ReportWire

Tag: iab-social networking

  • Twitter deletes controversial new policy banning links to other social platforms | CNN Business

    Twitter deletes controversial new policy banning links to other social platforms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter deleted its controversial new policy on Sunday evening that had banned links to certain other social media platforms, less than 24 hours after the policy’s initial introduction.

    The development comes shortly after company owner Elon Musk launched a Twitter poll asking users whether he should step down as head of the platform. That poll is set to conclude early Monday morning.

    Following an immense backlash against the policy, Twitter removed the blog post that had outlined which rival sites users would be prohibited from tweeting links to, including Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon and Truth Social.

    It also deleted a tweet thread from its @TwitterSupport account that had announced the policy earlier in the day.

    Another company Twitter account, @TwitterSafety, is now running a poll asking users whether the platform should “have a policy preventing the creation of or use of existing accounts for the main purpose of advertising other social media platforms.” That poll is set to conclude Monday at 9 pm Eastern time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk says he will step down as Twitter CEO if voted out by a poll he tweeted | CNN Business

    Elon Musk says he will step down as Twitter CEO if voted out by a poll he tweeted | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter’s mercurial new boss may be out the door after less than two months on the job, if results of a Twitter poll go against him.

    Elon Musk tweeted a poll Sunday evening asking people to vote on whether he should step down as Twitter’s CEO. Musk said he would abide by the poll’s results.

    As of Sunday evening, “Yes” was winning by a margin of 58% to 42%.

    In several follow-up tweets, Musk suggested that he was serious about leaving and made a vague threat about Twitter’s future if he is voted out.

    “As the saying goes, be careful what you wish, as you might get it,” Musk tweeted.

    Since buying Twitter for $44 billion and taking over as CEO in late October, Musk has journeyed from one controversy to the next.

    A brief and incomplete recap:

    – Musk immediately laid off several top executives and laid off about half of Twitter’s staff.
    – He then gave an ultimatum to the remaining staff that they need to do “extremely hardcore” work or leave — and another thousand or so employees headed out the door.
    – Musk has fired employees who openly disagreed with him and publicly named and shamed former employees who were engaged in difficult moderation discussions as part of the ongoing “Twitter Files.”
    – Musk has also started, stopped and started again a revised verification system that costs $8 for a blue check mark and initially led to widespread account spoofing.
    – Musk has frequently changed Twitter’s rules by executive fiat and with no notice, banning people who violate the new rules — including several tech journalists and an account that tracked his jet. Musk had once tweeted that allowing the ElonJet account to remain on Twitter demonstrated his commitment to free speech on the platform.
    – He has waded deeply into the culture wars, allowing some of the platform’s permanently banned accounts back on, including former President Donald Trump and many people who had been engaged in misinformation, conspiracy theories or hate speech.

    Meanwhile, brands have been removing their advertising from Twitter left and right. Musk has frequently stated that Twitter’s finances are dire.

    Replying to a tweet Sunday, in which MIT artificial intelligence researcher Lex Fridman said he would take the CEO job, Musk hinted he hasn’t been completely happy with his new gig.

    “You must like pain a lot,” Musk tweeted, noting the company “has been in the fast lane to bankruptcy since May.”

    Yet Musk denied that he has a new CEO in mind.

    “No one wants the job who can actually keep Twitter alive. There is no successor,” Musk tweeted. “The question is not finding a CEO, the question is finding a CEO who can keep Twitter alive.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Twitter bans links to other social media sites, including Facebook and emerging rivals | CNN Business

    Elon Musk’s Twitter bans links to other social media sites, including Facebook and emerging rivals | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter will ban links to other social media services and suspend accounts that try to direct Twitter users to alternative platforms, the company announced Sunday, in an apparent attempt to stem user defections to competitors.

    Under the new policy, links to content on Facebook and Instagram are prohibited, as well as links to content on emerging Twitter alternatives, including Mastodon and Post. The rule also covers Truth Social, the Twitter clone backed by former President Donald Trump.

    Twitter’s move signals a shift toward a more closed environment, one that still accepts incoming traffic from other sites but makes it more difficult for users to leave Twitter’s website for other destinations.

    “Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post,” Twitter’s support account tweeted.

    Despite the bans, Twitter says it will still “allow paid advertisement/promotion for any of the prohibited social media platforms.”

    Notably absent from the list is TikTok, one of the internet’s fastest-growing social media platforms whose links to China have sparked national security concerns among US policymakers. Musk’s own significant stake in China through his other company, Tesla, have raised doubts among critics as to whether the CEO would stand up to China if the country’s leaders sought to apply pressure on Twitter.

    Twitter’s announcement prompted confusion from the platform’s former CEO, Jack Dorsey, who replied: “Why?” Dorsey followed up with: “doesn’t make sense.”

    The policy change comes after some Twitter users announced their intention to move to other platforms last week, in the wake of Twitter’s suspension of a number of journalists who cover Musk. Amid the backlash to the journalists suspensions, Twitter quietly began blocking links to Mastodon.

    Now, that practice has been formalized into official Twitter policy, a move that could further raise eyebrows among Twitter’s regulators.

    As part of Twitter’s new policy, users may not “link out” to social media platforms subject to the restrictions. Users are also prohibited from updating their Twitter profiles to include their account names on other platforms, a way to inform followers where they might be found elsewhere on social media.

    For example, posting encouragement to “follow me @username on Instagram” or “username@mastodon.social” is restricted, Twitter said in a blog post.

    Attempts to circumvent that policy will also be enforced against, the company said. For example, use of link-shortening services to obscure the true destination of a URL or attempts to spell out a URL in plain text will also run afoul of Twitter’s rules, the company said.

    “If violations of this policy are included in your bio and/or account name, we will temporarily suspend your account and require changes to your profile to no longer be in violation,” the blog post said. “Subsequent violations may result in permanent suspension.”

    First offenses or isolated incidents may result in temporary suspensions or requirements that users delete the violating content, Twitter said.

    Users may continue to use third-party software to simultaneously publish their social media content to multiple sites, including Twitter, the company said.

    Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, as well as Truth Social’s parent Trump Media & Technology Group, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The real revelation from the ‘Twitter Files’: Content moderation is messy | CNN Business

    The real revelation from the ‘Twitter Files’: Content moderation is messy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Before then-President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter after the Capitol riot last January, there was a debate among some employees about what to do with the company’s most prominent and controversial user.

    Some employees questioned whether Trump’s final tweets on the platform actually violated the company’s policies, according to internal documents. Others asked if the tweets could be considered veiled (or “coded”) efforts to dodge Twitter’s rules and requested research to better understand how users might interpret them.

    The high-stakes debate among several employees, including several top execs, was revealed earlier this week in the latest edition of the “Twitter Files,” a tranche of internal company documents provided to and tweeted out by several journalists unaffiliated with major news organizations. The releases so far have focused on some of the social media company’s most high-profile, and controversial, content moderation decisions.

    The Twitter Files reports appear aimed at calling into question the integrity of Twitter’s former leadership and riling up the right-leaning user base that new owner Elon Musk has increasingly courted. The latest release, for example, appeared to imply that Twitter executives had sidestepped the platform’s rules when deciding to ban Trump and instead sought a justification to support a partisan decision they’d already made. That interpretation, while not fully supported by the documents, was echoed by Musk, who has cheered and seemingly sanctioned the release of the documents. But outside of Musk’s core base, reaction to the Twitter Files, which provide little new insight into the company’s policy and decision-making, has been largely muted.

    Strip away the spectacle and partisan discord and what the Twitter Files show is something that is arguably both far less explosive but nonetheless should give all users pause, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. In the absence of meaningful coordination or government oversight, a select few powerful tech platforms are left to make incredibly impactful and difficult decisions around content moderation — and, even when well intentioned, the people at these companies often struggle with how messy that process can be.

    In moments of crisis, platforms are generally on their own to determine how to weigh sometimes competing priorities — protecting speech versus protecting users — and often under immense public scrutiny and with pressure to act quickly. These companies have created extensive platform guidelines, set up content moderation councils, partnered with fact-checkers and invested heavily in artificial intelligence, but at the end of the day, it can still just be a group of employees trying to sort through unprecedented decisions such as whether or not to ban a sitting US president.

    “There’s no decision that’s cost free,” said Matt Perault, tech policy consultant and professor at University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science. “The challenge is that any decision [social media companies] make, including the decision not to act, will have consequences and they need to figure out which consequences they’re comfortable with … I do think it is much harder than most people seem to think it would be.”

    The process doesn’t necessarily always yield the right result. Former Twitter head of trust and safety Yoel Roth has acknowledged the company may not have made the right call in how to handle the 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. And Twitter founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey reiterated in an online post Tuesday that he believes the company acted wrongly in removing Trump’s account.

    “We did the right thing for the public company business at the time, but the wrong thing for the internet and society,” Dorsey wrote, although he added, “I continue to believe there was no ill intent or hidden agendas, and everyone acted according to the best information we had at the time. Of course mistakes were made.”

    Monday’s Twitter Files released from journalist Bari Weiss appeared to present screenshots showing Twitter employees debating how to handle Trump’s tweets in the wake of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack as proof that the company’s leadership wanted to sidestep its rules to ban Trump. But the screenshots could also be interpreted as showing a group of employees challenging each other to find the best possible way to apply the company’s rules during a critical moment that no one could have perfectly prepared for.

    The process of involving multiple staffers and teams and relying on research for high-profile decisions does not appear out of line with how Twitter and other social platforms make content moderation decisions, especially in crisis situations.

    “This is how the whole process went … this is not really out of the ordinary,” one former Twitter executive told CNN, noting that the various teams involved in content decisions would push each other to consider context and information they might not have thought of as they worked through how to handle difficult issues. “I think these conversations look like people were trying to be really thoughtful and careful,” the former executive said.

    It’s not just Twitter that wrestles with tough decisions, including around Trump. Meta also had a monthslong back-and-forth with its internal team and its external oversight board about its own decision to suspend Trump on Facebook and Instagram.

    The Files also point to several instances in which Twitter leaders changed, or considered changing, the company’s policies as evidence that they had ulterior motives. For example, there was a screenshot of a Slack message from an unnamed employee the day after Trump’s ban discussing a desire to address medical misinformation and “getting to a place of improved maturity in how our policies are actualized.” But examining emergent concerns and considering whether they might require new or updated policies seems to be precisely the job of social media trust and safety teams.

    The “Twitter Files” threads appear to have been written “with a very clear agenda,” the former executive said. “What they seem to have missed … is just how much power and influence was sitting on the shoulders of a very small number of people.”

    Even Dorsey in his Tuesday night post called for a radical overhaul of how social media works that would involve taking away the power of big social media platforms, including the one he co-founded. “I generally think companies have become far too powerful,” Dorsey said. He added that he is pushing for the growth of decentralized social media that is not controlled by any one corporation or individual, and where users can choose their own forms of content moderation.

    Still, the Twitter Files reports show just how many of the company’s employees and teams were involved in the deliberations over difficult content decisions. According to the former Twitter executive, that was by design. “Twitter’s process was designed to make sure that the decision doesn’t come down to just one person,” they said. “The alternative is that you wait until Jack Dorsey decides he doesn’t like somebody and you take it down.”

    And despite the often-charged rhetoric about the people making content decisions at social media companies, “the people who do this work are thoughtful, are skilled,” Perault said. “They’re deeply connected to the technology, to the products, to the social implications of their products.”

    The process under Musk now appears to be much different — the new Twitter owner has fired many of the employees that had been responsible for safety on the platform, he’s used easily-manipulated Twitter polls to justify major content rulings, he’s done away with Twitter’s council of outside trust and safety experts and he’s based at least one decision on who to allow on the platform on his personal feelings.

    It’s hard to argue that process isn’t messy, too.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republican congressman falsely claims Democratic congresswoman said pedophilia isn’t a crime | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republican congressman falsely claims Democratic congresswoman said pedophilia isn’t a crime | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    On Thursday afternoon, Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas accused Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of California of having said that “pedophilia isn’t a crime.”

    But Porter did not say that. Jackson, like some conservative Twitter personalities, was wrongly describing Porter’s remarks.

    Jackson has more than 500,000 followers on Twitter. Here’s what he tweeted: “Katie Porter just said that pedophilia isn’t a crime, she said it’s an ‘identity.’ THIS IS THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL! The sad thing is that this woman isn’t the only VILE person pushing for pedophilia normalization. This is what progressives believe!”

    Facts First: Jackson’s claim is false. Porter did not say that pedophilia isn’t a crime. Full video from a congressional hearing on Wednesday shows that Porter actually said that LGBTQ people are being falsely smeared on social media as being a “groomer” or “pedophile” merely because of their gender identity and sexual orientation. She did not defend pedophilia itself.

    In other words, Porter is being baselessly described as a supporter of pedophilia over comments in which she was denouncing how other people are being baselessly described as pedophiles.

    Jackson’s spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday afternoon.

    Porter made her remarks during a Wednesday hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee that was focused on violence and hate directed at lesbian, gay and transgender Americans. Porter was speaking to Kelley Robinson, president of an advocacy group called the Human Rights Campaign, about the group’s report on tweets the group said “mention the LGBTQ+ community alongside slurs such as ‘groomer’, ‘predator’ and ‘pedophile’.”

    Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange, which can be viewed at the 2:49:30 mark of this video.

    Porter: I wanted to start with Ms. Robinson, if I could. Your organization recently released a report analyzing the 500 most viewed, most influential tweets that identified LGBTQ people as so-called ‘groomers.’ The ‘groomer’ narrative is an age-old lie to position LGBTQ+ people as a threat to kids. And what it does is deny them access to public spaces, it stokes fear, and can even stoke violence. Ms. Robinson, according to its own hateful content policy, does Twitter allow posts calling LGBTQ+ people ‘groomers’?

    Robinson: No. I mean, Twitter, along with Facebook and many others, have community guidelines. It’s about holding users accountable to those guidelines, and acknowledging that when we use phrases and words like ‘groomers’ and ‘pedophiles’ to describe people – individuals in our communities that are mothers, that are fathers, that are teachers, that are doctors – it is dangerous. And it’s got one purpose. It is to dehumanize us. And make us feel like we are not a part of this American society. And it has real-life consequences. So we are calling on social media companies to uphold their community standards. And we’re also calling on any American that’s seeing this play out to hold ourselves and our community members accountable. We wouldn’t accept this in our families, we wouldn’t accept this in our schools. There’s no reason to accept it online.

    Porter: So – I mean, I think you’re absolutely right. And it’s not – this allegation of ‘groomer’ and of ‘pedophile,’ it is alleging that a person is criminal somehow, and engaged in criminal acts, merely because of their identity, their sexual orientation, their gender identity. So this is clearly prohibited under Twitter’s content. Yet you found hundreds of these posts on the platform.

    Nowhere did Porter say that pedophilia isn’t a crime. And the context of the exchange makes clear that she was criticizing false accusations of pedophilia that are based on a person’s identity, not saying that pedophilia is itself an identity.

    Inaccurate descriptions of Porter’s remarks spread on Twitter on Thursday with the help of videos that left out key parts of what she said.

    Jackson’s tweet used similar language as tweets earlier in the day from some other prominent accounts. For example, an account called Libs of TikTok, which has more than 1.6 million Twitter followers, wrote: “Rep Katie Porter (D) says pedophilia isn’t a crime – it’s an identity.”

    But the video that Libs of TikTok posted in support of this claim, which came from yet another conservative account, did not show the full exchange between Porter and Robinson. Specifically, it omitted Porter’s key initial comments – the ones in which she said she was talking about tweets “that identified LGBTQ people as so-called ‘groomers’” and in which she described the “groomer” accusation as “an age-old lie to position LGBTQ+ people as a threat to kids.” It also left out Robinson’s reply, in which Robinson also made clear that they were talking about groundless smears.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Twitter bans CNN, NYT, WaPo journalists without explanation | CNN Business

    Elon Musk’s Twitter bans CNN, NYT, WaPo journalists without explanation | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter on Thursday evening banned the accounts of several high-profile journalists from top news organizations without explanation, apparently marking a significant attempt by new owner Elon Musk to wield his unilateral authority over the platform.

    The accounts belonging to CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, The New York Times’ Ryan Mac, The Washington Post’s Drew Harwell and other journalists who have covered Musk aggressively in recent weeks were all abruptly permanently suspended. The account of progressive independent journalist Aaron Rupar was also banned.

    Neither Musk nor Twitter responded to a request for comment Thursday evening, and the platform did not explain precisely why the journalists were exiled from the platform.

    Musk falsely claimed that the journalists had violated his new “doxxing” policy by sharing his live location, amounting to what he described as “assassination coordinates.” CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan did not share the billionaire’s live location.

    Shortly before his suspension, O’Sullivan reported on Twitter that the social media company had suspended the account of an emerging competitive social media service, Mastodon, which has allowed the continued posting of @ElonJet, an account that posts the updated location of Musk’s private jet.

    Other reporters suspended Thursday had recently written about the account.

    Doxxing refers to the practice of sharing someone’s home address or other personal information online. The banned account had instead used publicly available flight data, which remain online and accessible, to track Musk’s jet.

    The bans raise a number of questions about the future of the platform, which has been referred to as a digital town square. It also called into serious question Musk’s supposed commitment to free speech.

    Musk has repeatedly said he would like to permit all legal speech on the platform. In April, on the same day he announced he would purchase Twitter, he had tweeted: “I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means.”

    A CNN spokesperson said the company has asked Twitter for an explanation, and it would “reevaluate our relationship based on that response.”

    “The impulsive and unjustified suspension of a number of reporters, including CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, is concerning but not surprising. Twitter’s increasing instability and volatility should be of incredible concern for everyone who uses Twitter,” the spokesperson said.

    A New York Times spokesperson called the mass bans “questionable and unfortunate,” adding: “Neither The Times nor Ryan have received any explanation about why this occurred. We hope that all of the journalists’ accounts are reinstated and that Twitter provides a satisfying explanation for this action.”

    “Elon says he is a free speech champion and he is banning journalists for exercising free speech,” Harwell told CNN on Thursday. “I think that calls into question his commitment.”

    Rupar, too, said he had heard “nothing” from Twitter about the suspension.

    Several organizations condemned Twitter’s decision, with the head of the American Civil Liberties Union saying: “It’s impossible to square Twitter’s free speech aspirations with the purging of critical journalists’ accounts.”

    The president of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) said in a statement it was “concerned” about the suspensions, and that the move “affects all journalists.”

    The @ElonJet account, which had amassed more than 500,000 followers, was permanently suspended Wednesday after Twitter introduced a set of new policies banning accounts that track people’s live locations. Musk also blocked any account linking to such information. Previously, there were no location sharing-related restrictions on Twitter.

    The changes came after Musk reinstated previous Twitter rule-breakers and stopped enforcing the platform’s policies prohibiting Covid-19 misinformation.

    “I do think this is very important for the potential chilling impact this can have for freelance journalists, independent journalists around the world, particularly those who cover Elon Musk’s other companies, like Tesla and SpaceX,” O’Sullivan told CNN Thursday after his account was suspended.

    As the furor over the account suspensions unfolded, some Twitter users reported the platform had begun intervening when they attempted to post links to their own profiles on alternative social networks, including Mastodon.

    Those reports were confirmed Thursday evening by a CNN reporter who was blocked from sharing a Mastodon profile URL and was given an automated error message that said Twitter or its partners had identified the site as “potentially harmful.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk says Twitter is rolling out a new feature that will flag ‘shadowbanning.’ It’s complicated | CNN Business

    Elon Musk says Twitter is rolling out a new feature that will flag ‘shadowbanning.’ It’s complicated | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk on Thursday said he plans to introduce an option to make it possible for users to determine if the company has limited how many other users can view their posts. In doing so, Musk is effectively seizing on an issue that has been a rallying cry among some conservatives who claim the social network has suppressed or “shadowbanned” their content.

    “Twitter is working on a software update that will show your true account status, so you know clearly if you’ve been shadowbanned, the reason why and how to appeal,” Musk tweeted on Thursday. He did not provide additional details or a timetable.

    His announcement came amid a new release of internal Twitter documents on Thursday, sanctioned and cheered by Musk, that once again placed a spotlight on the practice of limiting the reach of certain, potentially harmful content — a common practice in the industry that Musk himself has seemingly both endorsed and criticized.

    Last month, Musk said Twitter’s “new” policy is “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach,” echoing an approach that is something of an industry standard. “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter.”

    With that announcement, Musk, who has said he now votes Republican, prompted an outcry from some conservatives, who accused him of continuing a practice they opposed. The clash reflects an underlying tension at Twitter under Musk, as the billionaire simultaneously has promised a more maximalist approach to “free speech,” a move cheered by some on the right, while also attempting to reassure advertisers and users that there will still be content moderation guardrails.

    But with his tweet Thursday, and the release of the latest Twitter Files, he appeared to once again attempt to court some in conservative circles.

    The second set of the so-called Twitter Files, shared by journalist Bari Weiss on Twitter, focused on how the company has restricted the reach of certain accounts, tweets or topics that it deems potentially harmful, including by limiting their ability to appear in the search or trending sections of the platform.

    Weiss suggested that such actions were taken “all without users’ knowledge.” But Twitter has long been transparent about the fact that it may limit certain content that violates its policies and, in some cases, may apply “strikes” that correspond with suspensions for accounts that break its rules. In the case of strikes, users receive notification that their accounts have been temporarily suspended.

    Weiss’ tweets follow the first “Twitter Files” drop earlier this month from journalist Matt Taibbi, who shared internal Twitter emails about the company’s decision to temporarily suppress a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden and his laptop, which largely corroborated what was already known about the incident.

    In both cases, the internal documents appear to have been provided directly to the journalists by Musk’s team. Musk on Friday shared Weiss’ thread in a tweet and added, “The Twitter Files, Part Duex!!” along with two popcorn emojis.

    The issue of how and why Twitter — like other major platforms — limits the reach of certain content has been long been a hot button issue on Capitol Hill and among some prominent social media users, especially conservatives. Twitter has repeatedly said it does not moderate content based on its political leaning, but instead enforces its policies equally in an effort to keep users safe. In 2018, founder and then-CEO Jack Dorsey told CNN in an interview that the company does “not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior.”

    Weiss offered several examples of right-leaning figures who had moderation actions taken on their accounts, but it’s not clear if such actions were equally taken against left-leaning or other accounts.

    The release of internal documents from Twitter’s prior leadership comes as Musk attempts to reshape the platform in his image. The billionaire has previously said he wants to do away with permanent user bans and Twitter has recently begun to restore the accounts of thousands of users, including some incendiary figures. But Musk has also said he doesn’t want Twitter to “become a free-for-all hellscape” and plans to moderate content in a way that appears largely consistent with Twitter’s prior policies.

    In a blog post last week, Twitter said it had not changed its policies but that its approach to enforcement would rely heavily on de-amplification of violative tweets, something that Twitter already did, according to both the company’s previous statements and Weiss’ Friday tweets. “Freedom of speech,” the blog post stated, “not freedom of reach.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter disbands its ‘Trust and Safety Council’ that tackled harassment and child exploitation | CNN Business

    Twitter disbands its ‘Trust and Safety Council’ that tackled harassment and child exploitation | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Twitter on Monday night announced it was disbanding its “Trust and Safety Council,” according to an email the company sent to the councils’ members that was obtained by CNN.

    The company said in the email that it was “reevaluating how best to bring external insights into our product and policy development work. As part of this process, we have decided that the Trust and Safety Council is not the best structure to do this.”

    The move comes as Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk is undoing many of the policies and practices put in place before he took over the social media company.

    A page on Twitter’s website, which has now been removed, explained that the council was made up of external expert organizations that advised on issues including online safety, human and digital rights, suicide prevention, mental health, child sexual exploitation, and dehumanization.

    “Together, they advocate for safety and advise us as we develop our products, programs, and rules,” Twitter previously explained.

    Three members of the council resigned in protest last week, writing in a statement that “contrary to claims by Elon Musk, the safety and wellbeing of Twitter’s users are on the decline.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The mass unbanning of suspended Twitter users is underway | CNN Business

    The mass unbanning of suspended Twitter users is underway | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Thousands of previously banned Twitter users, including members of the far-right and users sharing blatant misinformation, have begun to have their accounts restored to the platform, according to an independent analysis.

    The mass restoration of accounts comes after new owner Elon Musk said late last month that he would offer “general amnesty” to many who had been removed from the platform. In following through on that commitment, however, Musk risks further alienating other users and advertisers, and exacerbating concerns among watchdog groups about the rise of hate speech on the platform under his ownership (a fact Musk has attempted to refute).

    Among those recently unbanned are a range of large and small accounts, including users promoting NFTs and cryptocurrencies, users tweeting about sports, many users tweeting in languages other than English, as well as both users that appear to be left-leaning and pro-Trump, according to observations by CNN.

    But the restored accounts also include far-right figures such as Andrew Anglin, a self-professed white supremacist who founded the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, and Patrick Casey, who is associated with the far-right group “America First” and was subpoenaed by the House January 6 committee for his involvement in the Capitol riot.

    A number of accounts restored in recent days, including many with thousands of followers, used their first tweets in years to thank Musk for allowing them back on the platform, according to a review of their posts by CNN. Some also quickly began sharing conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid-19 and the 2020 US Presidential election.

    A data set of many of the unbanned accounts compiled by researcher and software developer Travis Brown, who worked for Twitter for a year in 2014 and last year began a project tracking hate speech on the platform, shows dozens of users who have had their bans reversed are using QAnon-related phrases or hashtags in their account bios. The dataset was built using Twitter’s API and a tool Brown had originally built to observe and track high-profile Twitter suspensions.

    The accounts that have been restored includes “a really strange mix of accounts” that includes apparent far-right extremists and QAnon adherents, but also, for example, a Miley Cyrus fan account that has been repeatedly suspended and appears aimed mostly at growing a large following, Brown said.

    But Brown added that other accounts he has observed as part of his hate speech tracking project have yet to be reinstated, raising questions about the criteria Twitter is using to restore previously banned accounts, although it’s possible Musk’s reinstatement process will take time. Many users on Twitter have also raised questions about Musk’s move last week to again suspend Kanye West, who has made numerous antisemitic comments, while restoring the accounts of other white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. In another instance, Musk tweeted that he would not restore Alex Jones’s account because of a personal preference.

    “I’ve found it really hard … to generalize about how and why certain accounts are allowed back,” Brown said.

    Twitter, which has made substantial cuts to its public relations team, did not immediately respond to a request for comment and questions on the number of previously banned accounts restored or its process for doing so.

    Musk said last month that he would begin restoring most previously banned accounts to the platform, after having polled his Twitter followers about whether to offer “general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam.” The poll, which garnered more than three million votes, finished with more than 72% voting in favor of the proposition. It is not clear how Musk and Twitter’s remaining staff are sorting out which accounts were banned for spam or illegal activity.

    The new Twitter owner had already begun to restore the accounts of some prominent, controversial users that had previously been banned or suspended from the platform, most notably former President Donald Trump, as well as conservative Canadian podcaster and all-beef diet promoter Jordan Peterson and the right-leaning satire website Babylon Bee.

    Some of the accounts restored in the latest wave have already raised concerns from civil rights groups. The Anti-Defamation League on Monday described as “deeply disturbing” Twitter’s decision to allow Anglin back on the platform.

    “The return of extremists to the platform has the potential to supercharge the spread of extremist content and disinformation, and this in turn could lead to the increased harassment of users,” Yael Eisenstat, vice president of ADL’s Center for Technology and Society said in a statement to CNN. “Musk’s actions to date show that he is not committed to a transparent process that incorporates the best practices we have learned from civil society groups.”

    Before taking over Twitter, Musk said he disagreed with the platform’s policy of permanent bans, which were typically doled out only after a user had received a number of “strikes” for repeatedly violating Twitter’s policies, including those against Covid-19 or civic integrity misinformation.

    Shortly after acquiring the company, Musk said he would create a “content moderation council” prior to making major changes, but there is no evidence such a group was ever formed or involved in the decisions to bring back violative accounts. Instead, Musk has appeared to make the decisions himself.

    Musk and Twitter have repeatedly stressed that the platform’s rules have not changed, despite restoring accounts that had repeatedly violated its rules and ceasing enforcement of the company’s policy prohibiting Covid-19 misinformation. In a blog post last month, Twitter said that its trust and safety team “remains strong and well-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.” Content that violates Twitter’s rules, it added, will be demoted on the platform.

    Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety who left the company following Musk’s takeover, criticized the billionaire Twitter owner’s top-down approach to content decisions in an interview with journalist Kara Swisher last month, suggesting that the platform had started to be run by “dictatorial edict rather than by a policy.” He also raised concerns about layoffs that hit Twitter’s safety teams.

    Restoring additional, previously banned accounts could exacerbate several big issues Twitter is currently facing. It could further alienate Twitter’s advertisers, many of whom have fled the platform in the wake of the chaos since Musk took over and out of fear that their ads could end up running alongside objectionable content. Musk has said the departure of key Twitter advertisers in recent weeks has led to a “massive drop in revenue” for the company.

    Ads for major brands, including Kia, Amazon, Snap and Uber, have already begun to appear alongside tweets from reinstated accounts such as Anglin’s, according to reporting from the Washington Post and observations by CNN. (Kia told CNN it “continues to monitor the evolving Twitter environment and work closely with their teams on advertisement placement and usage.” The other brands did not immediately respond to CNN’s requests for comment.)

    It could also draw more attention from Apple, which Musk previously tweeted had threatened to remove Twitter from its app store. Musk later said that the concern had been resolved following a meeting with Tim Cook, but Apple has previously shown a willingness to remove social media platforms from its app store over concerns about their ability to moderate hate speech and other potentially harmful content. Getting booted from Apple’s app store would be detrimental to Twitter’s business by making it harder for the iPhone maker’s more than one billion global customers to access the app, and difficult if not impossible for iPhone users to receive app updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alito’s mentions of Ashley Madison and children wearing KKK costumes cap an awkward Supreme Court day | CNN Politics

    Alito’s mentions of Ashley Madison and children wearing KKK costumes cap an awkward Supreme Court day | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As the Supreme Court gathered for more than two hours on Monday to discuss whether a graphic designer can refuse to do business with same-sex couples, the justices somehow strayed into dueling hypotheticals concerning Black and White Santas and dating websites.

    Hypotheticals are nothing new at the high court as the justices probe how cases before the court could impact different challenges down the road. But Monday’s hypothetical was unusually awkward, with a reference to children wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit to visit Santa Claus.

    It all began when Justice Ketanji Jackson expressed some alarm about the extent of arguments put forward by the graphic designer, Lorie Smith, who wants to expand her business to celebrate marriages, but does not want to work with same-sex couples out of religious objections to same-sex marriage.

    “Can I ask you a hypothetical that just sort of helps me flesh” this out, Jackson asked a lawyer for the designer.

    Jackson wanted to know about a photography business in a hypothetical shopping mall during the holiday season that offers a product called “Scenes with Santa.” She said the photographer wants to express his own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing 1940s and 1950s Santa scenes in sepia tone.

    “Their policy is that only White children can be photographed with Santa,” Jackson said and noted that according to her hypothetical, the photographer is willing to refer families of color to the Santa at “the other end of the mall” who will take anybody, and they will photograph families of color.

    Jackson asked Kristen Waggoner, Smith’s lawyer, “why isn’t your argument that they should be able to do that?”

    Waggoner finally said that there are “difficult lines to draw” and said that the Santa hypothetical might be an “edge case.”

    That drew incredulity on the part of liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

    “It may be an ‘edge case’ meaning it could fall on either side, you’re not sure?” she asked.

    Jackson returned to her query later and expanded it. She said her hypothetical photographer is doing something akin to the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” and wants it to be “authentic” so that only White children could be customers.

    Waggoner suggested that in the case at hand the “message wins,” but never really explained what she meant.

    Artist explains why she thinks she shouldn’t have to work with same-sex couples

    When a lawyer for Colorado stood up to defend the state’s anti-discrimination law, Justice Samuel Alito chimed in.

    He wanted to know if a Black Santa at the other end of the mall doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who’s dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit whether the Black Santa has to do it?

    Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson replied that there is no law that protects a right to wear a KKK outfit.

    That spurred Kagan to jump in, noting that objection would be based on the outfit, not whether it was worn by a Black or a White child.

    Alito then uttered an extremely awkward aside that could have been an attempted joke gone astray. “You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits, right? All the time.”

    At another point in arguments Alito was posing a set of hypotheticals and again engaged Kagan – his seat mate – as he searched for how the case at hand could impact other cases.

    He was referring to a “friend-of-the-court” brief filed by lawyer Josh Blackman on behalf of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty in support of Smith. The aim of the brief is to discuss problematic situations for Jewish artisans who object to speaking out about certain topics. A series of hypotheticals was included to show instances in which a Jewish artist would be compelled to betray his conscience.

    “An unmarried Jewish person asks a Jewish photographer to take a photograph for his JDate dating profile,” Alito began, referring to a hypothetical in the brief.

    He paused. “It’s a dating service, I gather, for Jewish people,” Alito said.

    Kagan, who is Jewish, chimed in to laughter, “It is.”

    Alito decided to plow awkwardly forward with another hypothetical from Blackman’s brief .

    “All right. Maybe Justice Kagan will also be familiar with the next website I’m going to mention,” he said. “A Jewish person asks a Jewish photographer to take a photograph for his Ashleymadison.com dating profile.”

    The audience laughed as Ashleymadison.com appears to refer to an online dating service and social networking services marketed to people who are married or already in relationships.

    It was another awkward moment with Alito adding: “I’m not suggesting that – she knows a lot of things. I’m not suggesting – okay … Does he have to do it?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kirstie Alley, ‘Cheers’ and ‘Veronica’s Closet’ star, dead at 71 | CNN

    Kirstie Alley, ‘Cheers’ and ‘Veronica’s Closet’ star, dead at 71 | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Actress Kirstie Alley, star of the big and small screens known for her Emmy-winning role on “Cheers” and films like “Look Who’s Talking,” has died after a brief battle with cancer, her children True and Lillie Parker announced on her social media.

    She was 71.

    “We are sad to inform you that our incredible, fierce and loving mother has passed away after a battle with cancer, only recently discovered,” the statement read.

    “She was surrounded by her closest family and fought with great strength, leaving us with a certainty of her never-ending joy of living and whatever adventures lie ahead,” the family’s statement continued. “As iconic as she was on screen, she was an even more amazing mother and grandmother.”

    “Our mother’s zest and passion for life, her children, grandchildren and her many animals, not to mention her eternal joy of creating, were unparalleled and leave us inspired to live life to the fullest just as she did,” the statement said.

    Kirstie Alley’s sexy spin on ‘DWTS’


    02:14

    – Source:
    HLN

    Donovan Daughtry, a representative for Alley, also confirmed to CNN via email that the actress has died.

    A two-time Primetime Emmy Award winner, Alley was born in Wichita, Kansas in 1951.

    After a standout role in 1982’s “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” she played roles in movies like 1984’s “Blind Date” and 1987’s “Summer School” opposite Mark Harmon.

    That same year, Alley would follow Shelley Long to play the lead opposite Ted Danson in the latter part of TV classic sitcom “Cheers,” which premiered in 1982. Alley first appeared in 1987, playing strong and independent bar manager Rebecca Howe, staying on the acclaimed show until it ended in 1993.

    After winning the Emmy for outstanding lead actress in a comedy series in 1991 for “Cheers” and another for lead actress in a miniseries or special for 1994’s “David’s Mother,” she again found TV success in the late ’90s with series “Veronica’s Closet,” which scored her another Emmy nod.

    Additionally, Alley starred in a number of memorable films, like the “Look Who’s Talking” movies, 1990’s “Madhouse” and 1999’s “Drop Dead Gorgeous” with Ellen Barkin.

    In 2005, Alley co-wrote and starred in the Showtime comedy “Fat Actress” before making a foray into reality TV.

    She appeared in “Kirstie Alley’s Big Life” in 2010, was a contestant on Season 12 of ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” the next year and placed second on Season 22 of the British version of “Celebrity Big Brother” in 2018. In 2022, she competed in Season 7 of Fox’s “The Masked Singer.”

    Though she had an impressive body of work, the later part of her career was marked by Alley’s penchant for stirring controversy, especially through social media.

    In a 2007 interview, Alley said she was proud of her no holds barred ways.

    “I’ve always felt like if someone asks me something, they want the real answer,” Alley told Good Housekeeping. “I think there’s also something about being from Kansas. Usually people think I’m from New York. The only similarity between New Yorkers and Midwesterners is that what you see is what you get.”

    John Travolta, who costarred with Alley in 1989’s hit “Look Who’s Talking” as well as two sequels, wrote on Instagram on Monday, “Kirstie was one of the most special relationships I’ve ever had. I love you Kirstie. I know we will see each other again.”

    Jamie Lee Curtis – who worked with Alley in 2016 on episodes of TV’s “Scream Queens” – shared a statement on Facebook to pay tribute to the late actress, writing, “She was a great comic foil in @tvscreamqueens and a beautiful mama bear in her very real life. She helped me buy onesies for my family that year for Christmas. We agreed to disagree about some things but had a mutual respect and connection. Sad news.”

    Josh Gad tweeted, “My heart breaks for Kirstie and her family. Whether it was her brilliance in ‘Cheers; or her magnetic performance in the ‘Look Who’s Talking’ franchise, her smile was always infectious, her laugh was always contagious and her charisma was always iconic. RIP.”

    “Baywatch” actor Parker Stevenson, who was married to Alley from 1983 to 1997 and is the father of her two children, also paid tribute to her on social media. In an Instagram post, confirmed to be Stevenson’s by a representative for the actor, he wrote: “Kirstie, I am so grateful for our years together, and for the two incredibly beautiful children and now grandchildren that we have. You will be missed.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • George Clooney has a simple strategy for being a star in the age of social media | CNN

    George Clooney has a simple strategy for being a star in the age of social media | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    George Clooney has a surefire way for staying out of trouble as a public figure in the age of social media: stay off of it.

    In a profile for the Washington Post published on Friday, the Oscar-winning actor said he manages to avoid too much exposure to today’s 24/7 media cycle by not engaging on those platforms, which he acknowledges would be problematic “if I have three drinks at night.”

    He also shared, “I don’t think you can be a star and be that available.”

    It was part of a larger conversation in which Clooney identified how certain movie stars that came before him like Gregory Peck and Paul Newman – both of whom were friends of his before they died – exemplified how to carry oneself in the spotlight.

    “It doesn’t mean you can’t be goofy and do stupid things, but it means stand up for the things you believe in, carry yourself with a little bit of dignity,” the “Ticket to Paradise” star said. “And both of them had great humor about themselves.”

    Clooney, who is being honored at the Kennedy Center this month alongside Gladys Knight and U2, among others, is active in humanitarian efforts in addition to his pursuits as an actor, producer and director.

    Ethan Hawke, who directed Clooney in a voice role as Newman in this year’s HBO documentary “The Last Movie Stars,” observed that it’s no surprise he’s getting such a prestigious honor. (CNN and HBO Max are both part of the same parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.)

    “It’s interesting that he’s getting the Kennedy Center Honors this year because Newman got it too. They fit in a long line of really responsible artists, people who make a contribution to American culture and are civic leaders,” Hawke told the Post. “Whether you like George’s politics, or admire where he gives his money and time, you have to admire his willingness to lead, and his willingness to care.”

    Steven Soderbergh, whose 1998 masterpiece “Out of Sight” starred Clooney opposite Jennifer Lopez, said the actor is unique for not caring that his politics might compromise the reach of his stardom.

    “The default mode really doesn’t lead you to a place of thinking about fairness, or defending people who can’t defend themselves. It’s great when people use that juice for those purposes, but that’s not the way the stream flows,” Soderbergh said of Clooney’s efforts through his Clooney Foundation for Justice alongside wife Amal, a human rights attorney.

    “The stream flows in the direction of self-orientation and being in a mode of extracting whatever you can from this business, and whatever you can from the world at large. … He’s one of the few people who punches upward. That’s rare.”

    Clooney will be featured as part of the Kennedy Center Honors on December 28 at 8 p.m. on CBS.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hate speech dramatically surges on Twitter following Elon Musk takeover, new research shows | CNN Business

    Hate speech dramatically surges on Twitter following Elon Musk takeover, new research shows | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN Business
     — 

    New Twitter owner Elon Musk declared last month that “hate speech impressions” had dramatically fallen on the platform since he took over.

    It was a remarkable claim, given that Musk has executed mass layoffs and chased away hundreds of employees, draining the company of much-needed resources to enforce content moderation policies, which the billionaire has also publicly criticized.

    On Friday, two watchdog groups published research that indicated Musk’s claim simply did not hold water, offering one of the clearest pictures to date of the surging tide of hate speech on the platform.

    The Center for Countering Digital Hate and Anti-Defamation League both said in reports that the volume of hate speech on Twitter has grown dramatically under Musk’s stewardship.

    Specifically, the Center for Countering Digital Hate said the daily use of the n-word under Musk is triple the 2022 average and the use of slurs against gay men and trans persons are up 58% and 62%, respectively.

    And the Anti-Defamation League said in a separate report that its data shows “both an increase in antisemitic content on the platform and a decrease in the moderation of antisemitic posts.”

    Both groups expressed alarm with what they are seeing occur on Twitter, one of the most influential communications platforms in the world. The Anti-Defamation League described the deteriorating state-of-affairs as a “troubling situation” that “will likely get worse, given the reported cuts to Twitter’s content moderation staff.”

    The reports come just hours after Kanye West’s Twitter account was suspended after he posted an altered image of the Star of David with a swastika inside and appeared on Alex Jones’ Infowars, where he praised Hitler.

    Imrad Ahmed, chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said that Musk had “sent up the batsignal to every kind of racist, misogynist and homophobe that Twitter was open for business, and they have react accordingly.”

    “A safe space for hate is a hostile environment to most decent folks,” Ahmed added, “by means of comparison, who would want to sit in a cafe or pub where crazies are screaming expletives and bigotry, let alone have the chutzpah to claim that it was democratically-essential debate?”

    Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday morning.

    On Friday afternoon, Musk responded to a New York Times article about the research by tweeting “utterly false,” without specifying what aspect of the reporting he disputed. He then reiterated his claim that “hate speech impressions,” or the number of times a tweet containing hate speech has been viewed, “continue to decline” since his early days of owning the company when the platform saw a spike in hate speech designed to test Musk’s tolerance.

    The research by CCDH and ADL purport to show a different phenomenon, however, highlighting the frequency and incidences of hate speech on the platform in general.

    Musk said going forward, Twitter will share its data on hate speech impressions on a weekly basis.

    Musk has repeatedly said that he wants to roll back many of the content moderation policies that were in place before he took over the company and has signaled he only wants speech prohibited when it incites violence or violates the law.

    The billionaire has already rolled back Twitter’s previous Covid misinformation rules and said he plans to grant “general amnesty” to people who were previously banned for violating Twitter rules.

    “These changes are already affecting the proliferation of hate on Twitter, and the return of extremists of all kinds to the platform has the potential to supercharge the spread of extremist content and disinformation,” the Anti-Defamation League said. “This may also lead to increased harassment of users.”

    – CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kanye West’s Twitter account has been suspended after Elon Musk says it violated rule against incitement to violence | CNN Business

    Kanye West’s Twitter account has been suspended after Elon Musk says it violated rule against incitement to violence | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN business
     — 

    Kanye West’s Twitter account was suspended early Friday morning after Elon Musk said it violated the platform’s rules on inciting violence.

    “I tried my best. Despite that, he again violated our rule against incitement to violence. Account will be suspended,” Musk tweeted in a reply.

    CNN could not confirm which specific tweet prompted West’s suspension. However, earlier in the evening, West — who has legally changed his name to Ye — tweeted an altered image of the Star of David with a swastika inside.

    The tweet follows a series of antisemitic comments made by West in recent months, which have destroyed business deals in which the musician was involved — such as a partnership with Adidas.

    In late October, West addressed the antisemitic comments — as well as what he’s said about George Floyd’s death and Black Lives Matter — in a rambling 16-minute video shared by WmgLab Records on YouTube and seemingly recorded at some point after Adidas ended its business relationship with him.

    In the video, West did not apologize for his antisemitic remarks but seemed to try to distance himself from any “hate group.”

    “I have no association to any hate group,” West said as he closed his remarks in prayer. “If any hate happens upon any Jewish person, it is not associated (gestures to himself) because I am demanding that everyone walk in love.”

    CNN has previously reported that several people who were once close to West said that he has long been fascinated by Adolf Hitler — and once wanted to name an album after the Nazi leader. A business executive who worked for West told CNN that the artist created a hostile work environment, in part through his “obsession” with Hitler.

    This is not the first time West has run afoul of Twitter. In October, before Musk completed the deal to buy the social media platform, Twitter locked West’s account over an antisemitic tweet.

    – CNN’s Elizabeth Wolfe, Chloe Melas and Dan Heching contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Academic researchers blast Twitter’s data paywall as ‘outrageously expensive’ | CNN Business

    Academic researchers blast Twitter’s data paywall as ‘outrageously expensive’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    After Twitter announced in February it would begin charging third parties to access its platform data, academic researchers warned that the vaguely worded plan could threaten important studies about how misinformation, harassment and other malicious activity spreads online.

    Now, as Twitter has released more pricing information, many of those same academics are saying their fears were well-founded, complaining that Twitter’s new tiered paywall not only charges “outrageously expensive” prices but that it also restricts the amount of accessible data so heavily that what little researchers can see, even on the most expensive tiers, is not useful for studies at any rigorous level.

    Twitter, which has cut much of its public relations team under CEO Elon Musk, automatically responded to a request for comment with an email containing a poop emoji.

    In an open letter this week, the Coalition for Independent Technology Research — a group representing dozens of researchers and civil society organizations — said free and open access to Twitter data has historically enabled systematic, large-scale research on social media’s role in public health initiatives, foreign propaganda, political discourse, and even the bots and spam that Musk has blamed for ruining Twitter.

    But Twitter’s new tiered access system undercuts all of that, the researchers said. The company’s pricing that launched last week, starting at $100 per month for a “basic” amount of data, does not provide nearly enough volume for users at the low end, while the high end “ranges from $42,000 to $210,000 per month [and] is unaffordable for researchers,” the letter said.

    The new basic tier limits users to reading just 10,000 tweets per month. That represents 0.3% of what researchers used to be able to collect in a single day, the letter said.

    Even under the most expensive “enterprise” tier costing upwards of $2.5 million a year, Twitter is offering only a fraction of the tweets it used to, the letter continued. Before the change, researchers could pay about $500 a month for the ability to access up to 10% of the roughly 1 billion tweets a month that flow across Twitter’s platform.

    Now, though, “the most expensive Enterprise tier would cut that by 80% at about 400 times the price,” the researchers’ letter said.

    Asking researchers to pay orders of magnitude more for a fifth of the access they once had represents a barrier to accountability and transparency, the letter added.

    “Under the new pricing plans, studying the communications and interactions of even a small population—such as the 535 Members of the U.S. Congress or the 705 Members of the European Parliament—will be unfeasible,” the letter said. “The new pricing plans will also end at least 76 long-term efforts, including dashboards, tools, or code packages that support other researchers, journalists, first-responders, educators, and Twitter users.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter removes transgender protections from hateful conduct policy | CNN Business

    Twitter removes transgender protections from hateful conduct policy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter appears to have quietly rolled back a portion of its hateful conduct policy that included specific protections for transgender people.

    The policy previously stated that Twitter prohibits “targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.” But the second line was removed earlier this month, according to archived versions of the page from the WayBack Machine.

    Twitter also removed a line from the policy detailing certain groups of people often subject to disproportionate abuse online, including “women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, and marginalized and historically underrepresented communities.”

    The platform first introduced its policy prohibiting misgendering and deadnaming (referring to a person’s pre-transition name) of transgender people in 2018 as part of a broader overhaul of its hateful conduct policy.

    The change to the hateful conduct policy is one of a number of updates Twitter has made to its safety and content moderation practices since Elon Musk took over the company last fall. Twitter has also restored the accounts of users who had previously been banned for violating its rules, stopped enforcing its Covid-19 misinformation policy, allowed users to purchase blue verification checkmarks and applied controversial new labels to the accounts of several news organizations.

    LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD called out the hateful conduct policy change in a Tuesday statement.

    “Twitter’s decision to covertly roll back its longtime policy is the latest example of just how unsafe the company is for users and advertisers alike,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said. “This decision to roll back LGBTQ safety pulls Twitter even more out of step with TikTok, Pinterest, and Meta, which all maintain similar policies to protect their transgender users at a time when anti-transgender rhetoric online is leading to real world discrimination and violence.”

    Twitter did not respond to a request for comment about the change, although the platform did announce earlier this week some other updates to how it enforces its hateful conduct policy. The platform said it plans to start applying labels to some tweets that violate its hateful conduct policy and reduce their visibility, a similar practice to the one used under the company’s previous leadership, under which it either reduced the visibility of or removed violative tweets.

    “Restricting the reach of Tweets helps reduce binary ‘leave up versus take down’ content moderation decisions and supports our freedom of speech vs freedom of reach approach,” the company said in a tweet. Twitter also said it will not place ads next to content that has been labeled as violative.

    Musk has been in the process of trying to encourage advertisers to return to the platform, after many paused their spending over concerns about Musk’s policy changes, increased hate speech on the platform and massive cuts to the company’s workforce, threatening the company’s core business.

    The billionaire tried to assuage advertisers about Twitter’s approach to hateful conduct at a marketing conference Tuesday, saying, “If somebody has something hateful to say, it doesn’t mean you should give them a megaphone,” according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

    Musk has faced a number of criticisms from some in the transgender community, most notably from his transgender daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson. Last year, she petitioned a court in California to change her last name to that of of her mother, Justine Wilson, Musk’s ex-wife and mother of five of his seven children, because she no longer wanted to be related to her father “in any way, shape or form.”

    Musk has also had several tweets where he mocked the idea of use of people choosing the pronouns they want to apply to them. He had one tweet in December 2020, which he later deleted, that said “when you put he/him in your bio” alongside a drawing of an 18th century soldier rubbing blood on his face in front of a pile of dead bodies and wearing a cap that read “I love to oppress.”

    And this past December, a vocal critic of many Covid restrictions and protocols, Musk tweeted, “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.”

    But in other tweets, Musk has insisted he had no problems with transgender people, saying that his problem is with “all these pronouns” which he called an “esthetic nightmare.” He also pointed out that his auto company Tesla

    (TSLA)     has repeatedly scored a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign as being one of the “Best Places to Work for LGBTQ+ Equality.”

    — CNN’s Chris Isidore contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk says Twitter has ‘no actual choice’ about government censorship requests | CNN Business

    Elon Musk says Twitter has ‘no actual choice’ about government censorship requests | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Criticized for giving into governments’ censorship demands, Elon Musk on Sunday claimed that Twitter has “no actual choice” about complying those requests.

    The comment comes after Musk has previously called himself a “free speech absolutist” and said he wanted to buy Twitter to bolster users’ ability to speak freely on the platform. Shortly after agreeing to acquire Twitter, Musk explained his approach to free speech by saying: “Is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? And if that is the case, then we have free speech.”

    He added at the time that Twitter would “be very reluctant to delete things” and “be very cautious with permanent bans,” and that the platform would aim to allow all legal speech.

    But Musk has faced blowback in recent weeks for appearing to cave to government censorship demands, including by removing some accounts and tweets at the behest of the government of Turkey ahead of the country’s elections (which the company later said it would attempt to fight in court). And in an interview with the BBC last month, Musk was asked about whether Twitter had removed a documentary about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the request of the Indian government, and said he didn’t know “what exactly happened.”

    Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias on Sunday tweeted an article suggesting that Twitter has complied with a majority of government takedown requests since Musk took over as the platform’s owner. Musk replied: “Please point out where we had an actual choice and we will reverse it.”

    Musk has previously said the company would comply with laws governing social media companies around the world, although such laws in some cases appear to conflict with his free speech vision. Twitter did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    In last month’s interview with the BBC, Musk said, “the rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country … If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” At another point in the interview, Musk said: “If people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it.”

    “By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law,” Musk said in a tweet last year about his vision for Twitter. “I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

    In some countries, Twitter could risk substantial fines and other penalties — including, potentially, bans of the platform — for not complying with local laws.

    However, prior to Musk’s takeover, Twitter frequently fought government takedown requests in court, including from India and Turkey, in addition to publicly releasing detailed information about such requests and how it handled them. In many cases, Twitter led the charge among social media companies in protecting its users’ rights around the world.

    In last recent removal request report before Musk’s takeover, Twitter said it received more than 47,000 removal requests between July and December 2021, and complied with 51% of them. In many cases, when it did comply with a removal request because of a certain country’s laws, it removed the violating content only in that country, rather than globally.

    Musk was also criticized for backing down on his “free speech” vision when Twitter temporarily banned the accounts of several high-profile journalists in December, claiming that they had violated a new “doxxing” policy on the site. None of the banned journalists appeared to have shared Musk’s precise real-time location — the restrictions came after they reported on Twitter’s removal of an account that posts the updated location of Musk’s private jet.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Biden administration officials from communicating with social media companies | CNN Business

    Federal judge blocks Biden administration officials from communicating with social media companies | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Tuesday ordered some Biden administration agencies and top officials not to communicate with social media companies about certain content, handing a win to GOP states in a lawsuit accusing the government of going too far in its effort to combat Covid-19 disinformation.

    In a preliminary injunction issued by US District Judge Terry Doughty, the judge ordered a slew of federal agencies and more than a dozen top officials not to communicate with social media companies about taking down “content containing protected free speech” that’s posted on the platforms.

    The injunction notes that the government can still communicate with the companies as part of efforts to curb illegal activity and address national security threats.

    The order applies to agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Justice Department and FBI as well as officials such as US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

    The agencies and officials, Doughty said, are prohibited from “specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

    Doughty, a Donald Trump appointee, noted in the lawsuit that social media companies “include Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok,” as well as a number of other online platforms.

    CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

    Meta declined to comment. CNN also reached out to Twitter, Google and TikTok for comment.

    The lawsuit brought by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general in 2022 represents a novel way to pursue “censorship” claims accusing the Biden administration of effectively silencing conservatives by leaning on the private social media companies.

    Though Doughty hasn’t yet ruled on the merits of the two states’ claims, his order Tuesday represents their most significant victory yet in the ongoing lawsuit. The judge had previously ordered the administration to produce documents identifying government officials and the nature of their communications with social media platforms.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Threads now has ‘tens of millions’ of daily users. But its honeymoon phase may be over | CNN Business

    Threads now has ‘tens of millions’ of daily users. But its honeymoon phase may be over | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Two weeks after Meta launched its Twitter competitor Threads and received an unprecedented amount of user signups, the frenzy around the app appears to have come back to Earth.

    After surpassing 100 million user sign-ups in less than a week, user engagement on Threads has slowed. Threads daily active users fell from 49 million on July 7, two days after its launch, to 23.6 million users last Friday, according to a report published this week by web traffic analysis firm Similarweb. The app’s average usage time also fell from 21 minutes to 6 minutes over the same timeframe.

    The slowdown hints at the challenges ahead for Meta as it looks to not only draw users away from Twitter but build a service that reaches a far larger audience. Threads is already facing some of the common issues that often plague social media platforms, including user retention, spam and some early regulatory scrutiny around its approach to content moderation. It’s also not clear yet how much Meta’s investments in building Threads will actually amount to financial returns for the company.

    “I’m very optimistic about how the Threads community is coming together,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a post on the platform Monday. “Early growth was off the charts, but more importantly 10s of millions of people now come back daily … The focus for the rest of the year is improving the basics and retention.”

    Meta executives acknowledged in the early days after Threads’ launch that getting users to sign up for a buzzy new app is much easier than convincing them to continue engaging there long-term. That’s likely even more true for Threads, which launched as a relatively bare-bones app in an effort to capitalize on a moment of weakness at Twitter and also tapped into Instagram’s network to ease the sign-in process.

    Threads on Tuesday rolled out its first batch of updates to the iOS version of the app, including a translation button, a tab on users’ activity feed dedicated to showing who’s followed them and the option to subscribe and receive notifications from accounts a user doesn’t follow.

    Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who is overseeing the Threads launch, has also hinted at plans to add features such as a desktop version of the app, a feed of only accounts a user follows and an edit button. “We’re clearly way out over our skis on this,” Mosseri said in a Threads post the week of the app’s launch.

    In the meantime, Threads is grappling with a common social media issue — spam. Users have complained of replies to posts filling up with spammy links and offering “giveaways” in exchange for new followers. And on Monday, Mosseri said in a Threads post that the platform was “going to have to get tighter on things like rate limits” because “spam attacks have picked up.”

    This “is going to mean more unintentionally limiting active people (false positives),” Mosseri warned. “If you get caught up [in] those protections let us know.”

    Meta declined to clarify whether Mosseri’s post refers to limits on users’ ability to post or read content, or to provide any additional details. But the comment did prompt some snark from Twitter owner Elon Musk, after backlash to Twitter’s own rate limits — restrictions on how many tweets users can read — helped propel Threads’ early growth.

    Meta shares have jumped more than 6% since the Threads launch, but some analysts who follow the company are skeptical that Threads will quickly contribute to the company’s bottom line, if at all.

    Threads could be a way for Meta to eke additional engagement time out of its massive existing user base. The app could also ultimately supplement Meta’s core advertising business, which could use a boost after facing challenges from a broad decline in the online ad market and changes to Apple’s app privacy practices.

    Meta executives have said they will likely incorporate advertising into the platform, once its user base has reached critical mass. But even if Threads continues to add users, “advertisers could be hesitant and possibly wait before allocating ad dollars to Threads because of their uncertainty about long-run user retention and engagement,” Morningstar senior equity analyst Ali Mogharabi said in a recent investor note.

    Like Twitter, Threads could also struggle to attract advertisers because the nature of a real-time news and public conversations app means the content is sometimes negative or controversial. Even before Musk took over Twitter and alienated advertisers, the platform represented a tiny piece of the ad sales market compared to Meta’s properties.

    Threads, however, likely has a leg up on Twitter because Meta is known as a company that provides clear value for advertisers, said Scott Kessler, global tech sector lead at research firm Third Bridge. If anything, he said, the risk may be that some advertisers may think twice about spending on yet another Meta platform versus diversifying their ad strategy.

    For now, analysts will be awaiting Meta executives’ commentary about Threads during its quarterly earnings call next week, including to see if they offer any hints about whether ads may be rolled out on the app ahead of the crucial holiday shopping season.

    “They launched this in July,” Kessler said. “That should give them enough time to build out sufficient tools for holiday shopping season advertising.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘It’s an especially bad time’: Tech layoffs are hitting ethics and safety teams | CNN Business

    ‘It’s an especially bad time’: Tech layoffs are hitting ethics and safety teams | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, as online platforms began facing greater scrutiny for their impacts on users, elections and society, many tech firms started investing in safeguards.

    Big Tech companies brought on employees focused on election safety, misinformation and online extremism. Some also formed ethical AI teams and invested in oversight groups. These teams helped guide new safety features and policies. But over the past few months, large tech companies have slashed tens of thousands of jobs, and some of those same teams are seeing staff reductions.

    Twitter eliminated teams focused on security, public policy and human rights issues when Elon Musk took over last year. More recently, Twitch, a livestreaming platform owned by Amazon, laid off some employees focused on responsible AI and other trust and safety work, according to former employees and public social media posts. Microsoft cut a key team focused on ethical AI product development. And Facebook-parent Meta suggested that it might cut staff working in non-technical roles as part of its latest round of layoffs.

    Meta, according to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, hired “many leading experts in areas outside engineering.” Now, he said, the company will aim to return “to a more optimal ratio of engineers to other roles,” as part of cuts set to take place in the coming months.

    The wave of cuts has raised questions among some inside and outside the industry about Silicon Valley’s commitment to providing extensive guardrails and user protections at a time when content moderation and misinformation remain challenging problems to solve. Some point to Musk’s draconian cuts at Twitter as a pivot point for the industry.

    “Twitter making the first move provided cover for them,” said Katie Paul, director of the online safety research group the Tech Transparency Project. (Twitter, which also cut much of its public relations team, did not respond to a request for comment.)

    To complicate matters, these cuts come as tech giants are rapidly rolling out transformative new technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality — both of which have sparked concerns about their potential impacts on users.

    “They’re in a super, super tight race to the top for AI and I think they probably don’t want teams slowing them down,” said Jevin West, associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington. But “it’s an especially bad time to be getting rid of these teams when we’re on the cusp of some pretty transformative, kind of scary technologies.”

    “If you had the ability to go back and place these teams at the advent of social media, we’d probably be a little bit better off,” West said. “We’re at a similar moment right now with generative AI and these chatbots.”

    When Musk laid off thousands of Twitter employees following his takeover last fall, it included staffers focused on everything from security and site reliability to public policy and human rights issues. Since then, former employees, including ex-head of site integrity Yoel Roth — not to mention users and outside experts — have expressed concerns that Twitter’s cuts could undermine its ability to handle content moderation.

    Months after Musk’s initial moves, some former employees at Twitch, another popular social platform, are now worried about the impacts recent layoffs there could have on its ability to combat hate speech and harassment and to address emerging concerns from AI.

    One former Twitch employee affected by the layoffs and who previously worked on safety issues said the company had recently boosted its outsourcing capacity for addressing reports of violative content.

    “With that outsourcing, I feel like they had this comfort level that they could cut some of the trust and safety team, but Twitch is very unique,” the former employee said. “It is truly live streaming, there is no post-production on uploads, so there is a ton of community engagement that needs to happen in real time.”

    Such outsourced teams, as well as automated technology that helps platforms enforce their rules, also aren’t as useful for proactive thinking about what a company’s safety policies should be.

    “You’re never going to stop having to be reactive to things, but we had started to really plan, move away from the reactive and really be much more proactive, and changing our policies out, making sure that they read better to our community,” the employee told CNN, citing efforts like the launch of Twitch’s online safety center and its Safety Advisory Council.

    Another former Twitch employee, who like the first spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of putting their severance at risk, told CNN that cutting back on responsible AI work, despite the fact that it wasn’t a direct revenue driver, could be bad for business in the long run.

    “Problems are going to come up, especially now that AI is becoming part of the mainstream conversation,” they said. “Safety, security and ethical issues are going to become more prevalent, so this is actually high time that companies should invest.”

    Twitch declined to comment for this story beyond its blog post announcing layoffs. In that post, Twitch noted that users rely on the company to “give you the tools you need to build your communities, stream your passions safely, and make money doing what you love” and that “we take this responsibility incredibly seriously.”

    Microsoft also raised some alarms earlier this month when it reportedly cut a key team focused on ethical AI product development as part of its mass layoffs. Former employees of the Microsoft team told The Verge that the Ethics and Society AI team was responsible for helping to translate the company’s responsible AI principles for employees developing products.

    In a statement to CNN, Microsoft said the team “played a key role” in developing its responsible AI policies and practices, adding that its efforts have been ongoing since 2017. The company stressed that even with the cuts, “we have hundreds of people working on these issues across the company, including net new, dedicated responsible AI teams that have since been established and grown significantly during this time.”

    Meta, maybe more than any other company, embodied the post-2016 shift toward greater safety measures and more thoughtful policies. It invested heavily in content moderation, public policy and an oversight board to weigh in on tricky content issues to address rising concerns about its platform.

    But Zuckerberg’s recent announcement that Meta will undergo a second round of layoffs is raising questions about the fate of some of that work. Zuckerberg hinted that non-technical roles would take a hit and said non-engineering experts help “build better products, but with many new teams it takes intentional focus to make sure our company remains primarily technologists.”

    Many of the cuts have yet to take place, meaning their impact, if any, may not be felt for months. And Zuckerberg said in his blog post announcing the layoffs that Meta “will make sure we continue to meet all our critical and legal obligations as we find ways to operate more efficiently.”

    Still, “if it’s claiming that they’re going to focus on technology, it would be great if they would be more transparent about what teams they are letting go of,” Paul said. “I suspect that there’s a lack of transparency, because it’s teams that deal with safety and security.”

    Meta declined to comment for this story or answer questions about the details of its cuts beyond pointing CNN to Zuckerberg’s blog post.

    Paul said Meta’s emphasis on technology won’t necessarily solve its ongoing issues. Research from the Tech Transparency Project last year found that Facebook’s technology created dozens of pages for terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. According to the organization’s report, when a user listed a terrorist group on their profile or “checked in” to a terrorist group, a page for the group was automatically generated, although Facebook says it bans content from designated terrorist groups.

    “The technology that’s supposed to be removing this content is actually creating it,” Paul said.

    At the time the Tech Transparency Project report was published in September, Meta said in a comment that, “When these kinds of shell pages are auto-generated there is no owner or admin, and limited activity. As we said at the end of last year, we addressed an issue that auto-generated shell pages and we’re continuing to review.”

    In some cases, tech firms may feel emboldened to rethink investments in these teams by a lack of new laws. In the United States, lawmakers have imposed few new regulations, despite what West described as “a lot of political theater” in repeatedly calling out companies’ safety failures.

    Tech leaders may also be grappling with the fact that even as they built up their trust and safety teams in recent years, their reputation problems haven’t really abated.

    “All they keep getting is criticized,” said Katie Harbath, former director of public policy at Facebook who now runs tech consulting firm Anchor Change. “I’m not saying they should get a pat on the back … but there comes a point in time where I think Mark [Zuckerberg] and other CEOs are like, is this worth the investment?”

    While tech companies must balance their growth with the current economic conditions, Harbath said, “sometimes technologists think that they know the right things to do, they want to disrupt things, and aren’t always as open to hearing from outside voices who aren’t technologists.”

    “You need that right balance to make sure you’re not stifling innovation, but making sure that you’re aware of the implications of what it is that you’re building,” she said. “We won’t know until we see how things continue to operate moving forward, but my hope is that they at least continue to think about that.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link