch out from dicks and bonobos, he says.
“If we consider that all three use sexual behaviors to navigate social relationships, it is likely that the common ancestors we share did too,” Brindle says.
topic:
Source: www.newscientist.com
The social struggles of Australian college students: What are they missing out on at universities?
Whenmai* began studying psychology in mid-2019. She looked forward to traveling to college to have a lively conversation with her classmates working on new ideas.
However, when her in-person tutorials were exchanged for a Zoom meeting in 2020, her excitement turned into horror.
“People don’t switch cameras. They have their names displayed,” says Mai. “It’s very lonely and very isolated. If you’re struggling with questions, then no one will talk.”
The auditorium, once full of students, was emptied in favor of pre-recorded lectures, Mai said. Even the lab demonstrations have been replaced by a lively, undirected Zoom breakout room.
Mai sat through an online class who fell silent mid-hour time slot as the instructor sued a grid of faceless viewer names to engage in simple questions.
“No one spoke,” she says. “It’s so annoying, it hurts so much, you just want to go out.”
As soon as she graduated, Mai moved to Hobart to study medicine. The lockdown was fading memory and she was expecting a packed campus.
But apart from her medication classmates, she says it was abandoned – it remains two years later.
“I had this very naive vision, ‘Oh, wow, I’m going to meet a lot of students from many different places.” [but] Many students don’t attend just because they have other work or life commitments,” she says.
Australian students like MAI enroll in college in the hopes of experiences that many facilities no longer offer. They imagine themselves in time and space exploring big ideas with their peers and teachers, share vibrant discussions and share their path to becoming independent adults.
Those who can’t afford to spend the whole week on campus or are not given the option of in-person classes are worried that they are missing out. High quality education While increasing fees are being charged.
Students under financial pressure cut classes and picked up more jobs. The result is a malicious cycle of lower campus attendance, according to students. Few students will be taking part in the class in person, and attending classes is even less attractive and there will be fewer face-to-face opportunities for universities as they do not appear.
Like Mai, many people ask themselves: “What is the point of going to campus?”
AAccording to Dr. Thuc Bao Huynh, a researcher at the Center for Youth Policy and Education Practice at Monash University, Ustralian’s expectations for university life go back to research ideals before the 1980s, before the 1980s.
“If someone was a student, they wouldn’t actually do that much except they were students,” he says. “That’s not the case anymore.”
The myth of campus life opposes the modern reality where increasingly fewer students have the luxury of their own research and social life, their primary responsibility. Since the 1990s, the number of Australians from a wider background has increased. Costs of living are accelerating this trend, Huynh said it forces more students to treat the university as a part-time commitment.
As Rent and living expenses There is a share of students with jobs rising According to the Some analysis. Almost half of all students chose I’ll be studying part-time instead of full-time in 2023.
“Being a student is 1740532059 I mashed with everything else that young people are experiencing,” Huyn says. “That’s another thing they have to deal with.”
Classmates at Jed Brockhouse who struggled to work juggle college and were given the option to do coursework online will not be able to come to campus at Latrobe University in North Melbourne.
“If you know you don’t need to be there, why do you sit in class for two hours, fit in an hour of traffic?” he says.
Sam Lane only learned how much he missed when he took a break from law classes and reached out to art history.
He says he went to university in 2019 looking for a photo of his parents’ campus life. To people. “
After the newsletter promotion
Lane got a glimpse into the fantasy world at the University of New South Wales Art School on Sydney’s bustling Oxford Street. His long three-hour art history class forced him and his peers to meet face to face or gave him time to tackle and discuss aesthetics and philosophy.
“You didn’t feel like you were there just to get bitten and spit out of the auditorium,” he says. “If there’s something interesting for the class, you can dig into it.”
However, once his art tutorial is over, Lane has to hurry back to the main campus of UNSW in eastern Sydney, reducing the teaching time on campus, and the professor has rushed through an impossible amount of information. Ta.
“We don’t have time to chat, we don’t have time to get to know the people around you,” he says. “You’re too busy trying to get through all the content very quickly.”
Lane is now approaching the end of his degree and watching attendees get nervous with the Student Association, stopping the long-term party tradition, including Battle of the Band events.
“People want to understand what they have lost and really go back to it… [but] There’s no good time to put it [on] “There aren’t enough people on campus so they don’t get voter turnout,” he says. “I’m a little dead.”
THis tendency towards online learning reflects wider pressure. A decline in federal funding and threatened losses from international students, the main source of income, forced the university to save. At the same time, university staff teach 200,000 students more than they did a decade ago.
Kaab Qureshi, a sophomore at Australian National University in Canberra, says it’s difficult to learn in classes that have become “strange” as the university is cut and contact time condensed.
“They just want to cut costs as quickly as possible,” he says. “I think they’ve made more reputation and profitable than student involvement and support.”
Even the face-to-face class stuffing didn’t stop them from finding the community they wanted for those who could afford to stroll around campus.
Kristy Sauw, a classmate at ANU in Qureshi, says his first year in college wasn’t good. After moving from Wagga Wagga High School to the on-campus residential hall, it was easy for her to make friends and go to classes in person.
“We made a lot of friends in our philosophy tutorials because we considered it an hour to yap. It was really fun,” she says. “As much as we focus on what we’re actually talking about, we’ve also become bonded and talked about random topics.”
Qureshi spent extra money to live in the residential hall for his first year, but the
Source: www.theguardian.com
Why Safety Bills in the US Didn’t Pass, Leaving Desperate Parents to Protect Their Children on Social Media
wHEN Congress was postponed to the holiday in December. This is a groundbreaking bill aimed at overhauling how technology companies protect the youngest users. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) introduced in 2022 was intended to be a massive calculation for Big Tech. Instead, the bill waned and died in the House despite sailing through the Senate in July with a 91-3 vote.
Kosa is passionately defended by families who say children have fallen victim to the harmful policies of social media platforms, and advocates who say bills that curb the unidentified power of big technology have been postponed for a long time is. They are seriously disappointed that a strong chance to check out Big Technology has failed due to Congress' indifference. However, human rights groups argued that the law could have led to unintended consequences that impacted freedom of speech online.
What is the Kids Online Safety Act?
Kosa was introduced nearly three years ago in the aftermath of a bomb revelation by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen, and the extent to which the social media platform's impact on younger users. Platforms like Instagram and Tiktok would have required that children be affected through design changes and address online risks to allow younger users to opt out of algorithmic recommendations.
“This is a basic product praise bill,” said Alix Fraser, director of the Council on Responsible Social Media Issues. “It's complicated because the internet is complex and social media is complex, but essentially it's just an effort to create basic product driving standards for these companies.”
The central and controversial element of the bill is its “duty of care” clause, declaring that businesses “have an obligation to use the platform to act in the best interests of minors,” and the regulatory authority It has declared it open to interpretation by They would have also requested that the platform implement measures to reduce harm by establishing “safeguards for minors.”
Critics argued that the lack of clear guidance on what constitutes harmful content encourages businesses to filter content more aggressively, resulting in unintended consequences for free speech. Delicate but important topics such as gun violence and racial justice can be considered potentially harmful and may subsequently be ruled out by the corporation itself. These censorship concerns are particularly prominent in the LGBTQ+ community, saying that opponents of the Kosa could be disproportionately affected by conservative regulators and reduce access to critical resources.
“Using Kosas we see a truly intentional but ultimately ambiguous bill that requires online services to adopt online services to take unspecified actions to keep children safe. A policy analyst at the Center for Democracy Technology, who opposes the law and receives money from technology donors such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft.
The complex history of the Kosa
When the bill was first introduced, over 90 human rights groups signed letters against it, highlighting these and other concerns. In response to such criticism, the bill's author published a revision in February 2024. Most notably, the state attorney general changed the enforcement of its “duty of care” provisions to the Federal Trade Commission. Following these changes, many organizations, including the Glaad, the Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor project, have withdrawn their opposition, saying the amendments “significantly reduce the risk of the matter.” [Kosa] It has been misused to suppress LGBTQ+ resources and to curb young people's access to online communities. ”
However, other civil rights groups have maintained their opposition, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the ACLU and the future battle, calling Kosa a “censorship bill” that harms vulnerable users and freedom of speech. They argued that the duty-of-care provision could easily be weaponized by conservative FTC chairmen against LGBTQ+ youth, as well as the state attorney general. These concerns are reflected in the appointment of Republican Andrew Ferguson, Trump's FTC chairman; Who said in the leaked statement He had planned to use his role to “fight the trans agenda.”
Concerns about how Ferguson will manage online content are “what LGBTQ youth wrote and called Congress hundreds of times over the past few years in this fight,” says Saraphilips of the Future Fight. Ta. “The situation they were afraid of has come to fruition. Anyone who ignores it is really just putting their heads in the sand.”
Opponents say that even if KOSA doesn't pass, they've already achieved a calm effect on content available on certain platforms. recently Report User MAG has found that hashtags for LGBTQ+-related topics are classified as “sensitive content” and are restricted from search. Laws like Kosa, Bhatia of the Center for Democracy Technology, said it doesn't take into account the complexity of the online landscape, and it's likely that the platform will lead preemptive censorship to avoid litigation.
“Children's safety holds an interesting and paradoxical position in technology policy, where children benefit greatly from the internet, as well as vulnerable actors,” she said. . “Using policy blunt instruments to protect them can often lead to consequences that don't really take this into consideration.”
Supporters will make backlash at Kosa an aggressive lobbying from the tech industry, but fight for the future – two top opponents – EFF will be supported by large tech donors Not there. Meanwhile, the large tech companies have been split up by KOSA, with X, SNAP, Microsoft and Pinterest quietly supporting the bill, Meta and Google.
After the newsletter promotion
“The Kosa was a very robust law, but what's more robust is the power of big technology,” Fraser is the power of problem 1. “They hired all the lobbyists in town to take it down, and they succeeded with it.”
Fraser added that supporters are disappointed that Kosa didn't pass, but “will not take a break until federal law is passed to protect children online.”
Potential revival of Kosa
Besides Ferguson as FTC Chairman, it is unclear what the changing composition of the new Trump administration and Congress will mean for the future of Kosa. Trump has not directly expressed his views on Kosa, but some of his close circles are Revealed support After last minute amendments to the 2024 bill Promoted by Elon Musk's X.
The death of the Congress in Kosa may seem like the end of a winding and controversial path, but defenders on both sides of the fight say it's too early to write legislative obituaries.
“We shouldn't expect the Kosa to go quietly,” said Prem Trivedi, policy director at the Institute for Open Technology, which opposes Kosa. “Whether it's being reintroduced or seeing if a different incarnation is introduced, it will continue to focus more broadly on online safety for children.”
Senator Richard Blumental, who co-authored the bill with Senator Marsha Blackburn, has promised to reintroduce it in future legislative sessions, and other defenders of the bill say they won't give It’s.
“I want to talk about the worst days of their lives over and over again, in front of lawmakers, in front of staff, in front of the press, knowing something is known. I've worked with a lot of parents who think that, and to change,” Fraser said. “They don't intend to stop.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
Mark Zuckerberg’s Era of Deception: The Battle for Truth on Social Media | Chris Stokel Walker
SSocial media has always served as an entertainment mirror for society as a whole. The algorithms and amplification of our always-on online presence have highlighted the worst parts of our lives while obscuring the best parts. This is part of why we are so polarized today, with two tribes screaming at each other on social media and plunging into a gaping chasm of despair.
This is what makes a statement released by one of the tech giants this week so alarming. Let those who enter give up hope. With less than two weeks until Donald Trump returns to the White House for the second runoff of the US presidential election, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Threads, is making major changes to its content moderation. added. In doing so, it appears consistent with the president-elect's views.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in a bizarre video message posted to his Facebook page on Tuesday that the platform would be eliminating fact checkers. Instead of them? mob rules.
Zuckerberg said the platform: Over 3 billion people The company, which around the world logs on to its app every day, plans to adopt an Elon Musk-style community note format to police what is and isn't acceptable speech on its platform. . Starting in the United States, the company plans to dramatically shift the Overton window to those who can shout it loudest.
Meta's CEO largely acknowledged that the move was politically motivated. “It's time to go back to our roots around freedom of expression,” he said, adding that “restrictions on topics like immigration and gender… […] It deviates from mainstream discourse. ” He acknowledged past “censorship mistakes,” by which he likely meant the past four years of suppressing political speech during the Democratic president's tenure, and added that he “worked with President Trump to ensure that U.S. companies We will prevent foreign governments from attacking the United States.” Please check more. ”
The most dog-whistle comment was that Meta's remaining trust and safety and content moderation teams would be relocated from liberal California, and that its U.S. content moderation arm would now be based in solidly Republican Texas. It was a throwaway line. The only thing missing from the video was Zuckerberg wearing a MAGA hat and carrying a shotgun.
Let me be clear: all businessmen make smart decisions based on political circumstances. And few storms are as violent as Hurricane Trump as it approaches the United States. But few people's decisions are as important as Mark Zuckerberg's.
Over the past 21 years, Meta CEO has found himself a central figure in society. Initially, he oversaw a website used by college students. Now billions of people from all walks of life use it. In the early 2000s, the eccentric pursuit of online fun was nowde facto public town squareIn the words of Elon Musk. Where the meta goes, the world follows, online and offline. And Meta just decided to do a dramatic handbrake right turn.
Please don't believe it. Trust the watchdog. “Today’s Meta announcement is a retreat from a healthy and safe approach to content moderation.” The Real Facebook Oversight Committeesaid in a statement that he is an independent person who sees himself as the arbiter of Meta's movements.
They say that because if there's one thing we've learned from social media polarization over the past decade, it's that the angriest person wins the argument. Anger and lies can spread on social media, and are only partially contained by the platforms' ability to intervene if things get out of hand. (Recall that exactly four years ago, Meta suspended Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram for two years for inciting the violence that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.)
Social networks have always struggled with controlling speech on their platforms. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, what they are sure to do is annoy 50% of the population. These platforms are chronically underinvested in growing their businesses at all costs. Platforms have long argued that effective moderation is a problem of scale, and this is the problem they have created by pursuing scale at all costs.
To be sure, policing online speech is difficult, and the level of content moderation that companies like Meta are trying to operate at doesn't work. But abandoning it completely in favor of community notes is not the answer. Suggesting that it is a rational, evidence-based decision masks the reality. It’s a politically expedient move for someone who this week supported the resignation of self-proclaimed “radical” centrist Nick Clegg as head of global policy. A person who leans toward the Republican Party. He appointed Dana White, CEO of Ultimate Fighting Championship and a close Trump ally, to Meta's board of directors.
In many ways, you can't blame Zuckerberg for bending the knee to Donald Trump. The problem is that his decisions have a huge impact.
This is an extinction event for the idea of objective truth on social media. The creature was already on life support, but one of the reasons it's hanging on is that Meta has decided to fund an independent fact-checking organization to try to keep some elements of social media afloat. This is because he was ambitious. Authenticity and freedom from political bias. Night is day. The top is the bottom. Meta is X. Mark Zuckerberg is Elon Musk. Live out four tumultuous, bitter and unfounded years online.
Source: www.theguardian.com
The strange TikTok cooking oil trend demonstrates the pitfalls of misinformation spread through social media
On TikTok, people claim that pouring castor oil on their belly buttons can cure endometriosis, aid in weight loss, improve complexion, and promote healthy hair. However, it’s important to question the scientific basis behind this viral trend. Castor oil is known for its stimulant and laxative effects, which can be beneficial for treating constipation and inducing labor, although there are more commonly used medications for these purposes.
In addition to its medicinal uses, castor oil is also utilized in cosmetics like lip balms and moisturizers due to its moisturizing and antibacterial properties. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research supporting or refuting the health benefits of applying castor oil to the belly button.
This practice may not make sense from a physiological standpoint, as the belly button served as a connection to the placenta during fetal development, providing oxygen and removing waste products. However, this connection is severed at birth, and oil does not enter the body through the belly button.
While massaging castor oil into the skin may offer temporary relief for certain conditions, such as menstrual cramps, it is not proven to be effective for weight loss or pain relief when taken orally or applied topically. Essential oils have shown to be more effective for aromatherapy purposes compared to unscented oils like castor oil.
Overall, while abdominal massage with castor oil may provide some relief for symptoms like constipation, it is not a substitute for proper medical treatment. It’s important to approach health trends with caution and rely on scientifically proven methods for healthcare.
read more:
Source: www.sciencefocus.com
Ofcom demands social media platforms to adhere to online safety laws
Social media platforms are required to take action to comply with UK online safety laws, but they have not yet implemented all the necessary measures to protect children and adults from harmful content, according to the regulator.
Ofcom has issued a code of conduct and guidance for tech companies to adhere to in order to comply with the law, which includes the possibility of hefty fines and site closures for non-compliance.
Regulators have pointed out that many of the recommended actions have not been taken by the largest and most high-risk platforms.
John Higham, Director of Online Safety Policy at Ofcom, stated, “We believe that no company has fully implemented all necessary measures. There is still a lot of work to be done.”
All websites and apps covered by the law, including Facebook, Google, Reddit, and OnlyFans, have three months to assess the risk of illegal content appearing on their platforms. Safety measures must then be implemented to address these risks starting on March 17, with Ofcom monitoring progress.
The law applies to sites and apps that allow user-generated content, as well as large search engines covering over 100,000 online services. It lists 130 “priority crimes,” including child sexual abuse, terrorism, and fraud, which tech companies need to address by implementing moderation systems.
The new regulations and guidelines are considered the most significant changes to online safety policy in history according to Technology Secretary Peter Kyle. Tech companies will now be required to proactively remove illegal content, with the risk of heavy fines and potential site blocking in the UK for non-compliance.
Ofcom’s code and guidance include designating a senior executive responsible for compliance, maintaining a well-staffed moderation team to swiftly remove illegal content, and improving algorithms to prevent the spread of harmful material.
Platforms are also expected to provide easy-to-find tools for reporting content, with a confirmation of receipt and timeline for addressing complaints. They should offer users the ability to block accounts, disable comments, and implement automated systems to detect child sexual abuse material.
Child safety campaigners have expressed concerns that the measures outlined by Ofcom do not go far enough, particularly in addressing suicide-related content and making it technically impossible to remove illegal content on platforms like WhatsApp.
In addition to addressing fraud on social media, platforms will need to establish reporting channels for instances of fraud with law enforcement agencies. They will also work on developing crisis response procedures for events like the summer riots following the Southport murders.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Why Are People Avoiding Elon Musk’s “Digital Town Square” and Heading for the Blue Sky?
a
Elon Musk’s departure from X resulted in the loss of around 2.7 million active Apple and Android users in the U.S. in a span of two months. In comparison, Bluesky, a competing social media platform, also saw a decline, losing nearly 2.5 million users during the same time frame.
This leak coincided with the exit of several prominent figures, including directors Guillermo del Toro and Mike Flanagan, and actors Quinta Brunson and Mark Hamill. Some, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, still have an X account but are now using Bluesky more frequently.
According to digital market intelligence firm Similarweb, the number of daily active users on X in the U.S. has dropped by 8.4% since early October, from 32.3 million to 29.6 million.
On the other hand, Bluesky has experienced a significant increase of 1,064% since October 6, growing from 254,500 to approximately 2.7 million users. This surge began when Musk started using the @america X handle to promote his pro-Donald Trump super pack and began posting in support of the former president.
Following Trump’s election victory, this trend accelerated further. Within a week of November 5th, Bluesky’s total user count doubled from 743,900 to 1.4 million. A week later, the number doubled again to 2.8 million. Since Musk’s super pack formation on X, the platform’s U.S. active users have increased significantly compared to Bluesky.
Bruce Daisley, a former vice president at Twitter, attributed the shift away from X to Musk’s concept of a “digital town square” and the platform’s evolving nature. He expressed concerns about the rise of extreme views on X under Musk’s leadership.
French journalist Salome Sake, who had a significant following on X, deactivated her account due to harassment and misinformation on the platform. She found Bluesky to be a healthier space and shifted her focus there.
Despite finding a new platform for journalism, Salome believes that the exodus of users from X enables those who spread hate, propaganda, and misinformation online. She emphasized the importance of diverse opinions and critical thinking.
Notable exits from X also include a German football club, St. Pauli, and Werder Bremen, citing the platform’s radicalization and departure from their values. Werder Bremen chose to leave X due to its stance against hate speech and discrimination.
Christoph Pieper, the director of communications at Werder Bremen, highlighted the club’s moral values and commitment to fighting against discrimination. Despite the potential economic impact, the club prioritized its principles over online visibility on X.
Pieper expressed uncertainty about the club’s future on Bluesky but firmly stated that any platform allowing hate speech is not suitable for Werder Bremen. Many other clubs are also considering a transition to Bluesky, signaling a shift away from X.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Illegal Wildlife Trade: The Surprising Ease of Doing Business on Social Media
WWhen the baby parrots were delivered to Alice Soares de Oliveira’s desk, they had no wings and could barely open their eyes. The pair, housed in a dirty cardboard box, were just a month old and showed signs of not feeding well.
The parrot, along with two young toucans who arrived just under a month later, were victims of wildlife traffickers. They were all put up for sale on social media, probably snatched from their mother’s nest by poachers.
They were taken to Soares de Oliveira, a veterinarian. CeMaCAS, Wildlife Conservation Center in a forest on the outskirts of Brazil’s largest city, São Paulo, after being rescued by police surveillance networks on platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp.
Illegal advertising of snakes for sale online in Brazil. Photo: Provided by RENCTAS
Social media has become an important tool for wildlife traffickers, experts say. For example, more people are using Facebook to promote the sale of endangered animals and their byproducts, often switching to messaging apps like WhatsApp to complete the sale.
Report published in October The Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime flagged 477 advertisements for 18 protected animals in Brazil and South Africa alone in three months this year. 78% of this was on social media.
The illegally traded parrot arrives at the CeMaCAS conservation center in poor condition after being rescued by the police. Photo: undefined/provided by CeMaCAS
Simone Haytham, director of environmental crime at the Global Initiative, said traders moved online after authorities cracked down on street markets. “The online space now provides a means for many of the world’s most endangered and most highly protected species to find consumers,” she says. “There’s a huge treasure trove of endangered species available for purchase online, but it’s no easy feat.”
Crawford Allan, vice president of nature crime at the World Wildlife Fund, said the pandemic has “systemized” wildlife crime online. “A lot of the public markets were closing down,” he says. “People couldn’t move, a lot of things went online, and it became the norm.”
Laws regarding the sale of wild animals vary by jurisdiction and species, so social media companies face a difficult situation in determining whether such ads are illegal. Nevertheless, experts say tech companies need to do more to determine when posts are risky.
Global Initiative combines AI technology and human analysis to detect suspicious ads online. The company’s reporting system, part of a project called Eco-Solve, covers Brazil, South Africa and Thailand, and will soon be expanded to India, Indonesia and the UAE.
Richard Scobie, executive director of TRAFFIC, an organization focused on wildlife trafficking, said advertising on social media allows sellers to “circumvent” the law and sell goods without telling buyers where they come from. He says it happens often.
“Companies need to allocate far more resources to regulating how users illegally trade wildlife parts and derivatives on their platforms,” he says. “Social media companies are working to combat illegal transactions on their platforms…but there is much more they can do.”
Some tech companies are taking steps to combat this problem. In 2020, Facebook introduced tags for some search terms to warn users of the dangers of wildlife trafficking, and meta was removed. 7.6 million posts in 2023according to the Coalition Against Online Wildlife Trafficking.
The coalition is a voluntary association that includes most of the major social media companies in the United States and China.
It announced that in 2021, 11.6 million posts were blocked or deleted by members.
Parrots illegally traded after being recovered at CeMaCAS. Photo: undefined/provided by CeMaCAS
WWF’s Alan was a founding member of the federation and continues to oversee its activities. He said tech companies have been receptive to activists’ attempts to clamp down on their activities, but job cuts in the industry are hurting progress.
“As a conservation organization, we always feel that people need to do more, but we also understand that they are dealing with terrorism, child safety and all the evil in the world that flows through social media channels. They have bigger and scarier problems to deal with,” he added.
“I feel that some companies have found a balance. Others haven’t. They’re not working hard enough or they’re inactive for some reason, so they step up and do more. You need to make an effort.”
A spokesperson for Meta, which owns Facebook and WhatsApp, said: “We do not allow activities related to the purchase, sale, lottery, gifting, transfer or trading of endangered or protected species on our services.
“We use a combination of technology, team reviews, and user reports to identify behavior that violates our Terms of Service and respond to valid requests from law enforcement.”
Wildlife trafficking threatens biodiversity and can lead to the extinction of certain species. According to 2023 Forensic Science International articlesapproximately 5,209 animal species are endangered or nearly endangered due to “use and trade.”
Illegal online advertising of macaws for sale in Brazil. Photo: Undefined/Courtesy of RENCTAS
Mr Haytham said: [being advertised for sale online] It is protected as it is on the verge of extinction. They are protected because trade poses a major threat to their survival. ”
Soares de Oliveira of São Paulo believes the birds in his care have a bright future. Veterinarians at CeMaCAS care for hundreds of birds and animals at a time. She is confident that the parrot and toucan will make a full recovery and be released back into the wild.
“They are in the middle of rehabilitation. They are still young so we are monitoring them, but I think they will be able to live a free life in three months,” she says.
Find more coverage of extinction ages here and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on the Guardian app for more nature coverage.
Source: www.theguardian.com
The panic in Silicon Valley over Australia’s social media ban for under-16s
HHello. Welcome to TechScape. Happy belated Thanksgiving to all my American readers. I hope you all enjoy a fun holiday party this weekend. I’m looking forward to baking gritty bunts for the Feast of St. Nicholas. This week in tech: Australia causes panic, Bluesky raises the issue of custom feeds, and we cover the online things that brought me joy over the holidays.
Australia on Thursday passed a law banning children under 16 from using social networks.
My colleague Helen Sullivan reports from Sydney: The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) would prohibit social media platforms from allowing users under the age of 16 to access their services, with penalties of up to A$50 million (A$3,200) for failure to comply. He is threatening to impose a fine of US$ 1,000,000. However, it does not contain any details about how it will work, only that companies are expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that users are over 16 years of age. Further details will be available by the time the Age Assurance Technology trials are completed in mid-2025. The bill will not take effect for another 12 months.
The bill also does not specify which companies would be subject to the ban, but Communications Minister Michel Rolland has said that Snapchat, TikTok, X, Instagram, Reddit, and Facebook are likely to be subject to the ban. YouTube is not included because it is for “important” educational purposes, she said.
The new law was drafted in response to Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying there was “a clear causal link between the rise of social media and the harm it causes to Australian youth mental health.”
Please see the full text here.
***
Opposition to this law is active and diverse.
TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and X are angry. Following the bill’s passage, Mehta said the process was “fast-tracked” and that it would take a long time to hear from young people, the steps the tech industry has already taken to protect them, and existing research on the impact of their social media use. He said he did not consider the evidence.
Australian children are not a significant user base for these companies. According to UNICEF, in 2023, there were 5.7 million people under the age of 18 living in Australia. Facebook reported 3 billion monthly users in 2023. May 2023. There are approximately 370 million Facebook users in India. Even if all Australian children were to leave social media, which is unlikely, the number of users would not decline significantly.
If countries around the world turn their young people away from social media, social media companies will face an uncertain future.
Of concern to tech companies is the precedent set by the new law. Tech companies also fiercely opposed measures in both Australia and Canada that would require them to pay for news content. The issue was not the amount requested, but what happened next. If countries around the world required people to pay for news, the financial burden it would place on Facebook and others would be enormous, as would the responsibility of determining what is news. As countries around the world turn their young people away from social media, social media companies will face an uncertain future. The pipeline of incoming users will dry up.
What tech companies want in Australia is a measure that would require parental consent, but this would be a more vague standard and one that would divide responsibility between companies and users. Mehta and others opposed a 2023 law passed in France requiring parents to approve accounts for children under 15 with far less vigor than Australia’s new law. However, in an ominous sign for Australia’s measures, local French media reports that technical challenges mean the under-15 rule has not yet been implemented. Also, does the parental consent feature work? Data from several European countries shows that it doesn’t. Nick Clegg from Meta said the company’s data shows that parents are not using parental control measures on social networks.
Australian law shows that this is indeed possible in any country. We have seen the laws of one country tilt the global governance of social networks before. In the United States, a law governing children’s privacy passed in 2000 imposed a minimum age of 13 for social media users. Social network privacy policy.
Click here for a comparison of Australia’s social media ban laws with those of other countries.
What do you want from your social feed?
Source: www.theguardian.com
Growing concerns over online beauty filters: Teenage girls express vulnerability on social media
JJust by clicking on the “shiny babe” filter, the teenager’s face was subtly elongated, her nose was streamlined, and her cheeks were sprinkled with freckles. Then, she used the Glow Makeup filter to remove blemishes from her skin, make her lips look like rosebuds, and extend her eyelashes in a way that makeup can’t. On the third click, her face returned to reality.
Today, hundreds of millions of people use beauty filters to change the way they look on apps like Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok. This week TikTok announced new global restrictions on children’s access to products that mimic the effects of cosmetic surgery.
The publication researched the feelings of around 200 teens and their parents in the UK, US, and several other countries and found that girls reported “feelings of low self-esteem” as a result of their online experiences. The announcement was made after it was discovered that the patient was sensitive to
There are growing concerns about the impact of rapidly advancing technology on health, with generative artificial intelligence enabling what has been called a new generation of “micropersonality cults.” This is no small thing. TikTok has around 1 billion users.
Upcoming research by Professor Sonia Livingstone, Professor of Social Psychology at the London School of Economics, will show that the pressures and social comparisons that result from the use of increasingly image-manipulated social media are more psychologically traumatic than viewing violence. They would argue that it can have major health implications. .
TikTok effect filters (left to right): Original image without filter, Bold Glamor, BW x Drama Rush by jrm, and Roblox Face Makeup. Synthesis: Tiktok
Hundreds of millions of people use alternate reality filters on social media every day, from cartoon dog ears to beauty filters that change the shape of your nose, whiten your teeth, and enlarge your eyes.
Dr Claire Pescot, an educationist at the University of South Wales who has studied children aged 10 and 11, agreed that the impact of online social comparisons is being underestimated. In one study, children who were dissatisfied with their appearance said, “I wish I had put on a filter right now.”
“There is a lot of education going on about internet safety, about protecting yourself from pedophiles and catfish. [using a fake online persona to enable romance or fraud]” she said. “But in reality, the dangers are mutual. Comparing yourself to others has more of an emotional impact.”
But some people resist restrictions on the influence they feel is a fundamental part of their online identity. Olga Isupova, a Russian digital artist living in Greece who designs beauty filters, called such a move “ridiculous.” She added that having an adapted face is a necessary part of being “multiple people” in the digital age.
“People live normal lives, but it’s not the same as their online lives,” she said. “That’s why you need a straightened face for your social media life. For many people, [online] It’s a very competitive field and it’s about Darwinism. Many people use social media not just for fun, but also as a place to make money and improve their lives and futures. ”
In any case, age restrictions on some of TikTok’s filters are unlikely to solve the problem anytime soon. 1 in 5 8 to 16-year-olds lie about being over 18 on a social media app. the study Rules tightening age verification will not come into force until next year, Britain’s communications regulator Ofcom has found.
A growing body of research shows that some beauty filters are dangerous for teenagers. Last month, a small survey was conducted among female students in Delhi who use Snapchat. Found Most people report “lower self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy when juxtaposing their natural appearance with filtered images.” A study conducted in 2022 found that the opinions of more than 300 Belgian adolescents who were found to use face filters were associated with the likelihood of accepting the idea of cosmetic surgery.
“Kids who are more resilient look at these images and say, oh, this is a filter, but kids who are more vulnerable tend to feel bad when they see it,” Livingstone said. “There is growing evidence that teenage girls feel vulnerable about their appearance.”
When TikTok’s research partner Internet Matters asked a 17-year-old in Sweden about beauty filters, she replied: The effect should be more similar. ”
Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of Stanford University’s Virtual Human Interaction Laboratory, said more experimental research is needed into the social and psychological effects of the most extreme beauty filters.
In 2007, he helped coin the term “Proteus Effect.” This is a term that describes how people’s behavior changes to match their online avatar. People wearing more attractive virtual selves disclosed more about themselves than those wearing less attractive virtual selves.
“We need to strike a careful balance between regulation and welfare concerns,” he said. “Small changes to our virtual selves can quickly become tools we rely on, such as the ‘touch-up’ feature in Zoom and other video conferencing platforms. ”
In response, Snapchat said it doesn’t typically receive feedback about the negative impact its “beauty lenses” have on self-esteem.
Meta, the company behind Instagram, said it walks a fine line between safety and expression through augmented reality effects. The company said it consulted with mental health experts and banned filters that directly encourage cosmetic surgery, such as mapping surgical lines on a user’s face or promoting the procedure.
TikTok has made a clear distinction between effects such as animal ear filters and effects designed to change one’s physical appearance, with teens and parents voicing concerns about “appearance” effects. said. In addition to the restrictions, it said it would raise awareness among those making filters about “some of the unintended consequences that certain effects can cause.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
Reddit surpasses X as the most popular social media platform in UK
According to the communications watchdog, Reddit, the US online discussion platform, has surpassed X to become the fifth most popular social media platform in the UK. In May of this year, 22.9 million UK adults visited Reddit, compared to 22.1 million on X, as reported by Ofcom.
Reddit, known for its topic-based communities where users engage in discussion threads, experienced a 47% growth in the UK compared to the same period in 2023, making it the fastest-growing large-scale social media platform. This growth led Reddit to overtake LinkedIn and X, claiming the fifth spot in the UK social media platform ranking, with YouTube surpassing Facebook as the top platform with over 44 million adult users.
The increase in organic search traffic on Reddit was attributed to Google’s latest algorithm updates in the first half of 2024, according to Farhad Divecha, managing director of Acuracast. Ofcom suggested that the rise in Reddit’s popularity may also be due to changes in third-party apps accessing content, prompting users to visit the Reddit site. However, Ofcom also raised concerns about Reddit’s promotion of stock market surfacing.
X, on the other hand, has seen a decline in popularity, with an 8% decrease in reach since May last year. Criticisms of X’s content moderation standards have been ongoing since Elon Musk acquired the platform in 2022. The introduction of a rival platform by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta and competition from Threads have added pressure on X.
Ofcom’s annual report on digital habits highlighted the prevalence of misinformation and deepfakes online, with four in 10 UK adults encountering such content. One-third of UK adults lack confidence in distinguishing AI-generated images, audio, or videos.
Source: www.theguardian.com
UNESCO Warns that Online Influencers Require Immediate Fact-Checking Training on Social Media
UNESCO has issued a warning that social media influencers urgently need help in fact-checking before sharing information with their followers to prevent the spread of misinformation online.
A report by UNESCO revealed that two-thirds of content creators fail to verify the accuracy of their material, leaving both them and their followers susceptible to misinformation.
The report emphasized the importance of media and literacy education to assist influencers in shaping their work based on accurate information.
Creators’ susceptibility to misinformation due to low fact-checking practices can have significant implications for public discourse and trust in the media, according to UNESCO.
While many creators do not verify information before sharing it, they often rely on personal experiences, research, and conversations with knowledgeable individuals as their primary sources.
UNESCO’s study revealed that the popularity of online sources, measured by likes and views, plays a significant role in creators’ trust, highlighting the need for improved media literacy skills.
To address this issue, UNESCO is collaborating with the Knight Center for Journalism of the Americas to offer an online course on becoming a trusted voice online, focusing on fact-checking and creating content during elections or crises.
Media literacy expert Adeline Hulin noted that many influencers do not perceive their work as journalism, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of journalistic practices and their impact.
Additionally, UNESCO’s findings indicated a lack of awareness among creators regarding legal regulations, with only half of them disclosing sponsors and funding sources to their audience, as required in some countries.
The survey, involving 500 content creators from various countries, revealed that most influencers are nano-influencers under 35 years old, primarily using Instagram and Facebook, with up to 100,000 followers.
Source: www.theguardian.com
How social media breeds a fear of violence: The desensitization effect
It took around 90 seconds for Liana Montag to witness the violence on her X account. The altercation in the restaurant escalated into a full-fledged brawl, with chairs being smashed over heads and bodies strewn across the floor.
The “Gang_Hits” account features numerous similar clips, including shootings, beatings, and individuals being run over by cars. This falls into a brutal genre of content that is frequently promoted by algorithms and appears on young people’s social media feeds without their consent.
Liana Montag: “It’s normal to see violence.” Photo: Martin Godwin/The Guardian
Montag, an 18-year-old from Birmingham, also active on Instagram and Snapchat, has connected with several other teenagers at the Bring Hope charity in Handsworth. She shared, “If someone mentions they were stabbed recently, you don’t react as strongly anymore. It’s become a normal sight.”
Violent content is becoming more relatable in many cases. Iniko St Clair Hughes, 19, cited the example of gangs filming chases and posting them on Instagram.
“Now everyone has seen him flee, and his pride will likely push him to seek revenge,” he explained. “It spreads in group chats, and everyone knows about the escape, so they feel the need to prove themselves the next time they step out. That’s how it goes. The retaliation gets filmed, sometimes.”
Jamil Charles, 18, admitted to appearing in such video clips. He mentioned that footage of him in fights had been circulating on social media.
“Things can escalate quickly on social media as people glamorize different aspects,” he commented. “Fights can start between two individuals, and they can be resolved. But when the video goes viral, it may portray me in a negative light, leading to a blow to my pride, which might drive me to seek revenge and assert myself.”
All this had a worrying impact, as St. Clair-Hughes pointed out.
“When fear is instilled through social media, you’re placed in a fight-or-flight mode, unsure of how to proceed when leaving your house – it’s either being ahead of the game or lagging behind. You feel prepared for anything… It’s subliminal; no one is explicitly telling you to resort to violence, but the exposure to it intensifies the urge.”
Leanna Reed, 18, shared a story of a friend who started carrying a knife post an argument on Snapchat. While mostly boys were involved, there was also a female acquaintance who carried a weapon.
“It’s no longer a topic of discussion,” she noted. “He who emerges victorious with his weapon is deemed the winner. It’s about pride.”
Is there a solution? St. Clair Hughes expressed pessimism.
“People tend to veer towards negativity… [Social media companies] want us using their platforms, so I doubt they’ll steer towards a more positive direction.”
Reed mentioned hearing about TikTok being more regulated and education-focused in China, leading her to ponder different approaches taken by various countries on the same platform.
O’Shaun Henry, 19, directed a candid message towards social media companies, urging them to utilize their power to make positive changes, especially through AI. Limits need to be set, considering the influence on young individuals. It’s time to introspect, conduct research, and bring about improvements.
Source: www.theguardian.com
UK government is not planning to ban social media for under-16s at the moment, minister states
Ministers have stated that the social media ban for under-16s is not currently being considered, despite teenagers urging a reconsideration of plans to restrict access to platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat following Australia’s example.
Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science and Technology, issued a warning to social media platforms about potential fines and prison sentences for breaching online safety laws coming into effect next year. Efforts are being made to increase prevention of online harm.
During a meeting with teenagers at NSPCC headquarters, Mr. Kyle emphasized that there are no immediate plans to ban children from using smartphones, as it is not his preferred choice.
Teenagers expressed concerns about platform addiction and difficulties in seeking help for hacked accounts or offensive content, but did not call for a ban. They highlighted the importance of social connections, support, and safety.
Mr. Kyle’s initial comments about considering a ban caused worry among teenagers, but he clarified that a ban could be a possibility depending on evidence of its effectiveness, especially in light of similar legislation in Australia.
The main focus remains on preventing child fatalities linked to social media activity, with Mr. Kyle citing instances of tragic outcomes. Efforts are ongoing to enhance age verification software to protect children from inappropriate online content.
After newsletter promotion
Source: www.theguardian.com
MPs Call on Elon Musk to Testify about X’s Involvement in UK Summer Riots | Social Media Involvement
MPs in a parliamentary inquiry into the UK riots and the proliferation of false and harmful AI content are set to call on Elon Musk to testify about X’s role in spreading disinformation, as reported by The Guardian.
Additionally, senior executives from Meta and TikTok, the companies behind Facebook and Instagram, are expected to be summoned for questioning as part of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee’s social media inquiry.
The first public hearing is scheduled for the new year, amidst concerns that current online safety laws in Britain are at risk of being outpaced by advancing technology and the politicization of platforms like X.
Images shared on Facebook and X were reportedly used to incite Islamophobic protests following the tragic deaths of three schoolgirls in Southport in August. The inquiry aims to investigate the impact of generative AI and examine Silicon Valley’s business models that facilitate the spread of misleading and potentially harmful content.
The Chairman of the Labour Party Select Committee, Chi Onwura, expressed interest in questioning Musk about his stance on freedom of expression and disinformation. Musk, the owner of X, has been critical of the UK government and was not invited to an international investment summit in September.
Former Labour Secretary Peter Mandelson has called for an end to Musk’s feud with the British government, emphasizing the importance of not overlooking Musk’s influence in the technological and commercial space.
Despite speculation, it remains uncertain whether Musk will testify in the UK, as he is reportedly gearing up for a senior role in President Trump’s White House. Amidst these developments, millions of X users are said to have migrated to a new platform called Bluesky, raising concerns about misinformation and the presence of previously banned users.
The investigation also aims to explore the connection between social media algorithms, generative AI, and the dissemination of false or harmful content. Additionally, the use of AI to complement search engines, such as Google, will be scrutinized in light of recent instances of false and racist claims propagated on online platforms.
In response to the spread of misinformation and incitement after the Southport killings, Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, has highlighted the need for social media companies to address activity that incites violence or promotes false behavior. New rules under the Online Safety Act will require companies to take action to prevent the spread of illegal content and minimize security risks.
Source: www.theguardian.com
BlueSky ushers in a new era of social media with proprietary algorithms
Bluesky sign-ups continue to grow
Anna Barclay/Getty Images
As a technology reporter, I like to think of myself as an early adopter. I first signed up for the social network Bluesky about 18 months ago, when the platform saw a small spike in users dissatisfied with Elon Musk’s approach to what was then still called Twitter. Ta.
It didn’t stick. Like many people, I found Twitter too tempting and deleted my Bluesky account, but it has returned in recent weeks. I’m not alone. Xodus began as Musk continues to transform his social platform, now called X, while taking on a role in President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration. Blue Sky acquired 12 million users in 2 months which is approaching 20 million users. This time I’m going to stay here – and I think others will too.
The main reason is that I want to have a social media experience without being bombarded with hate speech, gore, and porn videos. All of these have been complaints from X users in recent months. But I also have my eye on Bluesky. Because we think this signals a more fundamental change in how social media works.
Social media algorithms, the computer code that determines what each user sees, have long been a source of controversy. Fears of disappearing down the “rabbit hole” of radicalization, or of becoming trapped in an “echo chamber” of consensual and sometimes conspiratorial viewpoints, have dominated the scientific literature.
Displaying information from followers in chronological order creates a confusing quagmire for the average user to process, so using algorithms to filter information has become the norm. Sorting and filtering what’s important or what’s likely to keep users interested has been key to the success of platforms like Facebook, X, and Instagram.
But by controlling these algorithms, we can have a huge say in what people read. One of the problems many users have with X is its “For you” algorithm. Under Musk, comments by and about him appear to be pushed into users’ timelines, even if they don’t directly follow him.
Bluesky’s approach is not to do away with algorithms, but instead to have more than the average social network. in Blog Posts in 2023 Bluesky CEO Jay Graber outlined the ethos of the platform. Bluesky is promoting a “market of algorithms” rather than a single “master algorithm”, she wrote.
In practice, this means users will be able to see posts from users they follow on the app, and will be Bluesky’s default standard view. But they can also choose to see What is popular among your friends? selects posts that your peers will enjoy based on an algorithm. There is Feed exclusively for scientists curated by people who work in or work in the field. to promote black voices often decimated by algorithmic filtering.
Specifically one feed Promoting “Quiet Posters” – Users who post infrequently and whose opinions are drowned out by users who share all their opinions with their followers.
This menu of options allows Bluesky to serve the dual purpose of bridging the past and future eras of social media. The platform has the potential to function as a “de facto public town square” once it reaches a certain number of users. Musk’s Twitter dubbing before he buys it. Given that X has steered toward excluding many mainstream voices, and competitors like Threads have chosen to avoid promoting politics and current events, perhaps Bluesky will have a place in such a forum. It is probably the only one left.
But beyond feeds, Bluesky lets you tailor the app to your needs through other elements, like a starter pack of recommended users to jump-start your niche, and blocking tools to silence unruly voices. You can also.
No doubt, there are still problems. Finding the right feed for you can be difficult, but creating your own is even more complicated and requires third-party tools. But it’s exciting to be able to see the big picture of public conversations and delve into smaller debates within wider clusters and communities of society. This is a new social media model where users, rather than large corporations or mysterious individuals, control what they see. And if Bluesky continues to add users, it could become the norm. Come with me – I @stokel.bsky.social.
Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology journalist.
topic:
Source: www.newscientist.com
AI’s Perceptions Could Lead to a “Social Disconnect” Among Those Who Disagree
A prominent philosopher has raised concerns about a growing “social disconnect” between those who believe that artificially intelligent systems possess consciousness and those who argue that they are incapable of experiencing feelings.
Jonathan Birch, a philosophy professor at the London School of Economics, made these remarks as governments gear up to convene in San Francisco to expedite the implementation of safety protocols for A.I. Addressing the most critical risks.
Recent predictions by a group of scholars suggest that the emergence of consciousness in A.I. systems could potentially occur as early as 2035, leading to stark disagreements over whether these systems should be granted the same welfare rights as humans and animals.
Birch expressed apprehensions about a significant societal rift as individuals debate the capacity of A.I. systems to exhibit emotions like pain and joy.
Conversations about sentience in A.I. evoke parallels with sci-fi films where humans grapple with the emotions of artificial intelligence, such as in Spielberg’s “A.I.” (2001) and Jonze’s “Her” (2013). A.I. safety agencies from various countries are set to meet with tech firms this week to formulate robust safety frameworks as technology progresses rapidly.
Divergent opinions on animal sentience between countries and religions could mirror disagreements on A.I. sentience. This issue could lead to conflicts within families, particularly between individuals forming close bonds with chatbots or A.I. avatars of deceased loved ones and relatives who hold differing views on consciousness.
Birch, known for his expertise in animal perception, played a key role in advocating against octopus farming and collaborating on a study involving various universities and experts. A.I. companies emphasize the potential for A.I. systems to possess self-interest and moral significance, indicating a departure from science fiction towards a tangible reality.
One approach to gauging the consciousness of A.I. systems is by adopting marker systems used to inform policies related to animals. Efforts are underway to determine whether A.I. exhibits emotions akin to happiness or sadness.
Experts diverge on the imminent awareness of A.I. systems, with some cautioning against prematurely advancing A.I. development without thorough research into consciousness. Distinctions are drawn between intelligence and consciousness, with the latter encompassing unique human sensations and experiences.
Research indicates that large-scale A.I. language models are beginning to portray responses suggestive of pleasure and pain, highlighting the potential for these systems to make trade-offs between different objectives.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Australian Parliament Inquiry does not fully endorse ban on social media for under-16s
A parliamentary committee investigating the impact of social media on Australian society has recommended empowering users to change, reset, and disable algorithms, as well as enhancing privacy protections. However, the committee also proposed a ban on social media use by individuals under 16 years old. No final recommendations have been made yet regarding access to social media.
The inquiry primarily focused on the influence of social media on young people. Both the opposition coalition and the federal government have announced plans to regulate social media for individuals under 16, pending legislation to be introduced in parliament by the year’s end in response to the current usage policy.
One of the 12 recommendations in the final report suggests enabling governments to enforce laws on digital platforms more effectively, creating a duty of care for platforms, and requiring platforms to provide data access to researchers and public interest groups. The report also suggests that users should have more control over their online experiences, understand algorithms, enhance digital literacy education, and submit age-guaranteed technology testing results to Congress.
Although there’s bipartisan support for banning social media access for those under 16, the study suggests that ensuring children’s safety may not necessarily involve outright bans until they reach an appropriate age. It emphasizes the need for collaborative efforts with young people in designing regulatory frameworks impacting them.
The Commission highlights the importance of evidence-based decisions regarding age restrictions and the necessity of involving young people in the policymaking process.
The committee suggests that a blanket ban on social media for certain age groups may not be the optimal solution and underscores the need for comprehensive digital reforms to tackle harmful online practices.
Chairperson Labor MP Sharon Claydon emphasizes the complexity of the issue and the necessity for immediate action to safeguard Australian users.
The Greens propose lifting the review of online safety laws, banning data mining of young people’s information, providing more education, and considering a digital services tax on platforms.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Social media brings back gratitude with the rise of the “What a privilege…” trend
“What a privilege to be able to run in the rain. What a privilege to have a house to clean.” Social media is often criticized for its toxicity, but a new trend is emerging that embraces gratitude.
Posts titled “What a privilege” feature images of everyday activities such as cozy beds (being tired after a long day), travel videos (carrying heavy luggage), and even mundane tasks like cooking dinner. This trend has gained attention on platforms like Instagram and TikTok.
While not as widespread as previous trends, Gratitude 2.0 is gaining popularity with some posts receiving over 200,000 likes. This trend celebrates both simple and luxurious experiences, from commuting to shopping for designer items.
According to lexicographer Tony Thorne, this trend originated from American evangelicals and lifestyle influencers expressing gratitude. It may come across as self-satisfactory and humbly boastful, but it aims to ground people in reality and away from the virtual world created by social media.
Rukiat Ashawe, a junior strategist at Digital Fairy, believes that highlighting ordinary aspects of life resonates well with audiences online. By showcasing the everyday, this trend aims to shift focus from idealized virtual realities to genuine experiences.
After newsletter promotion
Is the internet reshaping the concept of privilege? According to Thorne, platforms like TikTok add nuance to the word and turn it into a powerful symbol that taps into specific moods and attitudes.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Norway Implements New Minimum Age Requirement of 15 for Social Media to Safeguard Children
Norway has set a strict minimum age limit of 15 for social media in its efforts to combat tech companies that are deemed harmful to young children’s mental development.
Prime Minister Jonas Gare Stoer of Norway acknowledged the challenges ahead in this battle but emphasized the need for politicians to intervene to shield children from the influence of algorithms.
The utilization of social media platforms by the industry has been criticized for potentially causing users to become fixated and unstable.
Despite Scandinavian countries already having a minimum age limit of 13, a significant percentage of younger children still access social media, as highlighted by a survey by the Norwegian Media Authority.
The government has pledged to implement additional safeguards to prevent children from bypassing age restrictions, including revisions to personal data laws mandating a minimum age of 15 for consenting to personal data processing on social media platforms and the development of age verification barriers.
Emphasizing the need for protection of children from harmful content on social media, the prime minister spoke of the powerful impact that tech companies can have on young minds. He acknowledged the formidable challenge ahead but stressed the essential role of politics in addressing this issue.
While recognizing the potential benefits of social media in fostering community for isolated children, he cautioned against excessive reliance on algorithms for self-expression, citing the risk of becoming overly focused and detached.
Minister for Children and Families Gjersti Toppe engaged with parents in Stavanger to advocate for stricter online regulations for children as a means of supporting parental decisions in safeguarding their children’s online activities.
The government is exploring methods to enforce restrictions without infringing on human rights, such as potentially requiring bank account information.
After newsletter promotion
Australia has also proposed a social media ban for teenagers and children, with the age limit likely to fall between 14 to 16 years old.
France is currently testing a ban on mobile phone usage in schools for students up to 15 years old, with plans for potential nationwide implementation from January pending the trial’s success.
Source: www.theguardian.com
UK Bill Could Mandate Social Media Platforms to Develop Less Addictive Content for Under-16s
Legislation supported by Labor, the Conservative Party, and child protection experts will require social media companies to exclude teenagers from algorithms intended to reduce content addiction in under-16s. This new Safer Telephones Bill, introduced by Labor MPs, prioritizes reviewing mobile phone sales to teenagers and potentially implementing additional safeguards for under-16s. Health Secretary Wes Street voiced support for the bill, citing the negative impact of smartphone addiction on children’s mental health.
The bill, championed by Labor MP Josh McAllister, is receiving positive feedback from ministers, although there is hesitation around banning mobile phone sales to teens. With backing from former Conservative education secretary Kit Malthouse and education select committee chair Helen Hayes, the bill aims to address concerns about children’s excessive screen time and exposure to harmful content.
Mr. McAllister’s bill, which focuses on protecting children from online dangers, will be debated by ministers this week. The bill includes measures to raise the Internet age of majority to 16 and give regulatory powers to Ofcom for children’s online safety. The proposed legislation has garnered support from various stakeholders including former children’s minister Claire Coutinho and children’s charities.
Concerns about the impact of smartphones on children’s well-being have prompted calls for stricter regulations on access to addictive online content. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer is against a blanket ban on mobile phones for under-16s, there are ongoing discussions about how to ensure children’s safety online without restricting necessary access to technology.
The bill aims to regulate online platforms and mobile phone sales to protect young people from harmful content and addiction. Mr. McAllister’s efforts in promoting children’s digital well-being have garnered significant support from policymakers and child welfare advocates.
As the government considers the implications of the bill and the Online Safety Act, which is currently pending full implementation, efforts to protect children from online risks continue to gain momentum. It remains crucial to strike a balance between enabling technology access and safeguarding children from potential online harms.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Farewell Tinder, Welcome Strava: The Rise of ‘Hobby’ Apps as Social Networks
vinegarFor the past decade or so, Brits looking to meet their soul mate online have relied on two main methods: trying their luck on dating apps, or trying to find the one by friending as many mutual acquaintances as possible on social media.
However, some people have found a third way by using services such as: Goodreads and Strava. They’re using apps to meet the partners they want to spend the rest of their lives with. These couples are turning out to be trendsetters: So-called hobby apps built around activities like running, reading, or watching movies are becoming popular, and not just for romance.
This is all part of a broader movement as people grow tired of the “digital town squares” offered by Twitter/X and other social media platforms. With many abandoning Elon Musk’s social network due to his stance on “free speech” (which some believe “amplifies hate”), competing apps like Bluesky and Threads are seeing a resurgence in user numbers.
While some users have turned to Twitter imitators, others have sought refuge in apps that promise to connect people with common interests. Running app Strava has seen its user base grow by 1.2 trillion users. Growing 20% in a year According to the digital market intelligence company: Sensor Tower. This success led them to add messaging tools to let users keep in touch as well as record their workouts. Ravelry is accessed through a number of third-party apps and has over 9 million users. Goodreads has over 150 million members.
Letterbox is a movie fan’s dream app, where you can check out the latest movies you’ve seen, review and rate them together with other movie fans and famous actors and directors. In March 2020, it had 1.8 million users worldwide, but now Over 14 million users. This summer, Sensor Tower reported that the app had grown its monthly active user base by 55% in a year.
“We think seriously about the tone and tone of everything we do, from community policy to editorial to social media. We want people to experience how we want their experience on Letterboxd to be,” says Gemma Gracewood, the app’s editor-in-chief. “We’re about movies.”
That’s refreshing in a world where politics and culture wars are imposed through algorithms. “Social media users have long turned to niche apps and spaces,” says Jess Maddox, an assistant professor of digital media at the University of Alabama. “Paradoxically, as major platforms like Twitter/X, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram push more algorithmically curated feeds, users may be less exposed to the content they want to see.”
The cozy feel of hobby apps, set up to share passions and pastimes, makes them a calmer place overall than the brusque racism you might encounter if you accidentally tap on X. “It’s a way for people to connect over shared interests,” said social media researcher Dr. Carolina Are at the Digital Citizen Center at Northumbria University. This means that apps can spend less time, effort and money on content moderation and instead focus on improving the overall experience, provided civility remains the number one priority.
“What’s unique about Letterboxd is that it doesn’t have the ‘town square’ that X has. It’s very much a single-channel conversation,” Gracewood says. Comments happen inline. Guardian and observer. This means that performatively reposting content to the main feed and encouraging mass posting is less possible. A similar situation exists on platforms like Goodreads or Strava, where you can communicate and message other users, but you can’t easily publicly denounce them.
Hobby apps are a welcoming place, so people spend a lot of time on them, and they may eventually turn into more of a service than advertised, including finding like-minded people who want to spend some romantic time together.
One reason people are starting to find love on apps that weren’t explicitly designed for that purpose could be that expectations are lowered, making them less sexual. “Dating apps are like dating supermarkets, something you have to do if you want to have any kind of connection,” Are says.
She points out that while dating apps are trying to shake off their reputation as shallow hookup sites, giant photos of users are still front and center to gauge compatibility. “A lot of people are becoming quite disillusioned with the fact that they’re being judged on their appearance,” she says. “In general, there’s a bit of disillusionment with the dating culture that the platforms foster, because it seems very impersonal. It’s all driven by algorithms, and that doesn’t seem to be serving people very well.”
Recent financial data from Match Group, which operates some of the best-known dating services, including Tinder and Hinge, shows that hobby apps are profiting from dating apps. Match’s stock is now trading at nearly $36 per share, down from a peak of more than $175 per share in October 2021. The company said in a statement. 6% reduction in staff . It was discontinued in July due to a decrease in paying users.
But the decline isn’t limited to the gaming giants: A report by Deutsche Bank analyzing the top 200 dating and social connection apps, “Dating: The Dating Debate – Has Saturation Level Been Reached?”, suggests that downloads worldwide are plateauing.
It also helps that hobby apps feel like a more cohesive, friendly community, and not just because the people are nice. Letterboxd has: A “zero tolerance” approach. Explicit or implicit hate speech, racism, homophobia, white supremacy, transphobia, or any other alienating attitudes.
Gracewood says Letterboxd has fewer than 10 staff members who moderate content and typically doesn’t need to step in often: “I don’t know if we’ve benefited from the shifts in culture and mission of other social media platforms, but from day one, we’ve always cared very much about what it means to build an online community and how to keep that community feeling free and welcoming and nice.”
Whether that’s a lighter approach compared to social media apps, TikTok employs 40,000 content moderators worldwide, compared to Meta is 15,000. Whether that will continue remains to be seen. “It seems like every app starts out unmoderated, and then something bad happens and they get heavily moderated,” Allais said. “So, [hobby apps] It’s going to be a similar trajectory.”
-
Chris Stokel Walker: The TikTok boom: China’s dynamite app and the race for social media superpowers (Camberley Press, £9.99). Guardian and observerOrder here The Guardian BookshopShipping charges may apply
Source: www.theguardian.com
Arrest of Telegram founder has implications for regulation of social media companies
vinegarWe've reached a point where the CEO of a major social network is being arrested and detained. This is a big change, and it happened in a way that nobody expected. From Jennifer Rankin in Brussels:
French judicial authorities on Sunday extended the detention of Telegram's Russian-born founder. Pavel DurovHe was arrested at Paris airport on suspicion of misconduct related to the messaging app.
Once this detention phase is over, the judge can decide whether to release the defendant or to charge him or her and detain him further.
French investigators had issued a warrant for Durov's arrest as part of an investigation into charges of fraud, drug trafficking, organized crime, promoting terrorism and cyberbullying.
Durov, who holds French citizenship in addition to the United Arab Emirates, St. Kitts and Nevis and his native Russia, was arrested as he disembarked from a private jet after returning from the Azerbaijan capital, Baku, on Sunday evening. Telegram released a statement::
⚖️ Telegram complies with EU law, including the Digital Services Act, and its moderation is within industry standards and is constantly being improved.
✈️ Telegram CEO Pavel Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently to Europe.
😵💫 It is absurd to claim that the platform or its owners are responsible for misuse of their platform.
French authorities said on Monday that Durov's arrest was part of a cybercrime investigation.
Paris prosecutor Laure Vecuot said the investigation concerns crimes related to illegal trading, child sexual abuse, fraud and refusal to provide information to authorities.
On the surface, the arrests seem decidedly different from previous years. Governments have had tough talk with messaging platform providers in the past, but arrests have been few and far between. Often, when platform operators are arrested, as in the cases of Silk Road's Ross Ulbricht and Megaupload's Kim Dotcom, authorities can argue that the platforms would not have existed without the crimes.
Telegram has long operated as a lightly moderated service, partly because of its roots as a chat app rather than a social network, partly because of Durov's own experience dealing with Russian censors, and partly (as many argue) because it is simply cheaper to have fewer moderators and less direct control over the platform.
But even if a company's moderation team's weaknesses can expose it to fines under laws such as the UK's Online Safety Act or the EU's Digital Services Act, they rarely lead to personal charges, and even less to executives being jailed.
Encryption
But Telegram has one feature that makes it slightly different from its peers, such as WhatsApp and Signal: the service is not end-to-end encrypted.
WhatsApp, Signal and Apple's iMessage are built from the ground up to ensure that content shared on the services cannot be read by anyone other than the intended recipient, including not only the companies that run the platforms but also law enforcement agencies that may be called upon to cooperate.
This has caused endless friction between the world's largest tech companies and the governments that regulate them, but for now, it seems the tech companies have won the main battle: No one is seriously calling for end-to-end encryption to be banned anymore, and regulators and critics are instead calling for messaging services to be monitored differently, with approaches such as “client-side scanning.”
Telegram is different. The service offers end-to-end encryption through a little-used opt-in feature called “Secret Chats,” but by default, conversations are encrypted only enough to be unreadable by anyone connected to your Wi-Fi network. To Telegram itself, messages sent outside of “Secret Chats” (including all group chats, and all messages and comments in one of the service's broadcast “channels”) are effectively unencrypted.
This product decision sets Telegram apart from the pack, yet oddly enough, the company's marketing suggests that the difference is almost the exact opposite. Cryptography expert Matthew Green:
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov continues to aggressively promote the app as a “secure messenger.” issued a scathing criticism He blocked Signal and WhatsApp in his personal Telegram channel, suggesting that these systems were rigged with US government backdoors and that only Telegram's independent encryption protocol could truly be trusted.
Watching Telegram urge people to forego using a messenger that's encrypted by default while refusing to implement a key feature that would broadly encrypt messages for its own users is no longer amusing. In fact, it's starting to feel a bit sinister.
I can't v won't
The result of Telegram's mismatch between technology and marketing is a disappointing one: The company, and Durov personally, are selling the app to people who worry that even the gold standards of secure messengers — WhatsApp and Signal — aren't secure enough for their needs, especially from the U.S. government.
At the same time, if the government were to knock on Telegram's door and ask for information about actual or suspected criminals, Telegram would not have the same security as other services. End-to-end encrypted services could honestly tell law enforcement that they could not cooperate. In the long run, this could easily create a rather hostile atmosphere, but the conversation could also become a general conversation about privacy and policing principles.
Telegram, by contrast, is faced with a choice: cooperate with law enforcement, ignore it, or declare that it will not actively cooperate. This is no different from the choice facing the vast majority of online companies, from Amazon to Zoopla, except that Telegram's user base is the only one that demands security from law enforcement.
Every time Telegram says “yes” to police, it infuriates its user base; every time it says “no,” it plays a game of chicken with law enforcement.
The contours of the differences between France and Telegram will inevitably be swamped in conversations about “content moderation” and supporters will rally around it accordingly (Elon Musk has already weighed in, saying, “#FreePavel“) But the conversations are usually about publicly available material and what X or Facebook should or shouldn't do to moderate the discussion on their sites. Private messaging services and group messaging services are fundamentally different services, which is why mainstream end-to-end encrypted services exist. But by trying to straddle both markets, Telegram may have lost both defenses.
Final Question
My last day at the Guardian is fast approaching and next week's emails will be handed over to you, the reader. If you have a question you'd like an answer to, a doubt that's been simmering in the back of your mind for years, or are just curious about the inner workings of Techscape, please reply to this email or get in touch with me directly at alex.hern@theguardian.com. Ask me anything.
If you'd like to read the full newsletter, sign up to receive TechScape in your inbox every Tuesday.
Source: www.theguardian.com
The enigmatic founder of Telegram: Unveiling the mystery of Pavel Durov, the billionaire innovator
TRussian-born tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov founded wildly popular social networks and cryptocurrencies, amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune, and found himself at odds with authorities in Russia and around the world.
The man, who is just a few months away from his 40th birthday and has been nicknamed “Russia’s Zuckerberg” after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, has now been arrested in France after being detained at a Paris airport this weekend.
The St. Petersburg native rose to fame in Russia in his 20s when he founded VKontakte (VK), a social network that catered to the needs of Russian-speaking users and surpassed Facebook across the former Soviet Union.
After disputes with Russian authorities and an ownership battle, he sold VKontakte and founded a new messaging service called Telegram, which quickly became popular but also became controversial after being criticized for its lack of control over extremist content.
As this drama raged, Durov remained a mercurial and at times enigmatic figure, rarely giving interviews and limiting himself to the occasional cryptic statement on Telegram.
A self-described libertarian, Durov has promoted internet secrecy and message encryption.
He has steadfastly refused to allow moderation of messages on Telegram, where users can post videos, photos, and comments to “channels” that anyone can follow.
Durov, 39, had an arrest warrant out for him in France for allegedly conducting a wide range of criminal activities on Telegram, including fraud, drug trafficking, cyberbullying, and organized crime, including promoting terrorism and fraud.
The investigation has been entrusted to the French national police’s cyber unit and the national anti-fraud office. The suspect was still in police custody on Sunday, according to two sources familiar with the case. He has not been charged with any crime.
In 2006, Durov, a graduate of St. Petersburg University, founded VK, which captivated users despite its mysterious founder.
In an act that epitomized his unpredictable behavior, Durov in 2012 hurled large banknotes at passersby from VK’s headquarters on the roof of a historic bookstore on Nevsky Prospect in St. Petersburg.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Did former Twitter users find what they were seeking on alternative platforms after quitting the app? | Social Media
“Bcontinue
@thread
“This week has felt like sitting on a half-empty train early in the morning as gradually more people board with horror stories of how awful the service is on the other line,” actor David Harewood wrote on Meta’s Twitter/X rival, which, judging by the number of “Hey, how does this work?” questions from newcomers, seems to be seeing echoes, at least in the UK, following last week’s far-right riots.
Newcomers to the thread might be wondering why it took so long. To say Elon Musk’s tenure as owner of the social network formerly known as Twitter and now renamed X has been outrageous would be a criminal understatement. Recent highlights include the unbanning of numerous far-right and extremist accounts, as well as his own misinformation campaign regarding far-right anti-immigrant riots in the UK.
Before Musk bought the company in 2022, few alternatives to Twitter existed, but several have emerged in the past few years. Today, there are the generally left- and liberal-leaning Blue Sky and Mastodon, the right-leaning Gab, and Donald Trump’s Truth Social Network.
But perhaps the biggest threat to X is Threads, in part because it was launched by Meta, the giant behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. But a simple question remains: is Threads any good?
For Satnam Sanghera, an author and journalist, the reason for the move is simple: “This place is corroding the very fabric of British society so I am trying to avoid it as much as possible and hoping it will be regulated,” he explained in a direct message on X. “Systemic abuse has been an issue for me, and for many people of colour, for years.”
But the force behind the switch is not so much the allure of Threads, a popular new social network, but the power to drive people away from X. “Threads has some great things, especially the fact that it links with Instagram, which is probably the most convenient social media platform,” Sanghera says. “But a lot of my loved ones aren’t on it. I’m hoping that will change, or maybe it’s just that it’s time to quit social media altogether.”
The integration with Instagram allows Insta users to open a Threads account with just a few clicks, which seems to have really accelerated Threads’ growth. Threads hit the milestone of 200 million active users earlier this month, just one year after its initial release. In comparison, Bluesky has just 6 million registered accounts and 1.1 million active users, while Mastodon has 15 million registered users, but no public data on active users.
Social media outlet Bluesky is one of X’s current alternatives. Photo: Jaap Arrians/NurPhoto/Shutterstock
“Threads has one big advantage,” says Emily Bell, director of the Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University in New York. “It has a built-in user base of celebrities and athletes. If you really want to kick everyone off Twitter, you can have Taylor Swift, Chapel Rowan, [Italian sports journalist] “Fabrizio Romano”
Bell believes that because all of these users are already on Instagram, it may be easier to attract them to Threads than to convince them to start from scratch with an entirely new social network.
But she says this is a shame, and thinks Threads is a terrible product. “To me, Threads is a platform designed to compete with Twitter, and it feels like it was designed by a company that hates everything about Twitter,” she says. “Threads is boring as hell – presentation, participation, everything.”
From my personal experience trying out Threads for this article, it seems like Meta doesn’t see Threads as a huge, exciting new product that they want new users to use. Having around 88,000 followers on X has always made me hesitant to join other social networks, which is why I’ve never had an Instagram account.
To join Threads, I had to join Instagram first, which took about 24-36 hours because I got some weird error messages while signing up. I finally managed to create a Threads account, but after following five accounts I was limited. A few hours later the limit was lifted, I was able to follow three more accounts, and then I was limited again. I quickly gave up.
Those who found it easy to join the site say that once they were on it, it was more comfortable than X, but that’s mainly for the simple reason that it still has moderation staff and doesn’t actively try to attract the far right.
“Threads have a different vibe because they’re almost always participated in by small, self-organized groups,” says misinformation researcher Nina Jankowitz. “They’re usually want Something different than Twitter/X. It definitely helps that they are actively moderating it and that the site’s leadership is not actively promoting conspiracy theories.”
Both potential rivals to X are keen to differentiate themselves from the original. Meta has said it doesn’t want Threads to focus on news and current events like X. Mastodon is perhaps the most consciously “woke” of the alternatives, with very different norms around content warnings and sharing. As such, Bluesky offers the closest experience to the “rebellious” and playful “old Twitter” that many still miss.
Even some of the early successes on Threads are a bit sceptical about its actual value: Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, has more than 20,000 followers on Threads (166,300 on X), but she confesses that she never actually posts there.
“I just cross-post it to Instagram,” she says, sounding a little guilty. “So I [following] Nothing happens and there is no involvement whatsoever.”
That’s not to say Chrissy has shunned social media: she still posts on X, and is now in a local WhatsApp group with up to 700 members, where her supporters can interact with her directly. While she says she “doesn’t understand” TikTok (“I don’t feel like dancing in public”), she created an account there because “local Asian moms told me that’s where it’s at.”
Chrissie noted that this fragmentation of social media has made her job as a member of Congress more difficult during the recent turmoil: Trying to connect with an audience and provide accurate information is harder on six platforms than it is on one.
Threads’ success may be due to the ease of joining by default: If you use Instagram, it’s the easiest thing to join, and once you’re there, it’s… fine. But if other users seem to be operating on autopilot, they probably are.
“It’s a little bit overloaded here, you’re just in the media and you don’t know what to do,” Creasy says, “and ironically, that’s why I don’t do threads. I know that’s where I get my momentum and that’s where I’m not doing anything.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
Limitations of Social Media Law Exposed by Musk’s Incitement: A TechScape Analysis
What actions can the UK government take regarding Twitter? Should What are your thoughts on Twitter? What interests does Elon Musk have?
The billionaire proprietor of the social network, still officially referred to as X, has had an eventful week causing disruptions on his platform. Besides his own posts, which include low-quality memes sourced from 8chan and reposted fake concerns from far-right figures, the platform as a whole, along with the other two of the three “T’s,” TikTok and Telegram, briefly played a significant role in orchestrating this chaos.
There is a consensus that action needs to be taken: Bruce Daisley, former VP EMEA at Twitter, proposes individual accountability.
In the near term, Musk and other executives should be reminded of their legal liability for their actions under current laws. The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 should be promptly bolstered. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his team should carefully consider if Ofcom, the media regulator frequently criticized for the conduct of organizations like GB News, can effectively manage the rapid behavior of someone like Musk. In my view, the threat of personal consequences is much more impactful on corporate executives than the prospect of a corporate fine. If Musk continues to incite unrest, an arrest warrant could create sparks from his fingertips, though as a jet-setting personality, an arrest warrant could be a compelling deterrent.
Last week, London Mayor Sadiq Khan presented his own suggestion.
“The government swiftly realized the need to reform the online safety law,” Khan told the Guardian in an interview. “I believe that the government must ensure that this law is suitable immediately. I don’t think it currently is.”
“Responsible social media platforms can take action,” Khan remarked, but added that “if they fail to address their own issues, regulation will be enforced.”
When I spoke to Euan McGaughey, a law professor at King’s College London on Monday, he provided more precise recommendations on what actions the government could take. He mentioned that the Communications Act 2003 underlies many of Ofcom’s authorities and is applied to regulate broadcast television and radio, but extends beyond those media.
Simply as section 232 specifies that “television licensable content services” involve distribution “by any means involving the use of an electronic communications network,” this Act empowers Ofcom to regulate online media content. While Ofcom could exercise this power, it is highly improbable as Ofcom anticipates challenges from tech companies, including those fueling riots and conspiracy theories.
Even if the BBC or the government were reluctant to interpret the old law differently, minor modifications could subject Twitter to stricter broadcasting regulatory oversight, he added.
For instance, there is no distinction between Elon Musk posting a video on X about (so-called) two-tier policing, discussing “detention camps” or asserting “civil war is inevitable” and ITV, Sky, or the BBC broadcasting the news… Online Safety Act Grossly insufficient, as the constraints merely aim to prevent “illegal” content and do not inherently address false or dangerous speech.
The law of keeping promises
Police in Middlesbrough responded to a mob spurred by social media posts this month. Photo: Gary Culton/Observer
It may seem peculiar to feel sympathy for an inanimate object, but the Online Safety Act has likely been treated quite harshly given its minimal enforcement. A comprehensive law encompassing over 200 individual clauses, it was enacted in 2023, but most of its modifications will only take effect once Ofcom has completed the extensive consultation process and established a code of practice.
The law introduces a few new offenses, such as bans on cyber-flashing and upskirt photography. Sections of the old law, referred to as malicious communications, have been substituted with new, more precise laws like threatening and false communications, with two of the new offenses going into effect for the first time this week.
But what if this had all happened earlier and Ofcom was operational? Would the outcome have been different?
The Online Safety Act is a peculiar piece of legislation: an effort to curb the worst impulses on the internet, drafted by a government taking a stance in favor of free speech amidst a growing culture war and enforced by regulators staunchly unwilling to pass judgment on individual social media posts.
What transpired was either a skillful act of navigating a tricky situation or a clumsy mishap, depending on who you ask. The Online Safety Act does not outright criminalize everything on the web; instead, it mandates social media companies to establish specific codes of conduct and consistently enforce them. For certain forms of harm like incitement to self-harm, racism, and racial hatred, major services must at least provide adults with the option to opt out of such content and completely block it from children. For illegal content ranging from child abuse imagery to threats and false communications, it requires new risk assessments to aid companies in proactively addressing these issues.
It’s understandable why this legislation faced significant backlash upon its passage: its main consequence was a mountain of new paperwork in which social networks had to demonstrate adherence to what they had always purportedly done: attempting to mitigate racist abuse, addressing child abuse imagery, enforcing their terms of use, and so forth.
Advocates of the law argue that it serves more as a means for Ofcom to impose its promises on companies rather than forcing them to alter their behavior. The easiest way to impose a penalty under the Online Safety Act – potentially amounting to 10% of global turnover if modeled after GDPR – is to announce loudly to customers that steps are being taken to tackle issues on the platform, only to do nothing.
One could envision a scenario where the CEO of a tech company, the key antagonist in this play, stands before an inquiry, solemnly asserting that the reprehensible behavior they witness violates their terms of service, then returning to their office and taking no action.
The challenge for Ofcom lies in the fact that multinational social networks are not governed by cartoonish villains who flout legal departments, defy moderators, and whimsically enforce one set of terms of service on allies and a different one on adversaries.
Except for one.
Do as I say, don’t do as I do
Elon Musk’s Twitter has emerged as a prime test case for online safety laws. On the surface, the social network appears relatively ordinary: its terms of service prohibit the dissemination of much of the same content as other major networks, with a slightly more lenient stance on pornographic material. Twitter maintains a moderation team that employs both automated and human moderation to remove objectionable content, an appeals process for individuals alleging unfair treatment, and progressive penalties that could ultimately lead to account suspensions for violations.
However, there’s an additional layer to how Twitter operates: Elon Musk follows through on what he says. For instance, last summer, after a prominent right-wing influencer shared child abuse images, the account’s creator received a 129-year prison sentence. The motive remains unclear, but the account was swiftly suspended. Musk then intervened:
The only people who have seen these photos are members of the CSE team. At this time, we will remove these posts and reinstate your account.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 26, 2023
While Twitter’s terms of service theoretically prohibit many of the egregious posts related to the UK riots, such as “hateful conduct” and “inciting, glorifying, or expressing a desire for violence,” they do not seem to be consistently enforced. This is where Ofcom may potentially take aggressive actions against Musk and his affiliated companies.
If you wish to read the entire newsletter, subscribe to receive TechScape in your inbox every Tuesday.
Source: www.theguardian.com
The Role of Social Media Violence in UK Riots: Understanding and Addressing the Issue
aAmong those quickly convicted and sentenced recently for their involvement in racially charged riots were: Bobby Silbon. Silbon exited his 18th birthday celebration at a bingo hall in Hartlepool to join a group roaming the town’s streets, targeting residences they believed housed asylum seekers. He was apprehended for vandalizing property and assaulting law enforcement officials, resulting in a 20-month prison term.
While in custody, Silbon justified his actions by asserting their commonality: “It’s fine,” he reassured officers. “Everyone else is doing it too.” This rationale, although a common defense among individuals caught up in gang activity, now resonates more prominently with the hundreds facing severe sentences.
His birthday festivities were interrupted by social media alerts, potentially containing misinformation about events in Southport. Embedded in these alerts were snippets and videos that swiftly fueled a surge in violence without context.
Bobby Charbon left a birthday party in Hartlepool and headed to the riots after receiving a social media alert.
Picture: Cleveland Police/PA
Mobile phone users likely witnessed distressing scenes last week: racists setting up checkpoints in Middlesbrough, a black man being assaulted in a Manchester park, and confrontations outside a Birmingham pub. The graphic violence, normalized in real-time, incited some to take to the streets, embodying the sentiment of “everyone’s doing it.” In essence, a Kristallnacht trigger is now present in our pockets.
A vintage document from the BBC, the “Guidelines Regarding Violence Depiction,” serves as a reminder of what is deemed suitable for national broadcasters. Striking a balance between accuracy and potential distress is emphasized when airing real-life violence. Specific editorial precautions are outlined for violence incidents that may resonate with personal experiences or can be imitated by children.
Social media lacks these regulatory measures, with an overflow of explicit content that tends to prioritize sensationalism over accuracy, drawing attention through harm and misinformation.
Source: www.theguardian.com
The Labour Party Needs to Spread Their Message, Regardless of Their Desires | Social Media
During Keir Starmer’s 2020 Labour leader campaign, his team debated the idea of him leaving Twitter altogether.
Many of Starmer’s close associates wanted to change the party’s direction following a tough election and divisive social media campaigning.
Before Elon Musk took over Twitter, rebranded it as X, and allowed far-right figures back on the platform, there was a noticeable increase in misinformation. The aggressive nature of the platform seemed to fuel a darker side of politics.
Starmer himself has always been wary of Twitter’s usefulness, especially when dealing with difficulties faced by his own MPs. However, the plan to boycott the platform never materialized due to the challenges of being in opposition.
Currently, politicians like Starmer heavily rely on X for communication purposes. Despite criticism, X remains a key platform for making important announcements.
While Labour has a “tweet first” strategy, there are concerns within the government about the sustainability of this approach. Musk recently mocked Starmer on X, spreading misinformation to his large following.
Although government ministers do not explicitly mention X, they acknowledge the problem of misinformation on various platforms including X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and WhatsApp.
Recognizing X’s unique position as a platform used by politicians and journalists, concerns about accuracy and the platform’s owners’ influence in spreading misinformation are growing.
A spokesperson for Starmer condemned Musk’s inflammatory comments and actions on X, emphasizing the need for responsible behavior on the platform.
While Musk may eventually move on from provoking Starmer, the situation poses a challenge for the government. Efforts to work closely with social media companies continue, but further actions under the online safety law may be considered.
As some organizations and MPs reconsider their use of X, the dilemma of balancing the platform’s benefits with its drawbacks persists. The instant access to influential individuals and breaking news sets X apart, making it a difficult platform to abandon.
Despite criticisms and concerns, the importance of X in the political landscape remains undeniable, making it an indispensable tool for communication and information dissemination.
Source: www.theguardian.com
How social media fueled far-right riots in the UK: The role of the polarisation engine
The 1996 Dunblane massacre and the protests that followed were Textbook example of how an act of terrorism mobilized a nation to demand effective gun control.
The atrocity, in which 16 children and a teacher were killed, triggered a wave of nationwide backlash, and within weeks 750,000 people had signed a petition calling for legal reform. Within a year and a half, new laws were in place making it illegal to own handguns.
Nearly three decades after the horrific violence at a Southport dance studio, it has provoked a starkly different response. It shocked many in the UK this week, but experts on domestic extremism, particularly those who look at the intersection of violence and technology, say it’s all too common — and, in this new age of algorithmic rage, sadly inevitable.
“Radicalization has always happened, but before, leaders were the bridge-builders that brought people together,” said Maria Ressa, a Filipino journalist and sharp-tongued technology critic who won the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize. “That’s no longer possible, because what once radicalized extremists and terrorists now radicalizes the general public, because that’s how the information ecosystem is designed.”
For Ressa, all of the violence that erupted on the streets of Southport, and then in towns across the country, fuelled by wild rumours and anti-immigrant rhetoric on social media, felt all too familiar. “Propaganda has always been there, violence has always been there, it’s social media that has made violence mainstream. [The US Capitol attack on] January 6th is a perfect example. Without social media to bring people together, isolate them, and incite them even more, people would never have been able to find each other.”
The biggest difference between the Dunblane massacre in 1996 and today is that the way we communicate has fundamentally changed. In our instant information environment, informed by algorithms that spread the most shocking, outrageous or emotional comments, social media is designed to do the exact opposite of bringing unity: it has become an engine of polarization.
“It seemed like it was just a matter of time before something like this happened in the UK,” says Julia Ebner, head of the Violent Extremism Lab at the Oxford University Centre for Social Cohesion Research. “This alternative information ecosystem is fuelling these narratives. We saw that in the Chemnitz riots in Germany in 2018, which reminded me strongly of that. And [it] The January 6th riots occurred in the United States.
“You see this chain reaction with these alternative news channels. Misinformation can spread very quickly and mobilize people into the streets. And then, of course, people tend to turn to violence because it amplifies anger and deep emotions. And then it travels from these alternative media to X and mainstream social media platforms.”
This “alternative information ecosystem” includes platforms like Telegram, BitTortoise, Parler and Gab, and often operates unseen behind the scenes of mainstream and social media. It has proven to be a breeding ground for the far-right, conspiracy theories and extremist ideology that has collided this week and mobilized people into the streets.
“Politicians need to stop using the phrase ‘the real world’ instead of ‘the online world,'” Ressa said. “How many times do I have to say it? It’s the same old thing.”
For Jacob Davey, director of counter-hate policy and research at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London, it was a “catastrophe”: Recent mass protests in the UK have emboldened the far-right, with far-right figures like Tommy Robinson being “replatformed” on X, while measures to curb hate are being rolled back.
The problem is that even though academics, researchers and policymakers are increasingly understanding the issue, very little is being done to solve it.
“And every year that goes by without this issue being addressed and without real legislation on social media, it’s going to get significantly worse,” Ressa said. “And [Soviet leader] Yuri Andropov said: Design Information [disinformation] “It’s like cocaine. Once or twice it’s okay, but if you take it all the time it becomes addictive. It changes you as a person.”
However, while UK authorities are aware of these threats in theory, in 2021 MI5 Director Ken McCallumsaid far-right extremism was the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the UK, but the underlying technical problems remain unresolved.
After newsletter promotion
It’s seven years since the FBI and US Congress launched an investigation into the weaponisation of social media by the Russian government, and while much of the UK’s right-wing media has ignored or mocked the investigation, Daily Mail This week, a shocking headline was published about one suspicious account on X. The account may be based in Russia and may be spreading false information, but this may only be part of the picture.
And there is still little recognition that what we are witnessing is part of a global phenomenon — a rise in populism and authoritarianism underpinned by deeper structural changes in communication — or, according to Ebner, the extent to which the parallels with what is happening in other countries run deep.
“The rise of far-right politics is very similar across the world and in different countries. No other movement has been able to amplify their ideology in the same way. The far-right is tapping into really powerful emotions in terms of algorithmically powerful emotions: anger, indignation, fear, surprise.”
“And really what we’re seeing is a sense of collective learning within far-right communities in many different countries. And a lot of it has to do with building these alternative information ecosystems and using them to be able to react or respond to something immediately.”
The question is, what will Keir Starmer do? Ebner points out that this is no longer a problem in dark corners of the internet. Politicians are also part of the radicalised population. “They are now saying things they would not have said before, they are blowing dog whistles to the far right, they are playing with conspiracy theories that were once promoted by far-right extremists.”
And human rights groups such as Big Brother Watch fear that some of Starmer’s solutions – including a pledge to increase facial recognition systems – could lead to further harm from the technology.
Ravi Naik, of AWO, a law firm specialising in cases against technology companies, said there were a number of steps that could be taken, including the Information Commissioner’s Office enforcing data restrictions and police action against incitement to violence.
“But these actions are reactive,” Naik said. “The problem is too big to be addressed at the whim of a new prime minister. It is a deep-rooted issue of power, and it cannot be solved in the middle of a crisis or by impulsive reactions. We need a real adult conversation about digital technology and the future we all want.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
UK tech startup secures £5m funding to eradicate hazardous mould in social housing
An innovative British startup focusing on technology to prevent cold and damp in rental homes has received new funding to expand its operations. This comes as landlords are now recognizing the importance of addressing mold issues in older social housing units.
Switchey has raised £5 million, with existing investors AXA IM Aults and Octopus Ventures each contributing. The company aims to use this funding, combined with a previous investment round of £6.5 million led by AXA, to install its technology in 1 million UK social housing units.
Switchey’s technology, utilized by over 130 social housing providers, monitors humidity, temperature, and pressure to prevent mold, lower heating costs, and enhance communication between tenants and landlords.
The quality of social housing has been under scrutiny following the tragic death of a two-year-old who succumbed to mold in his rented flat. Switchy’s CEO Tom Robbins stated that there is a growing demand for improved housing standards, prompting landlords to seek technology-driven solutions.
The company aims to address the disparity in access to cost-saving technology, particularly for those struggling with heating bills. Switchey’s equipment has already made a significant impact, helping families living in unsafe conditions due to damp and mold.
In addition to reducing heating costs and improving housing conditions, Switchey’s technology contributes to environmental sustainability. The company is part of initiatives like the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund to promote energy-efficient solutions.
Revenue at Switchey has doubled over the past three years, reaching £10 million in the last fiscal year. While focused on scalability, the company remains committed to its social and environmental mission.
After newsletter promotion
Edward Kieran, a partner at Octopus Ventures, highlighted Switchey’s focus on social housing and environmental impact. The company has achieved B Corp Status and counts AXA as its largest shareholder.
Founded in 2015 by Adam Hudakowski and Ian Napier, Switchey has connected 35,000 devices in homes to date. The company aims to reach a million homes over the next five to ten years as a tribute to Napier, who tragically took his own life in 2019 but played a crucial role in shaping the company’s vision.
Source: www.theguardian.com
EU accuses Meta of breaking digital law by charging for ad-free social network
According to the European Commission, Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg, has breached the EU’s new digital law with its advertising strategy. This model involved charging users for access to ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram.
Last year, Meta introduced a “pay or consent” system to comply with EU data privacy regulations. Under this model, users could pay a monthly fee to use Facebook and Instagram without ads and with their personal data not utilized for advertising. Non-paying users agree to have their data used for personalized ads during the signing-up process.
The European Commission, the executive body of the EU, stated that this model does not align with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) created to regulate big tech companies. The Commission’s initial findings of the “Pay or Consent” investigation revealed that this model coerces users into consenting to data collection across various platforms. Additionally, users are not given the option to choose services that use less data but are similar to the ad-supported versions of Facebook and Instagram.
The Commission expressed that this alternative does not offer users a comparable less personalized version of the Meta network, forcing them to agree to data integration. To comply with the DMA, Meta would need to launch a version of Facebook or Instagram using less user data.
In response, a Meta spokesperson mentioned that the new model was designed to adhere to regulatory requirements such as the DMA. They highlighted that subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a common business model and were implemented to address various obligations.
After newsletter promotion
The European Commission is required to complete its investigation by the end of March next year. Meta may face fines of up to 10% of its global turnover, amounting to $13.5 billion (£10.5 billion). The Commission recently found Apple guilty of violating the DMA by impeding competition in its app store.
Source: www.theguardian.com
