The Word ‘Bot’ Is Increasingly Being Used As an Insult On Social Media

The definition of the word “bot” is shifting to become an insult to someone you know is human, according to researchers who analyzed more than 22 million tweets. Researchers found this shift began around 2017, with left-leaning users more likely to accuse right-leaning users of being bots. “A potential explanation might be that media frequently reported about right-wing bot networks influencing major events like the [2016] US election,” says Dennis Assenmacher at Leibniz Institute for Social Sciences in Cologne, Germany. “However, this is just speculation and would need confirmation.” NewScientist reports: To investigate, Assenmacher and his colleagues looked at how users perceive what is a bot or not. They did so by looking at how the word “bot” was used on Twitter between 2007 and December 2022 (the social network changed its name to X in 2023, following its purchase by Elon Musk), analyzing the words that appeared next to it in more than 22 million English-language tweets. The team found that before 2017, the word was usually deployed alongside allegations of automated behavior of the type that would traditionally fit the definition of a bot, such as “software,” “script” or “machine.” After that date, the use shifted. “Now, the accusations have become more like an insult, dehumanizing people, insulting them, and using this as a technique to deny their intelligence and deny their right to participate in a conversation,” says Assenmacher. The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the Eighteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Reddit Grows, Seeks More AI Deals, Plans ‘Award’ Shops, and Gets Sued

Reddit reported its first results since going public in late March. Yahoo Finance reports:

Daily active users increased 37% year over year to 82.7 million. Weekly active unique users rose 40% from the prior year. Total revenue improved 48% to $243 million, nearly doubling the growth rate from the prior quarter, due to strength in advertising. The company delivered adjusted operating profits of $10 million, versus a $50.2 million loss a year ago. [Reddit CEO Steve] Huffman declined to say when the company would be profitable on a net income basis, noting it’s a focus for the management team. Other areas of focus include rolling out a new user interface this year, introducing shopping capabilities, and searching for another artificial intelligence content licensing deal like the one with Google.

Bloomberg notes that already Reddit “has signed licensing agreements worth $203 million in total, with terms ranging from two to three years. The company generated about $20 million from AI content deals last quarter, and expects to bring in more than $60 million by the end of the year.”

And elsewhere Bloomberg writes that Reddit “plans to expand its revenue streams outside of advertising into what Huffman calls the ‘user economy’ — users making money from others on the platform… ”

In the coming months Reddit plans to launch new versions of awards, which are digital gifts users can give to each other, along with other products… Reddit also plans to continue striking data licensing deals with artificial intelligence companies, expanding into international markets and evaluating potential acquisition targets in areas such as search, he said.

Meanwhile, ZDNet notes that this week a Reddit announcement “introduced a new public content policy that lays out a framework for how partners and third parties can access user-posted content on its site.”

The post explains that more and more companies are using unsavory means to access user data in bulk, including Reddit posts. Once a company gets this data, there’s no limit to what it can do with it. Reddit will continue to block “bad actors” that use unauthorized methods to get data, the company says, but it’s taking additional steps to keep users safe from the site’s partners…. Reddit still supports using its data for research: It’s creating a new subreddit — r/reddit4researchers — to support these initiatives, and partnering with OpenMined to help improve research. Private data is, however, going to stay private.

If a company wants to use Reddit data for commercial purposes, including advertising or training AI, it will have to pay. Reddit made this clear by saying, “If you’re interested in using Reddit data to power, augment, or enhance your product or service for any commercial purposes, we require a contract.” To be clear, Reddit is still selling users’ data — it’s just making sure that unscrupulous actors have a tougher time accessing that data for free and researchers have an easier time finding what they need.

And finally, there’s some court action, according to the Register. Reddit “was sued by an unhappy advertiser who claims that internet giga-forum sold ads but provided no way to verify that real people were responsible for clicking on them.”

The complaint [PDF] was filed this week in a U.S. federal court in northern California on behalf of LevelFields, a Virginia-based investment research platform that relies on AI. It says the biz booked pay-per-click ads on the discussion site starting September 2022… That arrangement called for Reddit to use reasonable means to ensure that LevelField’s ads were delivered to and clicked on by actual people rather than bots and the like. But according to the complaint, Reddit broke that contract…

LevelFields argues that Reddit is in a particularly good position to track click fraud because it’s serving ads on its own site, as opposed to third-party properties where it may have less visibility into network traffic… Nonetheless, LevelFields’s effort to obtain IP address data to verify the ads it was billed for went unfulfilled. The social media site “provided click logs without IP addresses,” the complaint says. “Reddit represented that it was not able to provide IP addresses.”

“The plaintiffs aspire to have their claim certified as a class action,” the article adds — along with an interesting statistic.
“According to Juniper Research, 22 percent of ad spending last year was lost to click fraud, amounting to $84 billion.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Users Shocked To Find Instagram Limits Political Content By Default

Instagram has been limiting recommended political content by default without notifying users. Ars Technica reports: Instead, Instagram rolled out the change in February, announcing in a blog that the platform doesn’t “want to proactively recommend political content from accounts you don’t follow.” That post confirmed that Meta “won’t proactively recommend content about politics on recommendation surfaces across Instagram and Threads,” so that those platforms can remain “a great experience for everyone.” “This change does not impact posts from accounts people choose to follow; it impacts what the system recommends, and people can control if they want more,” Meta’s spokesperson Dani Lever told Ars. “We have been working for years to show people less political content based on what they told us they want, and what posts they told us are political.”

To change the setting, users can navigate to Instagram’s menu for “settings and activity” in their profiles, where they can update their “content preferences.” On this menu, “political content” is the last item under a list of “suggested content” controls that allow users to set preferences for what content is recommended in their feeds. There are currently two options for controlling what political content users see. Choosing “don’t limit” means “you might see more political or social topics in your suggested content,” the app says. By default, all users are set to “limit,” which means “you might see less political or social topics.” “This affects suggestions in Explore, Reels, Feed, Recommendations, and Suggested Users,” Instagram’s settings menu explains. “It does not affect content from accounts you follow. This setting also applies to Threads.” “Did [y’all] know Instagram was actively limiting the reach of political content like this?!” an X user named Olayemi Olurin wrote in an X post. “I had no idea ’til I saw this comment and I checked my settings and sho nuff political content was limited.”

“This is actually kinda wild that Instagram defaults everyone to this,” another user wrote. “Obviously political content is toxic but during an election season it’s a little weird to just hide it from everyone?”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

TikTik is Banned in China, Notes X User Community – Along With Most US Social Media

Newsweek points out that a Chinese government post arguing the bill is “on the wrong side of fair competition” was flagged by users on X. “TikTok is banned in the People’s Republic of China,” the X community note read. (The BBC reports that “Instead, Chinese users use a similar app, Douyin, which is only available in China and subject to monitoring and censorship by the government.”)

Newsweek adds that China “has also blocked access to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Google services. X itself is also banned — though Chinese diplomats use the microblogging app to deliver Beijing’s messaging to the wider world.”

From the Wall Street Journal:
Among the top concerns for [U.S.] intelligence leaders is that they wouldn’t even necessarily be able to detect a Chinese influence operation if one were taking place [on TikTok] due to the opacity of the platform and how its algorithm surfaces content to users. Such operations, FBI director Christopher Wray said this week in congressional testimony, “are extraordinarily difficult to detect, which is part of what makes the national-security concerns represented by TikTok so significant….”

Critics of the bill include libertarian-leaning lawmakers, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), who have decried it as a form of government censorship. “The Constitution says that you have a First Amendment right to express yourself,” Paul told reporters Thursday. TikTok’s users “express themselves through dancing or whatever else they do on TikTok. You can’t just tell them they can’t do that.” In the House, a bloc of 50 Democrats voted against the bill, citing concerns about curtailing free speech and the impact on people who earn income on the app. Some Senate Democrats have raised similar worries, as well as an interest in looking at a range of social-media issues at rival companies such as Meta Platforms.

“The basic idea should be to put curbs on all social media, not just one,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) said Thursday. “If there’s a problem with privacy, with how our children are treated, then we need to curb that behavior wherever it occurs.”
Some context from the Columbia Journalism Review:
Roughly one-third of Americans aged 18-29 regularly get their news from TikTok, the Pew Research Center found in a late 2023 survey. Nearly half of all TikTok users say they regularly get news from the app, a higher percentage than for any other social media platform aside from Twitter.

Almost 40 percent of young adults were using TikTok and Instagram for their primary Web search instead of the traditional search engines, a Google senior vice president said in mid-2022 — a number that’s almost certainly grown since then. Overall, TikTok claims 150 million American users, almost half the US population; two-thirds of Americans aged 18-29 use the app.
Some U.S. politicians believe TikTok “radicalized” some of their supporters “with disinformation or biased reporting,” according to the article.

Meanwhile in the Guardian, a Duke University law professor argues “this saga demands a broader conversation about safeguarding democracy in the digital age.”

The European Union’s newly enacted AI act provides a blueprint for a more holistic approach, using an evidence- and risk-based system that could be used to classify platforms like TikTok as high-risk AI systems subject to more stringent regulatory oversight, with measures that demand transparency, accountability and defensive measures against misuse.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Instagram and Threads Will Stop Recommending Political Content

In a blog post today, Meta announced that it’ll stop showing political content across Instagram and Threads unless users explicitly choose to have it recommended to them. The Verge reports: Meta announced that it’s expanding an existing Reels policy that limits political content from people you’re not following (including posts about social issues) from appearing in recommended feeds to more broadly cover the company’s Threads and Instagram platforms. “Our goal is to preserve the ability for people to choose to interact with political content, while respecting each person’s appetite for it,” said Instagram head Adam Mosseri, announcing on Threads that the changes will be applied over the next few weeks. Facebook is also expected to roll out these new controls at a later, undisclosed date.

Users who still want to have content “likely to mention governments, elections, or social topics that affect a group of people and/or society at large” recommended to them can choose to turn off this limitation within their account settings. The changes will apply to public accounts when enabled and only in places where content is being recommended, such as Explore, Reels, in-feed recommendations, and suggested users. The update won’t change how users view content from accounts they choose to follow, so accounts that aren’t eligible to be recommended can still post political content to their followers via their feed and Stories.

For creators, Meta says that “if your account is not eligible to be recommended, none of your content will be recommended regardless of whether or not all of your content goes against our recommendations guidelines.” When these changes do go live, professional accounts on Instagram will be able to use the Account Status feature to check if posting political content is impacting their eligibility for recommendation. Professional accounts can also use Account Status to contest decisions that revoke this eligibility, alongside editing, removing, or pausing politically related posts until the account is eligible to be recommended again.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Bluesky Opens To the Public

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: After almost a year as an invite-only app, Bluesky is now open to the public. Funded by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, Bluesky is one of the more promising micro-blogging platforms that could provide an alternative to Elon Musk’s X. Before opening to the public, the platform had about 3 million sign-ups. Now that anyone can join, the young platform faces a challenge: How can it meaningfully stand up to Threads’ 130 million monthly active users, or even Mastodon’s 1.8 million?

Bluesky looks and functions like Twitter at the outset, but the platform stands out because of what lies under the hood. The company began as a project inside of Twitter that sought to build a decentralized infrastructure called the AT Protocol for social networking. As a decentralized platform, Bluesky’s code is completely open source, which gives people outside of the company transparency into what is being built and how. Developers can even write their own code on top of the AT Protocol, so they can create anything from a custom algorithm to an entirely new social platform.

“What decentralization gets you is the ability to try multiple things in parallel, and so you’re not bottlenecking change on one organization,” Bluesky CEO Jay Graber told TechCrunch. “The way we built Bluesky actually lets anyone insert a change into the product.” This setup gives users more agency to control and curate their social media experience. On a centralized platform like Instagram, for example, users have revolted against algorithm changes that they dislike, but there’s not much they can do to revert or improve upon an undesired app update.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.