Anti-social media

One in six of respondents reported being targeted with gender-based or sexual violence on Meta platforms, and 66 percent of respondents said they’ve witnessed harmful content on Meta platforms. The survey defined harmful content as “content that involves direct attacks against people based on a protected characteristic.”

Almost all of the users surveyed—more than 90 percent—said they’re concerned about increasing harmful content, and feel less protected from being exposed to or targeted by harmful content on Meta’s platforms.

Security researchers say Meta and Yandex used native Android apps to listen on localhost ports, allowing them to link web browsing data to user identities and bypass typical privacy protections.

They could ban 53 accounts to protect 24 million people, but choose not to.

Part political thriller, part corporate horror story, and part dark comedy. Wynn-Williams doesn’t just pull back the curtain, she yanks it down, revealing a company run by arrogant, reckless execs like Zuckerberg, Sandberg, and Kaplan, who treat the world as an afterthought while chasing growth at all costs. It’s infuriating, jaw-dropping, and sometimes downright surreal. And she tells it all with wit, clarity, and guts.

Just as the original Bill of Rights protected individual freedoms from government overreach, we need fundamental protections for our digital communities from corporate control and surveillance capitalism.

The rights are:

1. Privacy & Security

2. Ownership

3. Interoperability

4. Algorithmic Control

5. Self-Governance

It could identify when they were feeling worthless or helpless or like a failure, and [Meta] would take that information and share it with advertisers

the company was letting advertisers know when the teens were depressed so they could be served an ad at the best time. As an example, she suggested that if a teen girl deleted a selfie, advertisers might see that as a good time to sell her a beauty product as she may not be feeling great about her appearance. They also targeted teens with ads for weight loss when young girls had concerns around body confidence

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/32280023

Three young children huddle in front of a camera, cross-legged and cupping their hands. “Please support me. We are very poor,” says a boy, staring down the lens.

They appear to be in a mud-brick hut in Afghanistan, living in extreme poverty. But their live stream is reaching viewers in the UK and worldwide – via TikTok Live.

For hours, they beg for virtual “gifts” that can later be exchanged for money. When they get one, they clap politely. On another live stream, a girl jumps up and shouts: “Thank you, we love you!” after receiving a digital rose from a woman in the US, who bought it from TikTok for about 1p. By the time it’s cashed out it could be worth less than a third of a penny.

TikTok says it bans child begging and other forms of begging it considers exploitative, and says it has strict policies on users who go live.

But an Observer investigation has found the practice widespread. Begging live streams are actively promoted by the algorithm and TikTok profits from the content, taking fees and commission of up to 70%.

Olivier de Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, called the trend a “shocking development” and accused TikTok and middlemen of “profiting from people’s misery”. “Taking a cut of people’s suffering is nothing short of digital predation. I urge TikTok to take immediate action and enforce its own policies on exploitative begging and seriously question the ‘commission’ it is taking from the world’s most vulnerable people,” he said.

Jeffrey DeMarco, digital harm expert at Save the Children, said: “The documented practices represent significant abuses and immediate action must be taken to ensure platforms no longer allow, or benefit directly or indirectly, from content such as this.”

[...]

Yaaaass

Excellent article by @[email protected] highlighting how Musk draws on experiences from Twitter in his ongoing destruction of the US state aparatus.

Behind paywall, but the author shared an excellent thread on Mastodon containing large parts of the article as attached screenshots.

Edit: This seems to have been caused by some sort of algorithm censoring certain trending hashtags, not bootlicking admins. More info here: https://floss.social/@admin/114041922033317834

In a reminder that you don't have to be a billionaire to be a bootlicker, and that one needs to remain critical also while on the Fediverse, floss.social is blocking anti-fascist hashtags.

[I have chosen to redact this toot - the user deleted their post in response to admins clarifying what happened, so out of respect I remove this copy as well. The gist was that users could not post toots containing #antifa or #noAfD]

https://floss.social/@OddDev/114040886

I realize this might be slightly outside of the topic of this community ("Dedicated to antisocial behavior of social media corporations"), but I think it's important enough to nevertheless be of relevance.

With apologies for my bootlicker comment. Though we need to remain critical on the Fediverse, the lesson here might also be that we also need to be charitable and not jump too quickly to conclusions—which I just made myself guilty of. :)

It's interesting how Instagram (allegedly) accidentally banned #democrat after the US election, and now a similar problem was identified on a major Mastodon instance before the German election.

Most online debate is actively harmful to our thinking. Every hour spent arguing on Twitter is an hour we could have spent reading a book, writing an essay, or having a genuine discussion in a better environment.

The Internet promised us a marketplace of ideas. Instead, we built a gladiatorial arena where ideas go to die—time to find better places to think.

When was the last time you participated in an election for an online group chat or sat on a jury for a dispute about a controversial post? Platforms nudge users to tolerate nearly all-powerful admins, moderators, and “benevolent dictators for life.” In Governable Spaces, Nathan Schneider argues that the internet has been plagued by a phenomenon he calls “implicit feudalism”: a bias, both cultural and technical, for building communities as fiefdoms. The consequences have spread far beyond online spaces themselves. Feudal defaults train us to give up on our communities’ democratic potential, inclining us to be more tolerant of autocratic tech CEOs and authoritarian politicians. But online spaces could be sites of a creative, radical, and democratic renaissance. Schneider shows how the internet can learn from governance legacies of the past to become a more democratic medium, responsive and inventive unlike anything that has come before.

I found this to be a great write-up on how social media enables fascism by providing a sense of false agency: Posting online we feel like we are doing something, and we end up wasting our time shouting in a void rather than actually resisting.

Many of my journalist colleagues have attempted to beat back the tide under banners like “fighting disinformation” and “accountability.” While these efforts are admirable, the past few years have changed my own internal calculus. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Hannah Arendt warned us that the point of this deluge is not to persuade, but to overwhelm and paralyze our capacity to act. More recently, researchers have found that the viral outrage disseminated on social media in response to these ridiculous claims actually reduces the effectiveness of collective action. The result is a media environment that keeps us in a state of debilitating fear and anger, endlessly reacting to our oppressors instead of organizing against them.

And no amount of corporate jargon or performative masculinity can make that stain go away.

At a moment when Zuckerberg's focus is clearly on sucking up to the Trump administration, Instagram goes the extra mile to block hashtags like #democrat and #democrats from Instagram.

Officially it's a mistake, with some tool from the company giving the following statement:

We're aware of an error affecting hashtags across the political spectrum and we are working quickly to resolve it.

Despite their claim to affect "across the political spectrum", the "problem" seems to affect both #democrat and #democrats, but neither the hashtags #republican nor #republicans.

Here's a video of said behaviour documented by a PeerTube user (@[email protected]):

https://peertube.doesstuff.social/w/f8c84bb5-3dec-45a1-b833-3b3f0736c4e8

Critics of zuckermuskian media claim those services are so terrible because they're for-profit entities, capitalist enterprises hitched to the logic of extraction and profit above all else. The problem with this claim is that it doesn't explain the changes to these services. After all, the reason so many of us got on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram is because they used to be a lot of fun. They were useful. They were even great at times.

They replicate bias, entrench inequalities, and distort institutional aims. They devalue much of what makes us human: our capacities to exercise discretion, act spontaneously, and reason in ways that can’t be quantified. And far from being objective or neutral, technical decisions made in system design embed the values, aims, and interests of mostly white, mostly male technologists working in mostly profit-driven enterprises. Simply put, these tools are dangerous; in O’Neil’s words, they are “weapons of math destruction.”

The first half of the article goes over the problems we know well but in the second half there are some proposed solutions.

The WEF surveyed hundreds of experts worldwide and found that false and misleading content is seriously harming the geopolitical environment in a number of ways.

It enables foreign entities to affect voter intentions, it can sow doubt among the public about what is happening in conflict zones, and it can be used to tarnish the image of products or services from another country.

It's the second year in a row that misinformation has been listed as the biggest global risk.

We Want Your Soul by Adam Freeland

Meta—the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp—has just hired Dustin Carmack, a former adviser to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s doomed presidential campaign and an ex–Project 2025 employee.