The Brain Rot Thing: The 78 Wax Record Is Stuck Again
January 10, 2025
This is an official dinobaby post.
I read again about brain rot. I get it. Young kids play with a mobile phone. They get into social media. They watch TikTok. The discover the rich, rewarding world of Telegram online gambling. These folks don’t care about reading. Period. I get it.
But the Financial Times wants me to really get it. “Social Media, Brain Rot and the Slow Death of Reading” says:
Social media is designed to hijack our attention with stimulation and validation in a way that makes it hard for the technology of the page to compete.
This is news? Well, what about this statement:
The easy dopamine hit of social media can make reading feel more effortful by comparison. But the rewards are worth the extra effort: regular readers report higher wellbeing and life satisfaction, benefiting from improved sleep, focus, connection and creativity. While just six minutes of reading has been shown to reduce stress levels by two-thirds, deep reading offers additional cognitive rewards of critical thinking, empathy and self-reflection.
Okay, now tell that to the people in line at the grocery store or the kids in a high school class. Guess what? The joy of reading is not part of the warp and woof of 2025 life.
The news flash is that traditional media like the Financial Times long for the time when everyone read. Excuse me. When was that time? People read in school so they can get out of school and not read. Books still sell, but the avid readers are becoming dinobabies. Most of the dinobabies I know don’t read too much. My wife’s bridge club reads popular novels but non fiction is a non starter.
What does the FT want people to do? Here’s a clue:
Even if the TikTok ban goes ahead in the US, other platforms will pop up to replace it. So in 2025, why not replace the phone on your bedside table with a book? Just an hour a day clawed back from screen time adds up to about a book a week, placing you among an elite top one per cent of readers. Melville (and a Hula-Hoop) are optional.
Lamenting and recommending is not going to change what the flows of electronic information have done. There are more insidious effects racing down the information highway. Those who will be happiest will be those who live in ignorance. People with some knowledge will be deeply unhappy.
Will the FT want dinosaurs to roam again? Sure. Will the FT write about them? Of course. Will the impassioned words change what’s happened and will happen? Nope. Get over it, please. You may as well long for the days when Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum and you were part of the same company.
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2025
Social Media Change: Stop the Decay! Ouch! Stop!
January 10, 2025
This is an official dinobaby post. No smart software involved in this blog post.
I learned a new term: Platform Decay. I associated the phrase with Tooth Decay.
The Techspot article “Meta Wants to Fill Its Social Platforms with AI-Generated Bots” asserts:
Meta is actively working to transform its social media platforms into spaces where AI bots interact with each other. Over the next few years, the company formerly known as Facebook aims to integrate AI technology to boost “engagement” with its three billion real, human users. This could either be a revolution or just another disastrously misguided idea, like the previously dismissed “metaverse” VR ecosystem.
I thought Facebook was about people posting words and text on Instagram and shooting “secure” messages to and from via WhatsApp. Facebook is a service I perceive as supporting a platform for ecommerce excitement and allowing grandparents to see the grandchildren.
Now I am updated. The write up explains:
Meta is currently developing several AI products, including a service designed to help users create AI bots on Instagram and Facebook. These bots could clone users’ personalities and interact with other (non-bot) users on the network. The company hopes to attract younger audiences, who are apparently going crazy over AI these days.
I learned that there is a downside to this bot-topia; specifically:
Critics of this AI-filled dystopia warn about the risks related to the “weaponization” of AI-generated content. Becky Owen, innovation officer at creative agency Billion Dollar Boy and former head of Meta’s creator team, said fake AI accounts could easily be used to amplify false narratives if robust safeguards are not enforced on social media.
What’s interesting to me is that one of Meta / Zuckbook’s competitors is not going in this direction. Telegram is chasing crypto. To be fair, the Zuck is not under the control of a nation state like Pavel Durov. He enjoys the ministrations of the French judiciary. His minions are cutting deals, integrating online gambling services like CryptoCasino.com, and training developers in Vancouver and other major cities to build for the Telegram platform. (I think of Telegram as the framework for building super apps for online crime, but I am a dinobaby and hopelessly out of step with social media).
Which strategy will win in 2025? Will the Zuck get richer and dominate the social bot scene and attract millions more new users? Will Telegram grow beyond one billion users and help undermine the US financial system while delivering crypto alternatives for traditional banking services? I don’t know.
I am not sure the phrase “platform decay” captures what the Zuck is doing. I know that Telegram is not exactly decaying while its founder is confined to France, good food, and French red tape.
I think the article is trying to explain that the good old Facebook is changing. What’s decaying are the features and digital hooks that made the Zuck a big dog.
Net net: These platforms are making an attempt to adapt and avoid the MySpace problem: No users. Get real, Techspot. Longing for the past is a poor use of one’s time. Adapt or go away — That’s this dinobaby’s advice.
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2025
FOGINT: Divergent Trajectories for Facebook and Telegram
January 7, 2025
A post from the FOGINT team.
The Techmeme splash page featured several Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, etc.) stories. Here’s a mini-version of the home page with the Zuck-related stories identified:
The separate “stories” presented one theme: Free speech. Here’s a representative item from today’s Techmeme page at 9 20 am US Eastern: “Meta Is Ending Its Fact-Checking Program in Favor of a Community Notes System Similar to X.” The news item from NBC reports:
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company’s moderation policies and practices Tuesday, citing a shifting political and social landscape and a desire to embrace free speech. Zuckerberg said that Meta will end its fact-checking program with trusted partners and replace it with a community-driven system similar to X’s Community Notes. The company is also making changes to its content moderation policies around political topics and undoing changes that reduced the amount of political content in user feeds, Zuckerberg said.
For me, this says, “Cut some costs and respond to “a shifting political and social landscape.” The direction in which Meta is moving seems to be “freer speech,” albeit within whatever Silly Putty guardrails Mr. Zuckerberg decrees.
In contrast, Telegram — which has out-innovated Meta for many years — is taking a different path through environmental changes in the datasphere. Since France required that Mr. Durov, founder and “owner” of Telegram remain in France until his company’s behavior has been dissected, Telegram is moving on a different trajectory. A few details of this charge have been reported in “Telegram Hands U.S. Authorities Data on Thousands of Users.” This exposé declares:
Telegram, the popular social network and messaging application which has also become a hotbed for all sorts of serious criminal activity, provided U.S. authorities with data on more than 2,200 users last year, according to newly released data from Telegram. The news shows a massive spike in the number of data requests fulfilled by Telegram after French authorities arrested Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in August, in part because of the company’s unwillingness to provide user data in a child abuse investigation. Between January 1 and September 30, 2024, Telegram fulfilled 14 requests “for IP addresses and/or phone numbers” from the United States, which affected a total of 108 users, according to Telegram’s Transparency Reports bot. But for the entire year of 2024, it fulfilled 900 requests from the U.S. affecting a total of 2,253 users, meaning that the number of fulfilled requests skyrocketed between October and December, according to the newly released data. “Fulfilled requests from the United States of America for IP address and/or phone number: 900,” Telegram’s Transparency Reports bot said when prompted for the latest report by 404 Media. “Affected users: 2253,” it added.
Since France’s direct action, Telegram has apparently become even more cooperative with law enforcement. Plus, Telegram agreed to participate in activities designed to identify human traffickers. On the surface, it appears that Telegram is becoming more agreeable to legitimate requests from law enforcement. Telegram has become associated with a number of interesting and possibly illegal activities in some countries. Examples range from groups (private and public) discussing terrorism and child pornography.
But that “shift” to cooperation distracts from what is a major change at Telegram and its affiliated entities like The Open Network Foundation, Ton.social, and assorted investment vehicles. Specifically, Telegram is doubling down on crypto currency. The Telegram infrastructure is being shaped and in some cases repurposed to host services, features, and distributed applications related to crypto. The idea, as the FOGINT team understands it, is to provide a hub or nexus for traditional financial services built on crypto, not the US dollar, euros, or “traditional” and regulated currencies.
A second effect of this shift at Telegram is its push to provide a home for a wide range of seemingly harmless online games. On the surface, a parent or a person as old as the producer of this blog, would glance at the display and think, “Oh, another child’s game.” Those individuals would be incorrect. Telegram “click to earn” games include addictive hooks and the upside of playing are points which can be converted to crypto currency. Gambling and the downstream financial services required by big winners or “whales” are the customers. The addictive element is just part of Telegram’s marketing activities.
Net net: Meta wants free speech or at least to appear to be lining up with the “shifting political and social landscape.” Telegram is using social as a way to speed use of crypto as an alternative to the US dollar. Social media giants are similar in some ways, but at this point in time, the two companies are on divergent trajectories.
Stephen E Arnold, January 7, 2025
The Future: State Control of Social Media Access, Some Hope
December 25, 2024
It’s great that parents are concerned for their children’s welfare, especially when there are clear and documented dangers. The Internet has been in concerned parents’ crosshairs since its proliferation. Back in the AOL days it was easier to monitor kids access, you simply didn’t allow them to log on and you reviewed their browser history. However, with the advent of mobile devices and the necessity of the Internet for everyday living, parents are baffled on how to control their children and so is the Australian government. In an extreme case, the Australian parents proposed a bill to ban kids under the age of sixteen from using social media. The Senior relates how they are winning the battle: “Parents To Lose Final Say In Social Media Ban For Kids.”
The proposed bill is from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s administration and it plans to ban all kids under the age of sixteen from any and other social media platforms. Parents are taken out of the equation entirely. Parents will not be allowed to consent and many see it as a violation of their civil and parental rights.
The bill hasn’t been drafted yet and probably won’t be in 2024. It is believed that the first legislation on the bill will be in 2025 and will slowly work its way through the Australian parliament. The blanket ban would also not require age verification:
“Asked if parents would be allowed to consent to their children being on social media at a younger age, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told Labor’s party room meeting “no”. She said people using social media would not have to upload proof of identity directly to those platforms, when minimum age requirements kick in. ‘The opposition is the only party arguing that people should upload 100 points of ID and give it to TikTok,’ she told the meeting. The government wants 12 months of consultation to figure out exactly how the ban will be enforced.”
Australia doesn’t have faith in parents’ efforts to regulate their kids on social media, so the government is acting in the kids’ best interests. It does sound like the government is overstepping, but social media experts and mental health professionals have documented the potential and real harm of social media on kids. Many parents also don’t monitor and discipline their children’s Internet usage habits. Is this an overstep by the government? No, just a first step.
Whitney Grace, December 25, 2024
More Data about What Is Obvious to People Interacting with Teens
December 19, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Here’s another one of those surveys which provide some data about a very obvious trend. “Nearly Half of US Teens Are Online Constantly, Pew Report Finds” states:
Nearly half of American teenagers say they are online “constantly” despite concerns about the effects of social media and smartphones on their mental health…
No kidding. Who knew?
There were some points in the cited article which seemed interesting if the data are reliable, the sample is reliable, and the analysis is reliable. But, just for yucks, let’s assume the findings are reasonably representative of what the future leaders of America are up to when their noses are pressed against an iPhone or (gasp!) and Android device.
First, YouTube is the “single most popular platform teenagers use. However, in a previous Pew study YouTube captured 90 percent of the sample, not the quite stunning 95 percent previously documented by the estimable survey outfit.
Second, the write up says:
There was a slight downward trend in several popular apps teens used. For instance, 63% of teens said they used TikTok, down from 67% and Snapchat slipped to 55% from 59%.
Improvement? Sure.
And, finally, I noted what might be semi-bad news for parents and semi-good news for Meta / Zuck:
X saw the biggest decline among teenage users. Only 17% of teenagers said they use X, down from 23% in 2022, the year Elon Musk bought the platform. Reddit held steady at 14%. About 6% of teenagers said they use Threads, Meta’s answer to X that launched in 2023. Meta’s messaging service WhatsApp was a rare exception in that it saw the number of teenage users increase, to 23% from 17% in 2022.
I do have a comment. Lots of numbers which suggest reading, writing, and arithmetic are not likely to be priorities for tomorrow’s leaders of the free world. But whatever they decide and do, those actions will be on video and shared on social media. Outstanding!
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2024
BlueSky: Tweeting Birds Are Flocking Around
December 3, 2024
As X, formerly Twitter, becomes more toxic, alternative BlueSky has welcomed many refugees fleeing Musk’s regime. In fact, the decentralized social media platform recently hit 15 million users. Blood in the Machine takes this opportunity to declare, “Bluesky’s Success Is a Rejection of Big Tech’s Operating System.” The post is largely about enumerating X’s flaws. Will such a marketing angle make the Twitter clone a winner?
After a brief lesson in recent social-media history, blogger Brian Merchant observes:
“The online world has become so hostile to users that Bluesky’s pitch of ‘here is a straightforward feed of text-based user-generated posts that we promise not to mess with’ is revelatory. Its scaling model and raison d’être are a very rejection of the platforms that have colonized the rest of our digital lives, and relentlessly commodified them. No wonder everyone seems to be rooting for its success, even if there are, pointedly, no guarantees those ideals will remain in place.”
Why no guarantees? The taint of venture capital, for one. The platform’s recent $15 million series A funding round was led by Blockchain Capital. Despite that firm’s focus on cryptocurrency, BlueSky promises it will continue to prioritize the user over the likes of crypto and NFTs. Will it deliver? At least wary users can turn to Mastodon. For now.
The write-up continues:
“BlueSky is giving hope to people who spend long hours online precisely because it is purporting to be, and so far succeeding, at least in its very short lifespan, in being everything that big tech is not. No AI spam, no glitchy ad tech, no link throttling, no malignant billionaire owner. BlueSky is not just tapping into this wellspring of goodwill because it promises a return to the halcyon days of *Twitter*—but a return to the days before ossified, rent-seeking tech monopolies drove our collective online experience to hell.”
But how long will this retro trip last?
Cynthia Murrell, December 3, 2024
Pass a Law to Prevent Youngsters from Accessing Social Media. Yep, That Will Work Well
December 2, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I spotted a very British “real” news story called “It’s So Easy to Lie: : A Fifth of Children Use Fake Age on Social Media.” I like the idea that one can pick 100 children at random from a school with 13 year olds, only 80 percent will allegedly follow the rules.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough. I might point out you did not present a young George Washington despite my efforts to feed you words to which you would respond.
Does the 20 percent figure seem low to you? I would suggest that if a TikTok-type video was popular at that school, more than 20 percent would find a way to get access to that video. If the video was about being thin or a fashion tip, the females would be more interested and they would lie to get that information. The boys might be more interested in other topics, which I shall leave to your imagination.
The write up says:
A newly released survey, conducted by the UK media regulator, indicates 22% of eight to 17 year olds lie that they are 18 or over on social media apps.
I doubt that my hypothetical group of 13 years olds are different from those who are four years older. The write up pointed out:
A number of tech firms have recently announced measures to make social media safer for young people, such as Instagram launching “teen accounts.” However, when BBC news spoke to a group of teenagers at Rosshall Academy, in Glasgow, all of them said they used adult ages for their social media accounts. “It’s just so easy to lie about your age”, said Myley, 15.
Australia believes it has a fix: Ban access. I quite like the $AUS 33 million fine too.
I would suggest that in a group of 100 teens, one will know how to create a fake persona, buy a fake ID from a Telegram vendor, and get an account. Will a Telegram user set up a small online business to sell fake identities or social media accounts to young people? Yep.
Cyber security firms cannot block bad actors. What makes regulators think that social media companies can prevent young people from getting access to their service. Enjoy those meetings. I hope the lunches are good.
My hunch is that the UK is probably going to ban social media access for those under a certain age. Good luck.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2024
Grooming Booms in the UK
November 12, 2024
The ability of the Internet to connect us to one another can be a beautiful thing. On the flip side, however, are growing problems like this one: The UK’s Independent tells us, “Online Grooming Crimes Reach Record Levels, NSPCC Says.” UK police recorded over 7,000 offenses in that country over the past year, a troubling new high. We learn:
“The children’s charity said the figures, provided by 45 UK police forces, showed that 7,062 sexual communication with a child offences were recorded in 2023-24, a rise of 89% since 2017-18, when the offence first came into force. Where the means of communication was disclosed – which was 1,824 cases – social media platforms were often used, with Snapchat named in 48% of those cases. Meta-owned platforms were also found to be popular with offenders, with WhatsApp named in 12% of those cases, Facebook and Messenger in 12% and Instagram in 6%. In response to the figures, the NSPCC has urged online regulator Ofcom to strengthen the Online Safety Act. It said there is currently too much focus on acting after harm has taken place, rather than being proactive to ensure the design of social media platforms does not contribute to abuse.”
Well, yes, that would be ideal. Specifically, the NSPCC states, regulations around private messaging must be strengthened. UK Minister Jess Phillips emphasizes:
“Social media companies have a responsibility to stop this vile abuse from happening on their platforms. Under the Online Safety Act they will have to stop this kind of illegal content being shared on their sites, including on private and encrypted messaging services, or face significant fines.”
Those fines would have to be significant indeed. Much larger than any levied so far, which are but a routine cost of doing business for these huge firms. But we have noted a few reasons to hope for change. Are governments ready to hold big tech responsible for the harms they facilitate?
Cynthia Murrell, November 12, 2024
Instragram Does the YouTube Creator Fear Thing
November 11, 2024
Instagram influencers are enraged by CEO Adam Mosseri’s bias towards popular content. According to the BBC in, “Instagram Lowering Quality Of Less Viewed Videos ‘Alarming’ Creators”, video quality is lowered for older, less popular videos. More popular content gets the HD white glove treatment. Influencers are upset over this “discrimination,” especially when they concentrate on making income through Instagram over other platforms.
The influences view the lower quality output as harmful and affects the quality of original art. Mosseri argues that most influencers have their videos watched soon after publication. The only videos being affected by lower quality are older and no longer receive many views. While that sounds logical, it could also create a cycle that benefits only a few influencers:
Social media consultant Matt Navarra told the BBC the move ‘seems to somewhat contradict Instagram’s earlier messages or efforts to encourage new creators’.
"How can creators gain traction if their content is penalized for not being popular," he said. And he said it could risk creating a cycle of more established creators reaping the rewards of higher engagement from viewers over those trying to build their following.”
Instagram is lowering the quality to save on costs. It always comes down money, doesn’t it? When asked to respond about that, Mosseri said viewers are more interested in a video’s content over its image quality. Navarra agreed to that statement:
“He [Navarra] said creators should focus on how they can make engaging content that caters to their audience, rather than be overly concerned by the possibility of its quality being degraded by Instagram.”
Navarra’s right. Video quality will be decent and not poor like a cathode-ray tube TV. The creators should focus on building themselves and not investing all of their creative energy into one platform. Diversify!
Whitney Grace, November 11, 2024
The Sweet Odor of Musk
October 31, 2024
The old Twitter was a boon for academics. It was a virtual gathering place where they could converse with each other, the general public, and even lawmakers. Information was spread and discussed far and wide. The platform was also a venue for conducting online research. Now, though, scholars seem to be withering under the “Musk effect.” Cambridge University Press shares its researchers’ paper, “The Vibes Are Off: Did Elon Musk Push Academics Off Twitter?”
The abstract begins by noting several broad impacts of Twitter’s transition to “X,” as Elon Musk has renamed it: Most existing employees were laid-off. Access to its data was monetized. Its handling of censorship and misinformation has were upended and its affordances shifted. But the scope of this paper is more narrow. Researchers James Bisbee and Kevin Munger set out to answer:
“What did Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform mean for this academic ecosystem? Using a snowball sample of more than 15,700 academic accounts from the fields of economics, political science, sociology, and psychology, we show that academics in these fields reduced their ‘engagement’ with the platform, measured by either the number of active accounts (i.e., those registering any behavior on a given day) or the number of tweets written (including original tweets, replies, retweets, and quote tweets).”
Why did scholars disengage? The “Musk Effect,” as the paper calls it, was a mix of factors. Changes to the verification process and account-name rules were part of it. Many were upset when Musk nixed the free API they’d relied on for research in a range of fields. But much of it was simply a collective disgust at the new owner’s unscientific nature, childishness, and affinity for conspiracy theories. The researchers write:
“We argue that a combination of these features of the threat and then the reality of Musk’s ownership of the Twitter corporation influenced academics either to quit Twitter altogether or at least reduce their engagement with the platform (i.e., ‘disengage’). The policy changes and personality of Twitter’s new owner were difficult to avoid and may have made the experience of using the platform less palatable. Conversely, these same attributes may have stimulated a type of ideological boycott, in which academics disengaged with Twitter as a political strategy to indicate their intellectual and moral opposition.”
See the paper for a description of its methodology, the detailed results (complete with charts), and a discussion of the factors behind the Musk Effect. It also describes the role pre-X Twitter played in academic research. Check out section 1 to learn what the scientific community lost when one bratty billionaire decided to make a spite purchase the size of small country’s gross domestic product.
Cynthia Murrell, October 31, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
