Online Generates Fans and Only Fans
February 6, 2025
Ah, the World Wide Web—virtual land of opportunity! For example, as Canada’s CBC reports, "Olympians Are Turning to OnlyFans to Fund Dreams as they Face a ‘Broken’ Finance System." Because paying athletes to compete tarnishes the Olympic ideal, obviously. Never mind the big bucks raked in by the Olympic Committee. It’s the principle of the thing. We learn:
"Dire financial straits are leading droves of Olympic athletes to sell images of their bodies to subscribers on OnlyFans — known for sexually explicit content — to sustain their dreams of gold at the Games. As they struggle to make ends meet, a spotlight is being cast on an Olympics funding system that watchdog groups condemn as ‘broken,’ claiming most athletes ‘can barely pay their rent.’ The Olympics, the world’s biggest sporting stage, bring in billions of dollars in TV rights, ticket sales and sponsorship, but most athletes must fend for themselves financially."
But wait, what about those Olympians like Michael Phelps and Simone Biles who make millions? Success stories like theirs are few. The article shares anecdotes of athletes who have taken the Only Fans route. They are now able to pay their bills, including thousands of dollars in expenses like coaching, physical therapy, and equipment. However, in doing so they face social stigma. None are doing this because they want to, opines Mexican diver Diego Balleza Isaias, but because they have to.
Why are the world’s top athletes selling (images of) their finely honed bodies to pay the bills? The write-up cites comments from the director of Global Athlete, an athlete-founded organization addressing the power imbalance in sports:
"’The entire funding model for Olympic sport is broken. The IOC generates now over $1.7 billion US per year and they refuse to pay athletes who attend the Olympics,’ said Rob Koehler, Global Athlete’s director general. He criticized the IOC for forcing athletes to sign away their image rights. ‘The majority of athletes can barely pay their rent, yet the IOC, national Olympic committees and national federations that oversee the sport have employees making over six figures. They all are making money off the backs of athletes."
Will this trend prompt the Olympic Committee to change its ways? Or will it just make a rule against the practice and try to sweep this whole chapter under the mat? The corroding Olympic medals complement this story too.
Cynthia Murrell, February 6, 2025
Amazon Twitch: Losing Social Traction of the Bezos Bulldozer
February 5, 2025
Twitch is an online streaming platform primarily used by gamers to stream their play seasons and interact with their fanbase. There hasn’t been much news about Twitch in recent months and it could be die to declining viewership. Tube Filter dives into the details with “Is Twitch Viewership At Its Lowest Point In Four Years?”
The article explains that Twitch had a total of 1.58 billion watch time hours in December 2024. This was its lowest month in four years according to Stream Charts. Twitch, however, did have a small increase in new streamers joining the platform and the amount of channels live at one time. Stream Charts did mention that December is a slow month due to the holiday season. Twitch is dealing with dire financial straits and made users upset when it used AI to make emotes.
Here are some numbers:
“In both October and November 2024, around 89,000 channels on average would be live on Twitch at any one time. In December, that figure pushed up to 92,392. Twitch also saw a bump in the overall number of active channels from 4,490,725 in November to 4,777,395 in December—a 6% increase. Streams Charts notes that all these streamers broadcasted a more diverse range of content of content than usual. “[I]t’s important to note that other key metrics for both viewer and streamer activity remain strong,” it wrote in a report about December’s viewership. “A positive takeaway from December was the variety of content on offer. Streamers broadcasted in 43,200 different categories, the highest figure of the year, second only to March.”
Twitch is also courting TikTok creators in case the US federal government bans the short video streaming platform. The platform has offerings that streamers want, but it needs to do more to attract more viewers. Changes have caused some viewers to pine for the days of Amouranth in her inflated kiddie pool, the extremely sensitive Kira, and the good old days of iBabyRainbow. Some even miss the live streaming gambling at home events.
Now what Amazon? Longer pre-roll advertisements? More opaque content guidelines? A restriction on fashion shows?
Whitney Grace, February 5, 2025
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
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