facebook-is-working-on-a-version-of-instagram-for-kids-under-13

Facebook is working on a version of Instagram for kids under 13

Head of Instagram Adam Mosseri confirms that a version of the popular photo sharing app for children under 13 is in the works, BuzzFeed News reports. The Facebook-owned company knows a lot of kids want to use Instagram, Mosseri said, but there isn’t a “detailed plan yet,” according to BuzzFeed News.

“But part of the solution is to create a version of Instagram for young people or kids where parents have transparency or control,” Mosseri told BuzzFeed News. “It’s one of the things we’re exploring.” Instagram’s current policy bars children under 13 from the platform.

“Increasingly kids are asking their parents if they can join apps that help them keep up with their friends,” Joe Osborne, a Facebook spokesperson said in an email to The Verge. “Right now there aren’t many options for parents, so we’re working on building additional products — like we did with Messenger Kids — that are suitable for kids, managed by parents. We’re exploring bringing a parent-controlled experience to Instagram to help kids keep up with their friends, discover new hobbies and interests, and more.”

BuzzFeed News obtained a message from an internal messaging board where Instagram vice president of product Vishal Shah said a “youth pillar” project has been identified as a priority by the company. Its Community Product Group will focus on privacy and safety issues “to ensure the safest possible experience for teens,” Shah wrote in the post. Mosseri would oversee the project along with vice president Pavni Diwanji, who oversaw YouTube Kids while she was at Google.

Instagram published a blog post earlier this week describing its work to make the platform safe for its youngest users, but made no mention of a new version for kids under 13.

Targeting online products at children under 13 is fraught not only with concerns about privacy, but legal issues as well. In September 2019, the Federal Trade Commission fined Google $170 million for tracking the viewing histories of children to serve ads to them on YouTube, a violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). TikTok precursor Musical.ly was fined $5.7 million for violating COPPA in February of 2019.

Facebook launched an ad-free version of its Messenger chat platform for kids in 2017, intended for kids between the ages of 6 and 12. Children’s health advocates criticized it as harmful for kids and urged CEO Mark Zuckerberg to discontinue it. Then in 2019, a bug in Messenger Kids allowed children to join groups with strangers, leaving thousands of kids in chats with unauthorized users. Facebook quietly closed those unauthorized chats, which it said affected “a small number” of users.

congress-tries-to-get-the-ftc-in-fighting-shape

Congress tries to get the FTC in fighting shape

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee lawmakers held a hearing with some of the most prominent players in antitrust enforcement today. Two Federal Trade Commission leaders and two state attorneys general currently suing Facebook for violating antitrust law testified before the committee.

But while lawmakers have spoken extensively about breaking up companies like Facebook and Google, law enforcement agencies are the ones with real power to unwind tech mergers, even if their dwindling budgets and measly resources make it more difficult to do so. On Thursday, members of Congress signaled that they want to help them bring more lawsuits against Big Tech.

WHAT IT MEANS

In previous hearings, committee chairman Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and others have made sweeping statements about setting new rules of the road for tech companies in order to spur more competition in the market. But on Thursday, it became apparent that helping enforcers do their jobs may be Congress’ first point of focus when it comes to reform.

At the top of Thursday’s hearing, Cicilline asked the witnesses how Congress could help modernize merger enforcement and encourage agencies like the DOJ and FTC to take on more cases.

“Today’s hearing is an opportunity to take additional steps… by identifying reforms to develop and clarify the antitrust laws to confront America’s monopoly problem,” Cicilline said in his opening remarks Thursday.

It’s something Republicans seem eager to take on as well. Ranking Member Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) said Thursday that he supports “increasing rigorous enforcement” of antitrust law and “reforming burdens of proof for Big Tech mergers involving a monopoly platform” — basically, making it easier for law enforcement to bring lawsuits against violating tech companies.

But FTC Acting Chair Democrat Rebecca Slaughter told lawmakers that their work shouldn’t stop there. “I firmly believe that effective enforcement is a complement, not an alternative, to thoughtful regulation,” she said.

THE HIGHLIGHT

During Thursday’s hearing, I spoke with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) about Congress’ priorities when it comes to antitrust reform. I asked Klobuchar if Congress should prioritize helping enforcers and providing them with more resources when it comes to antitrust reform.

“That’s something you can do while making the case for the changes to law,” Klobuchar said. “I was so close to getting that done at the end of the year.”

Klobuchar touted her antitrust package with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called the “Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act.” That bill would provide law enforcement with more resources to take competition cases to court, mirroring much of what the House Judiciary Committee discussed on Thursday.

Klobuchar is also giving a virtual talk on antitrust reform on Friday with EU Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager. I asked Klobuchar what lessons the US could take from the EU’s competition efforts in the tech space.

“They have gone about this in a way where they’re seriously looking at competition policy,” Klobuchar said. “They’re calling it competition policy, and they’ve been aggressive about it, going up to these gateway companies. I think that’s the overall thing that one can learn. Let’s face it, US policy has been sleepy. For years, it was kind of close your eyes to what’s happening with things like [Facebook’s] purchases of WhatsApp and Instagram.”

WHAT’S NEXT?

With all of the House’s hearings coming to an end, it means we could start seeing legislation introduced in the near future. Earlier this month, Klobuchar told CNN’s Brian Fung that she plans to hold a series of competition hearings in the Senate as well looking into tech’s dominance, like app store fees and Facebook and Google’s dominance of the ad market. Those hearings haven’t been scheduled yet.

YouTube Shorts arrives in the US to take on TikTok, but the beta is still half-baked

YouTube Shorts, the company’s short-form answer to TikTok, is launching in beta in the United States starting today. The short video format has already been available for several months in India, but today marks its debut stateside (along with the addition of several new features).

For the beta launch, YouTube Shorts will feature all the basics of any TikTok clone: a multi-segment camera that makes it easy for creators to quickly string together clips, a wide selection of music tracks (with catalogs from “over 250 labels and publishers”), and a robust-looking captioning tool, the last of which is debuting alongside the US launch. “We really want to create a playground of creativity here where we give creators the raw materials to produce great videos,” says Todd Sherman, YouTube’s product lead for Shorts.

Like TikTok, users will be able to swipe through an endless, algorithmically generated feed of short videos, subscribe to their favorite creators, explore specific hashtags or sounds, and remix other videos’ audio tracks. Even the interface looks similar to TikTok’s player.

But instead of getting its own app, Shorts will live on a new carousel on the home tab of the mobile YouTube app. (The company is also experimenting with a dedicated Shorts tab.)

And while Shorts checks off a lot of the basics, it’s missing plenty of features that make TikTok such a unique viral hit. There’s virtually no collaborative features available in Shorts at launch — so users won’t be able to reply to other videos or join together in a version of TikTok’s popular duet or stitch features. Also missing is a way to view a more curated feed. For now, Shorts only offers its main, algorithmic feed (similar to TikTok’s “For You” page), with no option to only view videos from accounts to which you’ve subscribed.

Sherman says that the company views Shorts as a new avenue for the next generation of content creators to emerge. YouTube itself is filled with a hyper-competitive landscape of established creators who specialize in making videos that typically run 10 minutes or longer. Shorts offers creators a chance to break that mold, much like what YouTube originally offered to internet creators when it first launched in 2005.

“I think the real core of what Shorts is about is enabling that next generation of creators that maybe even found it too difficult, previously, to even consider creating on YouTube,” Sherman explains. “And if we can help fulfill our mission of giving them a voice, then I think that would make us feel like we’re continuing to grow a YouTube in a way that keeps it relevant for this next generation of creators to find a voice on this platform.”

That’s not to say that Shorts won’t offer anything to existing creators. For starters, YouTube will share subscriptions across traditional channels and Shorts. So any users that find your content in Shorts and subscribe to get more of it will also be signing up for any long-form videos, and creators with tons of subscribers already will have a built-in audience to whom they can deliver Shorts. In at least one implementation of Shorts that the company is trying, Shorts videos will appear directly in users’ subscription tabs.

According to Sherman, YouTube has some big plans for how it’ll tie Shorts into the broader YouTube ecosystem down the line — features that might help the fledgling service stand out in a crowded field that’s already dominated by TikTok and other (less established) competitors like Instagram’s Reels or Snapchat’s Spotlight.

And those features are going to be essential: YouTube is coming very late to a party that’s already ruled by TikTok, and as Reels and Spotlight have shown, its no small task to not only replicate but outdo TikTok’s seemingly magical blend of algorithmic alchemy, collaborative tools, and viral trends. Unfortunately, YouTube Shorts is already playing catch-up, and its uniquely YouTube features are still very half-baked.

Shorts does have a few clever ties into traditional YouTube videos: at launch, creators will be able to jump right to creating a Short from music videos for licensed songs, for instance. And in the future, the company plans to allow users to remix sound from any YouTube video for use in Shorts, a potential goldmine of content for creators to remix into new memes and videos. (YouTube users will be able to opt out, if they’d prefer to not have their audios used.)

But Shorts just still barely scratches the surface. For example, Shorts that use a song clip can link out to the music video on YouTube proper, but there’s no easy collection or link to find Shorts of a song from the regular video player, for instance.

While it’s starting from behind, YouTube is an unparalleled force for videos online, and the fact that creators can seamlessly transition between Shorts and long-form videos — while bringing their audiences with them — isn’t something to discount.

“As we grow Shorts, we can connect that ecosystem to the broader YouTube. And that means that if you are a short-form creator and you grow to be a long-form creator, that audience can grow with you,” Sherman says.

Being able to directly link to the original sources of content for audio — whether it be a song, a movie clip, or a snippet of an interview — is also a powerful advantage for YouTube, as is the sheer size of the site.

As Sherman explains, “One of the underpinnings that has helped so many people become creators is that you if give them high-quality inputs, they’re more likely to get to high-quality outputs by remixing other things.” And if you’re looking for videos to input, it’s hard to find a bigger source of them than Youtube.

But there are still big unanswered questions that YouTube has to figure out about Shorts — chief among them, how creators will make money. “I think the world has come to expect YouTube to support creators. And I think that’s going to extend to Shorts also,” says Sherman. “The way we think about it is: television has a different business model than movies, YouTube has a different business model than television, and short-form video is going to have a different business model than long-form YouTube.”

For now, though, YouTube isn’t making any announcements as to what monetization options will look like on Shorts.

Another big question is what — if anything — YouTube is planning to do to make sure that Shorts doesn’t end up as another place for clout-chasing content farmers to just repost popular TikToks and reap the rewards (something that Instagram Reels continues to struggle with.) Sherman says that it’s something that the Shorts team is looking into, but that they have a fine line to walk: YouTube doesn’t want to discourage creators from posting their content on multiple platforms, but it also doesn’t want people just reposting videos from other people that they just downloaded off TikTok either.

The company says that it’ll take a bit of time for Shorts to roll out, but that it should “be available to everybody in the US over the next several weeks.”

facebook-is-removing-any-posts-celebrating-the-atlanta-attack-or-the-suspected-shooter

Facebook is removing any posts celebrating the Atlanta attack or the suspected shooter

Facebook says it will remove any posts that celebrate the recent shooting in Atlanta or support the suspected shooter. Eight people were killed in the attack. Seven of the victims of the shooting were women and six were of Asian descent.

The social network has designated the shooting to be a “violating event,” a classification that it’s previously used for the US Capitol riots in January this year and the killing of two people during Black Lives Matter protests in Kenosha in August 2020.

This classification is part of Facebook’s expanded policies on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations. The social network noted last August that it wanted to address movements “that, while not directly organizing violence, have celebrated violent acts.” That means removing content related to movements that “have demonstrated significant risks to public safety but do not meet the rigorous criteria to be designated as a dangerous organization and banned from having any presence on our platform.”

As is common with Facebook moderation, it’s not clear exactly what criteria the company is applying. A Facebook spokesperson told The Verge it would remove content that praises, supports, or represents the shooting or the suspect, but did not offer further details.

Facebook also said that it had found and removed an Instagram account it believes was linked to the alleged shooter, but noted that this account had been inactive for some time. The company has also confirmed that a widely-circulated image, purporting to be a Facebook post from the shooter, is a fake.

The social network said it would temporarily stop new accounts being registered on Facebook and Instagram using the same name as the suspected shooter, presumably to limit the creation of new hoaxes or misinformation. Facebook says it’s working with law enforcement to help their investigations into the shooting.

why-facebook-is-getting-in-the-newsletter-game

Why Facebook is getting in the newsletter game

Today let’s talk about platforms’ growing interest in building newsletter tools — and whether Facebook, against all conventional wisdom, might have an opportunity there.

I.

Newsletters made headlines today after Facebook announced a plan laying out some of its intentions in the space. In a blog post entitled “Supporting independent writers,” the company explained its point of view and sketched out the products it is now building. Campbell Brown, the company’s vice president for global news partnerships, and Anthea Watson Strong, a product manager for news, laid it out:

  • A free, self-publishing tool with robust styling options to create individual websites and an email newsletter
  • An integration with Facebook Pages to enable publishing across various multimedia formats including photos, live videos, and stories
  • The ability to create Facebook groups and nurture a community of readers

In addition, Facebook plans to offer features to help writers find audiences and sell subscriptions, as well as analytics tools and an accelerator program “to help creators come together and learn best practices.”

Before I go any further, let me acknowledge my conflicts here. As noted in my ethics statement, I receive a health care subsidy and legal support from Substack, the company with which Facebook is most prominently competing here. At the same time, it’s in my interest to see lots of newsletter services thriving. As in most things, the more big companies that are competing for writers, the better off most writers will be.

That said, I still find Facebook’s move into newsletters a bit surreal, if only because I started a newsletter in 2017 as an end run around Facebook. Or rather, as an end run around the idea of algorithmic feeds in general. After the better part of a decade chasing audiences from platform to platform, I set out to build a strong, direct connection to an audience that wants to hear from me, and that I can reliably reach no matter how many likes, upvotes, or retweets any individual post happens to get.

I won’t rehearse Facebook’s long history with the news business here, but suffice to say it has been rocky and mostly unsatisfying for just about everyone involved. At the same time, since the clear-eyed and opinionated-in-a-good-way Brown joined the company in 2017, Facebook’s news efforts have gradually bent toward realism. If the Facebook of old promised publishers the moon, the Facebook of today is more likely to promise as little as possible.

But as the platform’s dominance has grown, so has the threat of onerous regulation. As their digital advertising revenues have shrunk, publishers around the world have gotten better at convincing lawmakers that Facebook (and Google) owe them a cut of that revenue. (Australia is the most recent example of this, and it will not be the last.) Facebook has grudgingly paid up, to no real material benefit to society — as I like to say in this space roughly once per day, the United States lost 16,000 journalism jobs last year. Platform subsidies have not been enough to stop the bleeding in the past, and I have no reason to believe they will do so in the future.

Still, demands for those subsidies will only increase over the next year. For platforms, the natural response to those demands is to try to change the laws. Facebook will certainly continue to lobby around the world, but with newsletters it’s attempting a secondary strategy: it’s trying to change the publishers.

Facebook’s oft-repeated mission is to “give people a voice,” and yet for the first decade-plus of its existence, its media partnerships have largely been with big companies like CNN and News Corp. A more Facebook-like approach to media partnerships would be to start at the level of the individual and help people start building their businesses that way.

After a long period of inattention to creators, Facebook has been developing new ways for individuals to make money from their large followings on Instagram. It is doing the same in its Twitch rival, Facebook Gaming — which, incidentally, saw its watch time grow 79 percent last year. Viewed in this light, turning individual writers into successful tiny media companies feels like a logical next step.

Not to say that Facebook’s newsletter ambitions have been received particularly warmly. “Facebook Has Found a New Way to Ruin Media,” a headline in The New Republic announced today. Jacob Silverman’s piece doesn’t really say anything specific about how Facebook newsletters would “ruin the media”; instead, it recounts how difficult the media business is for the people who work in it, and it casts doubt on the idea that solo entrepreneurs and small groups of collaborators can do much to change that. (My humble retort is that, uh, maybe we could try it first?)

Certainly there are questions that any would-be media mogul should ask before throwing in with Facebook, and I asked the company a couple. For starters, will these “individual websites” be hosted on domains controlled by Facebook or the author? (If the author, yay; if Facebook, run.) Facebook told me it was “too soon to discuss those details.”

Second, will Facebook take a cut of subscription revenue? No answer there either, but a spokeswoman pointed out that Facebook currently takes no cut from revenue generated by subscriptions initiated through its Instant Articles product, and it has said it will not take a cut of any video creator revenue through at least August. If those are hints that Facebook will take a zero percent commission on newsletter subscription revenue — well, that will get the attention of at least a few creators who are currently giving up 5 or 10 percent.

The third question, and the most important one, I didn’t bother asking: how committed will Facebook be to these creators over the long term? Much of journalists’ enmity toward the company stems from the fact that what the platform amplifies changes all the time, making it shaky ground on which to build a business. But even assuming that Facebook’s enthusiasm for newsletters wanes over time, it might not be as catastrophic to the individual as the pivot to video was for big publishers. As long as creators can export their mailing lists and customer relationships when the time comes, they may find that the hassle was worth it.

II.

Those are all questions about what’s in it for creators, though. Perhaps just as interesting is what’s in it for Facebook.

On the surface, it may not seem obvious why the company would take an interest in helping people build businesses off the platform. But that view is rooted in the company’s old view of the News Feed, as a place that blended posts from your friends with links to articles from publishers on the open web.

Two years ago, though, Mark Zuckerberg announced that the company would gradually shift its product development to focus on private messaging and groups. And groups are the real opportunity for Facebook when it comes to newsletters.

The historian Heather Cox Richardson is the most successful individual authors on Substack, on track to earn more than $1 million in subscription revenue this year. Many of her subscribers come from her Facebook page, which has 1.4 million followers. For most of us on Substack, newsletters offer a way to monetize our Twitter followings. But if you’re a Facebook executive, you look at Richardson and wonder whether you couldn’t help more people monetize their Facebook pages.

If Facebook could do that, and create a thousand Richardsons around the world, it would prove that the company can support a different kind of publishing, giving it a shiny new talking point as it wrestles with lawmakers around the world. And it would help to realize the company’s visions for groups as the starting point for many, or even most, of the discussions that the average person has on the platform.

That looks like a win-win for Facebook and ought to give prospective participants in this new experiment at least some confidence that the company’s commitment is real. (It’s also notable to me that Facebook announced these tools months before they are publicly available — a sign that the company wants them to be on the mind of anyone considering making a move in the short term, particularly those who have large Facebook followings and might otherwise consider Substack or the newly Twitter-owned Revue.)

Anyway, I don’t know if any of this will work for Facebook. But it seems clear to me why the company would want to try.

III.

Another reason why Facebook might have an opportunity is that Substack seems intent on giving them one.

Some writers on the platform have been unhappy since Substack published a blog post last week announcing its “Pros” program, in which it offers some writers big advances to lure them to the platform. The list of writers to whom advances have been offered is not public, and I believe it to be more diverse than the public conversation over the past week has made it out to be. But among the Pros who have been open about their involvement, most of them are white and male like me. (I was offered an advance last year but turned it down, though I accepted other benefits, as disclosed above. If Substack considers me part of the “Pro” program, I am not aware of it.)

The blog post characterized the decision to offer advances as “business decisions, not editorial ones,” which came across as wishful thinking. Meanwhile, some of the people who have taken advances have written various offensive things, both on and off Substack, and now some other writers are wondering whether remaining on the platform makes them complicit. (The logic is that their paid subscriptions are generating revenue that will then be used to fund further advances for people who attack journalists, or stoke fears about transgender people, and so on.)

Amid all this, Substack CEO Chris Best tweeted, without any other context, “Defund the thought police,” seeming to side with the platform’s most lucrative edgelords over its more centrist and liberal creators. I’ve since received a few inquiries from writers asking whether being associated with Substack will damage their reputations over the long term.

If I were Substack, I would take pains to demonstrate that the platform offers financial support to creators across the political spectrum and draws hard lines around targeted harassment and bigotry. I would hire a really good head of communications and give her the passwords to the founders’ Twitter accounts. I would lean all the way away from the culture war — and toward building products and services that generate more revenue, for more people, than anyone else does.

Because if Substack doesn’t, someone else will.

And it might just be Mark Zuckerberg.


This column was co-published with Platformer, a daily newsletter about Big Tech and democracy.

tiktok-will-no-longer-let-people-opt-out-of-personalized-ads

TikTok will no longer let people opt out of personalized ads

TikTok will soon make personalized ads mandatory, meaning you’ll start getting ads in the app based on the kind of content you engage with, whether you want them or not.

TikTok’s notice about ad changes.
Image: TikTok

The app currently has a setting that allows users to choose whether they’ll be served ads based on their activity within the app. “Starting April 15,” reads a notice shown when opening the app, “your settings will change and the ads you’ll see may start to be based on what you do on TikTok.”

People will still be able to control whether TikTok personalizes ads based on data pulled from other apps and websites. The change in TikTok’s privacy settings reflects the way ads already operate on many social media sites, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Users can opt out of advertising that’s personalized based on tracking across different sites, but not the personalization based on activity within the sites themselves.

The change is likely related to Apple’s upcoming rollout of iOS 14, which will require developers to get users’ permission to track their data across apps for targeted advertising. Any apps that don’t request permission will risk suspension or removal from the App Store. Making personalized ads mandatory allows TikTok to target advertising to some extent as more people opt out of cross-app tracking.

zack-snyder’s-justice-league-remains-overshadowed-by-its-social-media-campaign

Zack Snyder’s Justice League remains overshadowed by its social media campaign

On March 18th, a four-hour version of director Zack Snyder’s original vision for Justice League will hit HBO Max.

Early reviews are mostly littered with praise for the movie, calling it a win for fans of Snyder’s other superhero films (Batman v Superman, Man of Steel). Others acknowledge that, hey, at least it’s better than the original film released in 2017, which was spliced together by Joss Whedon after Snyder had to step back from the project to cope with the sudden death of his daughter. Whether the movie lives up to people’s expectations or not, the very existence of it — the marketing behind it, what it represents to fandom as a whole — is a turning point for online fandom.

A quick reminder of what the last four years have consisted of from various corners of the internet: after Justice League came out in 2017, Snyder fans immediately took up a petition asking Warner Bros. to release an alternate of the film — the true version they called the Snyder Cut. Over the years, calls for Warner Bros. to take action have grown, as has the fandom. Billboard signs in Times Square, bus ads in San Diego during Comic-Con, and small demonstrations outside Warner Bros.’ headquarters in Burbank all existed in an attempt to rally WarnerMedia executives into giving them the version of Justice League they were promised through setups in Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, Wonder Woman, and more.

Like any massive faceless group centering their online personas on one particular thing or person, the Snyder Cut fandom (or the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut collective, as they became known) was a mixture of positives and negatives. The positive aspects are inspiring. Together, the group has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for suicide prevention awareness, a cause close to Snyder’s heart after his daughter’s death. A fandom rooted in a specific director spawned some genuinely thoughtful social media campaigns. There’s no denying that.

It’s also impossible to ignore the negatives. Critics and reporters received countless death threats and vile slurs all because they expressed disinterest in a Snyder Cut or called Snyder’s other work bad. Warner Bros. and DC Comics executives like Geoff Johns and former Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara were lambasted by Snyder fans to the point that Johns seemingly stopped using Twitter altogether. When new Warner Bros. CEO Ann Sarnoff joined the company, her Twitter mentions were full of people demanding the Snyder Cut.

“It took them a long time, the people who really wanted to be productive in this moment, to realize that they’re going to get judged by [negative] actions also,” Sean O’Connell, a journalist and author of Release the Snyder Cut, a book detailing the campaign over the last four years, tells The Verge. “The Snyder movement doesn’t have a really strong hold on policing the people in their movement who continue promoting that negativity.”

Even with critics, academics, and journalists calling out the toxic parts of the fandom, there were some members within the group who only seemed incentivized by ongoing acknowledgment and less-than-subtle encouragement from Snyder himself. The director recently told The New York Times that “it’s in some ways fun to surf the wave of a cultural phenomenon,” adding that “in other ways it’s terrifying and horrible.”

Snyder Cut fans are far from the only fan base with a toxic cloud hanging over parts of it. Star Wars is a perfect example. The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson, alongside actors John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran, received hordes of harassment from bitter Star Wars viewers. Boyega and Johnson publicly fought back against trolls, while Tran decided after some time to leave social media platforms like Instagram for her own mental health. At the time, Lucasfilm executives didn’t say anything publicly, nor did any of the official Star Wars social media accounts.

One of the biggest changes that has come about in an internet-first, social media-dominant world is that fans of massive properties feel closer to talent, executives, and companies than ever before. In turn, companies are trying to figure out how to navigate extremely loud voices on increasingly global platforms. Universal leaned into the #JusticeForHan hashtag when marketing its upcoming F9, a popular fan-driven movement. Sony reworked the overall tone for Venom after the first trailer failed to garner hype from Marvel fans. And perhaps most notably, Paramount completely redesigned its CGI version of Sonic the Hedgehog after the first trailer led to immediate negative reaction from fans.

Parts of the Snyder Cut fandom have drawn direct comparisons to what happened with BioWare’s Mass Effect 3 in 2012. After the game’s ending drew heavy criticism from fans, BioWare released an alternate ending to try to smooth over a vocal part of the fan base. The DLC was called Mass Effect: Extended Cut, and it became an example of corporations giving in to social media pressures.

“It’s such a slippery slope,” O’Connell says. “I don’t think that studios and corporations are going to make decisions going forward to placate fans on social media because that’s a risky gamble. At the same time, this entire DCEU experiment, to me, has been reactionary to the studio’s detriment. They started chasing the Marvel model instead of just believing in whatever Nolan had started and what Snyder tried to continue.”

AT&T has arguably leaned into the Snyder fandom the most as it tries to garner more attention and subscribers for its new HBO Max streaming service. After years of Warner Bros. repeatedly not saying anything about rereleasing a version of the film in theaters, the announcement of Snyder’s Justice League on HBO Max came with AT&T’s official Twitter account celebrating a prickly fandom. This hasn’t stopped other Snyder fans from already replying to other AT&T tweets with pleas to #RestoreTheSnyderUniverse, demanding the director be given another shot at creating his entire superhero world, something current DC Films head Walter Hamada has no intention of doing.

The Snyder Cut is, according to several reviews, much better than the original. It exists as a testament to having a director see their entire project through from beginning to end. But #ReleaseTheSnyderCut is not the same as Zack Snyder’s Justice League, and there is a reason why WarnerMedia is releasing it as a four-hour film with effectively no oversight on HBO Max instead of rereleasing it in theaters (even with the pandemic) and spending $100 million on marketing.

It is, as Snyder told The New York Times, a “social experiment.” The problem with an experiment is that no one knows what that means two years, five years, or three decades from now. O’Connell doesn’t believe this would have happened if Warner Bros. waited another year or HBO Max hadn’t launched. It’s a moment to appease fans and drive subscribers to a platform that WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar consistently refers to as the future of the company.

“It’s the culmination of this entire experience: I fought and used the hashtag #ReleaseTheSnyderCut, and it’s in my world, in my computer, on my TV, in my house,” Snyder said.

That’s Zack Snyder’s Justice League. The #ReleaseTheSnyderCut fandom isn’t suddenly going to disappear, as my colleague Joshua Rivera wrote at Polygon. For both the positive campaigners who are happy to finally have Snyder’s version available to watch and the negative spouting trolls who can claim victory on social media and continue fighting with people, they got what they wanted. Their tactics worked. One of the largest corporations in the United States gave in to demands from anonymous people. That’s not something people forget, and it only incentivizes a very specific type of action further.

apple-maps-now-shows-covid-19-vaccination-locations

Apple Maps now shows COVID-19 vaccination locations

Apple announced today that Apple Maps has been updated with vaccine locations from VaccineFinder, a site run by Boston Children’s Hospital that provides information on vaccine eligibility and availability. People can search for nearby vaccination sites in Apple Maps or ask Siri, “Where can I get a COVID vaccination?” Over 20,000 locations are now listed, with more to be added in the coming weeks.

Vaccination sites in Apple Maps
Image: Apple

Each vaccine site listing in Apple Maps includes the operating hours and contact information for the site, with a link to the provider’s website to find vaccine availability and make an appointment.

With the new feature, Apple joins a number of other tech companies offering more ways for people to check their eligibility, locate vaccination sites, and get vaccine appointments.

Facebook announced yesterday that it will be adding VaccineFinder information to its COVID Information Center, showing people when and where they can get vaccinated and providing links to make appointments. The COVID Information Center will also be expanding to Instagram, and the company is working on expanding government and health authority WhatsApp chatbots to help people register for vaccines.

Google is also offering more ways to find information about vaccination. The company announced today that people can use Business Messages in Google Maps and Google search to contact local pharmacies owned by Albertsons Companies — including Safeway, Jewel-Osco, Vons, Albertsons, Acme, Shaw’s, and Tom Thumb — with questions about vaccine eligibility, availability, and appointment booking.

The US federal government is set to launch its own vaccine-finding website by May 1st and has said that all adults in the US will be eligible for a vaccine at that time. So far, about 28 percent of adults in the US have received their first vaccine dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

gopro-relaunches-its-smartphone-app-as-quik,-adds-private-feed

GoPro relaunches its smartphone app as Quik, adds private feed

GoPro is releasing a new version of its main smartphone app that will now be called “Quik.” The new app will remain the main interface for connecting to and controlling GoPro cameras, but it is also getting new features, including one called “mural” that’s sort of like a private Instagram feed meant to help people organize their favorite images and videos — regardless of whether they were taken by a GoPro camera — and save them from the “abyss of your camera roll,” GoPro CEO Nick Woodman says in an interview.

Close followers of GoPro’s efforts in the software space know that the company already once launched an app called Quik way back in 2016 that was all about auto-editing footage to a beat. But that app has not been supported for a while and will no longer be available to download after today with the launch of the new Quik app.

The auto-editing feature will live on in the new app, which launches on iOS and Android today. It also has a few other features like a video editing suite (including a speed adjustment tool), themes and filters, and unlimited original quality cloud backup of everything posted to the mural feed. GoPro is charging $1.99 per month or $9.99 per year for those features, though the basic camera connection and control side the app will remain free to use for people who don’t want to pay for the new stuff. Customers who already pay for GoPro’s Plus subscription service (which includes unlimited cloud storage, live-streaming functionality, and camera replacement) will get Quik’s features for free.

Woodman sees the new Quik app as something of a culmination of a yearslong effort at GoPro to diversify away from hardware that started around 2013 and 2014. And by gearing the app at a wider audience, not just GoPro users, he thinks there’s great opportunity to be had.

In fact, that was the strategy with the original Quik app, which let users mash together photos and videos from their camera roll without requiring the use of a GoPro. And it worked: Woodman says that app still had “roughly eight million monthly active users” despite having been essentially abandoned by the company.

While he doesn’t expect all of those users to pony up for the paid version of the new app, he thinks many will appreciate the mural feature because he still doesn’t see any good solutions to that camera roll clutter problem — especially not albums. “Albums suck. Albums are just miniature camera rolls,” he says. “You don’t go into albums [thinking] ‘This is going to be a super awesome experience. Hey honey, let’s AirPlay our album to the TV and kick back and reminisce.’ You don’t do that.”

Users can build out the mural feed in the Quik app a few different ways. One is fairly straightforward: after you open the Quik app and give it access to your camera roll, you can scroll through and add photos to the mural feed or to “events” (not albums, of course) on the feed. The more attractive option, in Woodman’s eyes, is to add photos and videos you take on the fly using the share sheet every time you capture a “keeper.” (Users can also text or email photos to the mural feed.)

That said, Woodman thinks people may use the feed in all sorts of ways, like saving images that inspire them or for planning a project, a la Pinterest. Others will just use it for their GoPro footage and photos and nothing else.

“It can be all of those things,” he says. “I think that what we’re solving for people is like a very relatable and widespread problem: I don’t have a convenient, private place to put content that matters most to me, and you know what, sharing it to your Instagram feed ain’t working because there’s that tension of, ‘Well, this matters to me, but I know it’s not going to really matter to anybody that I would socialize it with.’”

GoPro has carved out a decent supplemental business so far with its Plus subscription service, with nearly 800,000 paying subscribers as of the end of 2020 (the equivalent of just shy of roughly $40 million of annual revenue). But with Quik, Woodman sees not just a great business opportunity or a chance to reach new customers. He sees it serving a higher purpose.

“Not to bash on social feeds, like there’s a lot of good from them, we get a lot of inspiration from what other people are doing. But damn it, man, you can get a lot of inspiration from just looking at what you’ve been doing with your life. It’s pretty awesome,” he says. “This is the cosmic moment where I point to the deeper meaning behind what it is that we’re doing for people with Quik, because I think we’re really going to help people develop a stronger sense of self-esteem, self-worth, and ultimately happiness. You don’t have to find happiness in what other people are doing. There’s a ton of happiness to be found in what you’re doing with your life and and Quik helps you bring that to the forefront.”

Philosophical value aside, bringing more customers under the GoPro tent has long been a goal for Woodman; it’s a big part of what inspired the company to make a more concerted push into software. But whether or not GoPro turns the new Quik app into a moneymaker, that it’s attempting another shift in its software strategy is on its own a sign that the company is back on solid ground. It spent the last few years pruning its camera lineup back to the essentials, quickly scuttling a dalliance with the drone market, and focusing more on selling directly to consumers. That has the company back in the black and willing to take chances again.

“We’re known for enabling amazing content. It’s just until now, it’s always required a GoPro,” Woodman says. “[But it’s] too limiting to just serve people through our hardware alone. Let’s also serve people through software. Meet them where they are. And we can build a phenomenal business.”

instagram-will-no-longer-let-adults-message-teens-who-don’t-follow-them

Instagram will no longer let adults message teens who don’t follow them

Instagram is introducing new policies limiting interactions between teenagers and adults to make its platform safer for young users. The app has banned adults from direct messaging teenagers who don’t follow them and is introducing “safety prompts” that will be shown to teens when they DM adults who have been “exhibiting potentially suspicious behavior.”

Safety prompts will give teenage users the option to report or block adults who are messaging them. The prompts will remind young users not to feel pressured to respond to messages and to “be careful sharing photos, videos, or information with someone you don’t know.”

Notices will appear when Instagram’s moderation systems spot suspicious behavior from adult users. The company is not sharing detail on how these systems operate but says such suspicious behavior could include sending “a large amount of friend or message requests to people under 18.” The Facebook-owned Instagram says this feature will be available in some countries this month (it did not specify which) and available globally “soon.”

New safety prompts will appear when teens DM adults who have exhibited “suspicious behavior.”
Image: Instagram

Instagram also says it’s developing new “artificial intelligence and machine learning technology” to try and detect someone’s age when they sign up for an account. Officially, the app requires that users are aged 13 and above, but it’s easy to lie about one’s age. The company said it wants to do “more to stop this from happening” but did not go into any detail about how new machine learning systems might help with this problem.

New teenage users who sign up to Instagram will also now be encouraged to make their profile private. If they choose to create a public account anyway, Instagram will send them a notification later “highlighting the benefits of a private account and reminding them to check their settings.”

Teen users will be encouraged to make their account private when signing up to Instagram.
Image: Instagram

facebook’s-next-big-ai-project-is-training-its-machines-on-users’-public-videos

Facebook’s next big AI project is training its machines on users’ public videos

Teaching AI systems to understand what’s happening in videos as completely as a human can is one of the hardest challenges — and biggest potential breakthroughs — in the world of machine learning. Today, Facebook announced a new initiative that it hopes will give it an edge in this consequential work: training its AI on Facebook users’ public videos.

Access to training data is one of the biggest competitive advantages in AI, and by collecting this resource from millions and millions of their users, tech giants like Facebook, Google, and Amazon have been able to forge ahead in various areas. And while Facebook has already trained machine vision models on billions of images collected from Instagram, it hasn’t previously announced projects of similar ambition for video understanding.

“By learning from global streams of publicly available videos spanning nearly every country and hundreds of languages, our AI systems will not just improve accuracy but also adapt to our fast moving world and recognize the nuances and visual cues across different cultures and regions,” said the company in a blog. The project, titled Learning from Videos, is also part of Facebook’s “broader efforts toward building machines that learn like humans do.”

The resulting machine learning models will be used to create new content recommendation systems and moderation tools, says Facebook, but could do so much more in the future. AI that can understand the content of videos could give Facebook unprecedented insight into users’ lives, allowing them to analyze their hobbies and interests, preferences in brands and clothes, and countless other personal details. Of course, Facebook already has access to such information through its current ad-targeting operation, but being able to parse video through AI would add an incredibly rich (and invasive) source of data to its stores.

Facebook is vague about its future plans for AI models trained on users’ videos. The company told The Verge such models could be put to a number of uses, from captioning videos to creating advanced search functions, but did not answer a question on whether or not they would be used to collect information for ad-targeting. Similarly, when asked if users had to consent to having their videos used to train Facebook’s AI or if they could opt out, the company responded only by noting that its Data Policy says users’ uploaded content can be used for “product research and development.” Facebook also did not respond to questions asking exactly how much video will be collected for training its AI systems or how access to this data by the company’s researchers will be overseen.

In its blog post announcing the project, though, the social network did point to one future, speculative use: using AI to retrieve “digital memories” captured by smart glasses.

Facebook plans to release a pair of consumer smart glasses sometime this year. Details about the device are vague, but it’s likely these or future glasses will include integrated cameras to capture the wearer’s point of view. If AI systems can be trained to understand the content of video, then it will allow users to search for past recordings, just as many photo apps allow people to search for specific locations, objects, or people. (This is information, incidentally, that has often been indexed by AI systems trained on user data.)

Facebook has released images showing prototype pairs of its augmented-reality smart glasses.
Image: Facebook

As recording video with smart glasses “becomes the norm,” says Facebook, “people should be able to recall specific moments from their vast bank of digital memories just as easy as they capture them.” It gives the example of a user conducting a search with the phrase “Show me every time we sang happy birthday to Grandma,” before being served relevant clips. As the company notes, such a search would require that AI systems establish connections between types of data, teaching them “to match the phrase ‘happy birthday’ to cakes, candles, people singing various birthday songs, and more.” Just like humans do, AI would need to understand rich concepts comprised of different types of sensory input.

Looking to the future, the combination of smart glasses and machine learning would enable what’s referred to as “worldscraping” — capturing granular data about the world by turning wearers of smart glasses into roving CCTV cameras. As the practice was described in a report last year from The Guardian: “Every time someone browsed a supermarket, their smart glasses would be recording real-time pricing data, stock levels and browsing habits; every time they opened up a newspaper, their glasses would know which stories they read, which adverts they looked at and which celebrity beach pictures their gaze lingered on.”

This is an extreme outcome and not an avenue of research Facebook says it’s currently exploring. But it does illustrate the potential significance of pairing advanced AI video analysis with smart glasses — which the social network is apparently keen to do.

By comparison, the only use of its new AI video analysis tools that Facebook is currently disclosing is relatively mundane. Along with the announcement of Learning from Videos today, Facebook says it’s deployed a new content recommendation system based on its video work in its TikTok-clone Reels. “Popular videos often consist of the same music set to the same dance moves, but created and acted by different people,” says Facebook. By analyzing the content of videos, Facebook’s AI can suggest similar clips to users.

Such content recommendation algorithms are not without potential problems, though. A recent report from MIT Technology Review highlighted how the social network’s emphasis on growth and user engagement has stopped its AI team from fully addressing how algorithms can spread misinformation and encourage political polarization. As the Technology Review article says: “The [machine learning] models that maximize engagement also favor controversy, misinformation, and extremism.” This creates a conflict between the duties of Facebook’s AI ethics researchers and the company’s credo of maximizing growth.

Facebook isn’t the only big tech company pursuing advanced AI video analysis, nor is it the only one to leverage users’ data to do so. Google, for example, maintains a publicly accessible research dataset containing 8 million curated and partially labeled YouTube videos in order to “help accelerate research on large scale video understanding.” The search giant’s ad operations could similarly benefit from AI that understands the content of videos, even if the end result is simply serving more relevant ads in YouTube.

Facebook, though, thinks it has one particular advantage over its competitors. Not only does it have ample training data, but it’s pushing more and more resources into an AI method known as self-supervised learning.

Usually, when AI models are trained on data, those inputs have be to labeled by humans: tagging objects in pictures or transcribing audio recordings, for example. If you’ve ever solved a CAPTCHA identifying fire hydrants or pedestrian crossing then you’ve likely labeled data that’s helped to train AI. But self-supervised learning does away with the labels, speeding up the training process, and, some researchers believe, resulting in deeper and more meaningful analysis as the AI systems teach themselves to join the dots. Facebook is so optimistic about self-supervised learning it’s called it “the dark matter of intelligence.”

The company says its future work on AI video analysis will focus on semi- and self-supervised learning methods, and that such techniques “have already improved our computer vision and speech recognition systems.” With such an abundance of video content available from Facebook’s 2.8 billion users, skipping the labeling part of AI training certainly makes sense. And if the social network can teach its machine learning models to understand video seamlessly, who knows what they might learn?

stream-it-yourself

Stream it yourself

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Here’s what it’s like to craft live on stream

PmsProxy, a partnered Twitch streamer who has 147,000 followers, was tired. Tired of streaming Grand Theft Auto roleplay, and of streaming herself playing games more generally — something she’d been doing nearly every day for around six years. “I didn’t just want to sit and play games all day, I realized,” she says when I reach her by Discord. “I want to either tell a story through roleplay or just do something that made it feel fulfilling, and roleplay wasn’t that.” So she decided to make a change: instead of streaming herself playing games, she’d stream herself making things for her business.

That business was leatherworking. Proxy made the jump from full-time game streamer to full-time crafting streamer at the beginning of this year; it was a nerve-wracking but ultimately necessary step. “It’s been unbelievably different in the best way possible,” she says. “My viewers have gone up, my subs have gone up. And I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that my community members are seeing me be happy, right? They’re seeing me do something that I love.” The people who stayed, she says, want to buy her work and learn how she makes it.

Twitch is usually thought of as a place for streaming video games. And while that reputation is deserved — yes, a lot of people stream their gaming on Twitch — the site also has a surprising breadth of channels. Makers & Crafting is one of them; the category was created in 2018, after Twitch renamed “Hobbies & Crafts” to better represent the many pros who streamed in it (in their words). According to Twitch Tracker, a website that logs Twitch statistics, the category averaged 520 viewers in September 2018, the month it was created. As of January 2021, Makers & Crafting was averaging 1,520 viewers, or about three times more.

The people who stream in the category do everything from embroidery to woodworking; it’s mesmerizing to bounce among them. Makers & Crafting is a warm, welcoming category that feels a little intimate. The streams can run long — I mean, they’re making physical goods — but every streamer I’ve seen seems to vibrate at a slightly different frequency than the people who stream on the rest of the site. They’re calmer. Less frenetic. The vibe is aggressively wholesome. In other words: it’s about as close to an oasis as you can get online.


Streaming anything is difficult. In every broadcast you have to be a host, producer, audio engineer, and video technician — all at the same time. Streaming your crafts, however, is harder: making things for an audience is a special kind of difficult, especially if the products you’re making are eventually going to be sold. What’s perhaps more interesting is how learning crafts has changed with the accessibility of the internet. Proxy and another streamer and woodworker I spoke to, WorkedLettuce3 — whose handle was chosen by the Xbox gamertag gods — both learned their crafts from the internet.

“I watched a lot of YouTube videos,” he says. “I just never thought it would be something I would take up. Because, you know, a lot of woodworking YouTubers in particular, they like to flex their shop, they like to flex all the hundreds of thousands of dollars they spent on their tools, right? And, yeah, I mean, that was never gonna be me.” Even so, he found a channel that he says motivated him to be a woodworker — one that emphasized that you didn’t need tons of gear to pick it up as a hobby. “I’m very, very glad I found it because I’ve been loving just messing around woodworking, hanging out with people in the garage like we’ve been doing now,” he says.

Proxy also learned some of the tools of her leatherworking trade from the internet. Her foray into the Makers & Crafting section coincided with the first time she tried her hand at leatherworking. “I started leather crafting January of this year. Like my first time really getting my hands on my own stuff was in January,” she says. “But I spent the last year researching. So starting in 2019 and all through 2020, I did nothing but watch YouTube videos and Instagram videos. I did tons of research.” Proxy says she’s always been gifted in working with her hands. Leatherworking is just the most recent outlet. (She also went to art school.)

Lettuce is in a similar position; before six months ago, he’d never sawn a board in half.

He’d never streamed before, either. His first streaming setup was just streaming directly to Twitch from his phone; these days, he’s got a dedicated PC in his garage, a couple webcams, and the TV from his living room to read chat on. And his chat is important: among his viewers are veteran woodworkers and other crafters, along with people who’ve just stopped by to watch. The woodworkers help him when he’s stuck; he says there are people there who have coached him through his entire woodworking career. That kind of interaction is unique to Twitch, and to the Makers & Crafting section in particular.

Even so, he says he finds woodworking on stream scary sometimes. “Like, before the first time I turned my table saw on, I was terrified. Before I turned my router on for the first time, I was terrified. Before I ran a circular saw for the first time, I was terrified,” he says. And he did fall into some bad habits — like reading chat from his phone while working on things. “My chat would see me reading the chat from my phone. And a couple people in there just like stepped in and they were like, ‘Yo, like, for real. You can’t be doing that.’” He credits chat with keeping him honest.

“No one is coming in to backseat you,” says Proxy. “They’re not like, ‘Oh, you should go here and you should do this. And oh, you didn’t kill my favorite boss.’” Viewers are there to watch someone make something, and maybe learn a little in the process.

Proxy also makes just about everything in her store live on stream. Which she says is intimidating but also rewarding — because viewers (who are also buyers) can see exactly how much labor goes into making what they’ve bought. “They get to see what work is actually being put into this,” she says. “It’s not just, you know, a quick two hours, and it’s done. It’s a grueling two hours. Like everything is hand cut, and hand stitched and glued and stamped.”

Not everyone sells what they make on stream. Another crafter I spoke to, LaserGeekCreations, says that he doesn’t usually create the things that show up in his shop on stream. “Mainly because a lot of the stuff that’s on my Etsy shop is like, quick and easy to make,” he says. “It’s kind of boring to make a lot of the time.” (He assuages this boredom by creating things like a giant wooden dinosaur, which he also destroyed on stream.) LaserGeekCreations also happens to be the streamer who raided Lettuce when he was just starting out — which gave Lettuce his first real start on Twitch.


It’s not all fun and games on Twitch. The larger viewer community can sometimes be brutally toxic to people who don’t fit its notions of who can and can’t be a streamer; recently, Twitch partner Negaoryx lamented, at Twitch’s 2020 Participation Ceremony event, that the chat was targeting presenters with tons of hate speech.

There’s more than 42,000+ viewers watching the Twitch Participation Ceremony on the offical @Twitch channel now. Users in chat are spewing hate speech & harassing the guest streamers. 3 mod names in the chat list but since I’ve been watching, have seen ZERO messages get deleted.

— negaoryx (@negaoryx) January 23, 2021

Makers & Crafting feels different, though. It’s smaller, for one thing. But all the people I’ve spoken to who’ve been involved with the category think it’s a uniquely welcoming space nestled within the larger Twitch community. “It was almost like — it’s gonna sound fucking hilarious — but it was almost like walking into a warm hug,” says Proxy. “It was just like everyone was so welcome.” During her first week in the section, Proxy says she went from getting around 100 viewers to getting more than 500. They were leatherworkers and other crafters; they dropped tips and ideas and support.

Lettuce had a similarly warm experience. “The Makers & Crafting community is — I’m gonna say in my opinion, but I’m pretty sure it’s a fact — that they’re the most welcoming and loving community-minded community I’ve ever seen in my entire life.” Once the pandemic is over, Lettuce says, he’s considering driving from Las Vegas, where he lives, to New Jersey, where his parents are, and visiting his friends from Twitch on the way.

“I don’t think I’ll ever leave Twitch. I mean, live-streaming and the community in general,” he says. “The stream will still be a thing, but I think interpersonal communication and hanging out and, you know, giving someone a firm handshake is my end goal.”

LaserGeekCreations has been streaming crafting for longer than Lettuce and Proxy, and he confirms their assessments of the community. “The makers community is such an amazing community. I think you’ve probably heard that from other people already,” he says. “Because it doesn’t matter what you’re making. We’re all makers, we all like seeing what other people are doing. Everyone’s so supportive of each other.”

That kind of supportive community feeling can be invaluable if you’re trying to finish something. As anyone who’s tried to make anything knows, creating things is hard because going from idea to reality requires a number of steps, which sometimes aren’t particularly obvious. On Twitch, the Makers & Crafting community makes it just a little easier.

grassroots-online-efforts-are-forming-a-new-queer-network-of-care

Grassroots online efforts are forming a new queer network of care

Almost exactly one year ago, Theo Hendrie thought he might have to drop out of school. His partner had lost his job, and they were struggling to pay bills and make ends meet. He worried that X Marks The Spot, his newly released anthology, might be the only creative project that he’d ever be able to complete. And then, at just the right time, Tuck Woodstock’s Gender Reveal mutual aid program came through.

“Up until then it was always, you know, when we’ve got a tenner we’ll put it into so-and-so’s top surgery fund, and they’ll probably put something into mine later on, and it all gets swapped around,” Hendrie says. “Whereas I think Tuck’s thing was the first time I saw something that was helping the community as a whole, and helping us to do something creative rather than just paying for medical bills.”

Hendrie received £75, and credits the money with allowing him to stay in school. Admittedly, that doesn’t sound like a lot. But since then, he has graduated from university and returned, for a master’s degree in media and communications. Like the thousands of other folks who have benefited in some form or fashion from mutual aid, monetary assistance empowered him to pursue his goals and stabilize his life, sans disruption.

Hendrie’s experience is not unique — all across the internet, people are accessing assistance and care through digital networks that, inevitably, spill into the offline, everyday lives of queer folks. When people in the LGBTQ community feel excluded from, unwelcome in, or underserved by mainstream health networks, groups like QueerCare, For The Gworls (FTG), and transanta step in, offering aid in the form of care and, often, cash.

Woodstock launched their mutual aid fund via Gender Reveal at the beginning of the pandemic, when it became obvious that people urgently needed help. The fund replaced what was originally the Gender Reveal Grant, which required folks to present their work to a panel of judges. It wasn’t appropriate for the moment, Woodstock says. “It became just, ‘Do you need money to live? Do you need money in order to pay rent, to feed yourself, to pay for your medications?’”

Woodstock’s pivot to mutual aid and away from the Gender Reveal Grant is emblematic of a larger shift that happened in 2020, courtesy of COVID-19. It’s been well documented that the pandemic exacerbated inequality across the board; in some marginalized communities, doubling down on care independent of mainstream systems was the recipe for survival.

But this building of DIY care networks has been decades in the making. Queer people and other marginalized groups have been doing this grassroots work for generations, and the modern ubiquity of GoFundMe pages and Instagram accounts is merely the latest chapter in a long history of alternative care.

Asanni Armon, founder of FTG, credits Langston Hughes and the rent parties of the Harlem Renaissance with the idea to raise money for Black trans people’s rent and gender-affirming surgery costs. “We are just following in those footsteps,” Armon says. “As long as we’ve been affected by the ills of capitalism, especially Black people, we’ve had to do this kind of work.”

Mutual aid can look like a lot of different things, depending on what you need — while Woodstock has sent money in amounts as big as $800 (and as small as Hendrie’s £75) via PayPal and Venmo, FTG just helped raise $50,000 for 23 young people to receive a year’s worth of hormone replacement therapy, through Point of Pride’s new HRT Access Fund. Historically, mutual aid has been a way for folks on the fringes of mainstream economies to collectively access resources and provide care; look at the Black Panther Party’s breakfast program, or the AIDS activism of ACT UP, and you’ll see the same network formation, sans internet.

It’s no coincidence that these networks typically form alongside activism work, says Kirsty Clark, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Yale School of Public Health whose research focuses on LGBTQ mental health.

“When folks are pushed to the margins, they create social networks through formal or informal channels where people can give each other information and support,” she says. “It’s this coming together to push back against persecution and to forge a feeling of belongingness within the group. And these networks not only produce peer support, but then can also lead to resources for medical care.”

While the pandemic has put a stop to FTG’s rent parties, and forced organizations like Trans Defense Fund LA (TDFLA) to host their self-defense courses online, it has not slowed the proliferation of mutual aid programs within the queer community — quite the opposite. TDFLA just shipped out another 200 self-defense kits for trans folks in LA; FTG announced on February 8th that, since its inception in July 2019, $1.1 million has been redistributed to Black trans folks around the world; Woodstock, of Gender Reveal, raised $100,000 in one month alone. Clearly, the practical implications of mutual aid are real, and, often, life-saving.

“The biggest success is that we are supplying people with the necessary tools they need and it’s going in their hands,” says Nikki Nguyen, the organizer behind TDFLA. “That’s the biggest part — just being able to provide this for the trans community.”

how-facebook-could-escape-the-ftc’s-antitrust-lawsuit

How Facebook could escape the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit

I.

In December, the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 to sue Facebook for illegally maintaining a monopoly in social networking. The lawsuit, which was accompanied by a separate suit joined by 49 US attorneys general, alleges that Facebook used acquisitions and software restrictions on developers to prevent competitors from succeeding.

The government’s case appeared shaky from the start, I wrote at the time. Its allegation that Facebook owns a monopoly in advertising-supported social networking felt overly narrow and blinkered; the case does not even mention the existence of TikTok. And its suggestion that Facebook should have done more to share data with third-party developers seemingly runs counter to the FTC’s own privacy enforcement actions — in 2019 the agency fined Facebook $5 billion for sharing too much data with developers.

At the same time, the case contains numerous incriminating emails suggesting that Facebook executives acted knowingly to reduce competition by making acquisitions including Instagram and WhatsApp. And the states’ suit in particular articulated a compelling theory of harm: that Facebook’s privacy policies worsened as competition decreased, making life worse for the average consumer. This is important because recent antitrust law has focused on cases that have caused prices to rise for consumers; companies like Facebook (and Google and Amazon) have escaped scrutiny until now in large part because they offer their services for free.

It’s against that backdrop that I read Facebook’s response to the government, which it filed in court on Wednesday. Here’s Brent Kendall in The Wall Street Journal:

Facebook on Wednesday asked a federal judge to dismiss antitrust lawsuits by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, arguing that government enforcers have no valid basis for alleging the social media giant is suppressing competition.

The FTC “utterly ignores the reality of the dynamic, intensely competitive high-tech industry in which Facebook operates,” the company said in seeking to dismiss the commission’s case. In a second motion, Facebook argued the states’ case “does not and cannot assert that their citizens paid higher prices, that output was reduced, or that any objective measure of quality declined as a result of Facebook’s challenged actions.”

A motion like this is, on one hand, totally expected — if you’re Facebook, why not try to get this case thrown out as soon as possible — and, on the other hand, unlikely to succeed. No matter how wobbly the government’s case against Facebook appears from Silicon Valley, it is the product of years of investigation. I imagine a judge would be inclined to at least let the government make its case at trial, but we’ll see.

At the same time, Google — which is facing a similar set of US antitrust lawsuits — declined to filed such a motion when presented with the opportunity last year. So why does Facebook think its Hail Mary has a better chance of success?

The company laid out its arguments in a blog post yesterday. As expected, it complains about the government’s tortured efforts to define a market small enough for Facebook to credibly monopolize. It complains that the government cannot specify what exclusionary things it did in the wake of purchasing Instagram or WhatsApp, or restricting access to its data, that actually broke the law. And it raises various questions of standing and timing that I won’t try to assess here.

In response, the government dismissed these arguments, though not in any great level of detail.

“Facebook is wrong on the law and wrong on our complaint,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the states’ case, told The Verge. “We are confident in our case, which is why almost every state in this nation has joined our bipartisan lawsuit to end Facebook’s illegal conduct. We will continue to stand up for the millions of consumers and many small businesses that have been harmed by Facebook’s unlawful behavior.”

II.

Is there a better case to be made against Facebook than the antitrust complaints that actually got filed?

I wondered that while rereading this great 2018 David Streitfeld profile of Lina Khan, who President Biden will reportedly nominate to the FTC. Khan helped inspire the current antitrust moment with a widely read paper, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” which moved the discussion of competition issues away from a decades-long focus on price increases.

“We’re finally beginning to examine how antitrust laws, which were rooted in deep suspicion of concentrated private power, now often promote it,” Khan told Streitfeld.

This has been a necessary and productive reversal. As more of our lives move online, we can’t help but notice all the ways in which our activities are enabled and monitored by a small handful of West Coast companies.

Facebook owns three of the most popular apps in the world; is a primary news source for billions; hosts a significant portion of global political speech; runs a large marketplace for physical goods; is building a significant consumer hardware division; and developed a cryptocurrency (now operated by a consortium) intended to power a worldwide payments network.

It is a quasi-state operating in parallel with all the other nations where it exists.

Laws that were truly rooted in a suspicion of concentrated power, I think, might have intervened earlier in this state of affairs. Regulators could have expressed more skepticism about acquisitions; crafted a national privacy law; or written standards for data portability. They could have required Facebook to offer nondiscriminatory access to parts of its infrastructure, as if it were a public utility.

None of which would have required rethinking antitrust laws that may not be suited to the purpose that regulators are now pursuing.

Perhaps existing laws will turn out to be well-suited for that purpose after all. Perhaps the newly Democratic Congress will write some new ones, as they have long been promising to do.

Or perhaps, given that the consumer internet is now the most competitive it has been in the past half-decade or so, it won’t much matter either way.

I don’t think Facebook’s motion to dismiss is likely to end the government’s ambitions to rein in the company. But it does highlight the steep challenge facing the FTC in the short term. A badly written lawsuit could still succeed at trial — but first it has to make it there.


This column was co-published with Platformer, a daily newsletter about Big Tech and democracy.

go-read-this-buzzfeed-news-oral-history-of-march-11th,-2020

Go read this BuzzFeed News oral history of March 11th, 2020

Everyone had a different moment when the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic snapped into place. It may have been the day they heard a report about a case in their area, the moment someone got sent home from work, or the day schools closed.

For many people, it was March 11th, 2020 — the day the news never stopped and the virus upended everything. The National Basketball Association suspended its season; Tom Hanks announced that he tested positive for coronavirus; and the World Health Organization (WHO) officially announced that the COVID-19 outbreak was a pandemic.

BuzzFeed News talked to scientists, producers, campaign advisers, Broadway performers, NBA players, and others to capture what it was like to live through the moments that showed how much everything was about to change.

Mark Tatum, deputy commissioner of the NBA, described watching Anthony Fauci talk about the league during a congressional hearing:

Dr. Fauci was asked whether the NBA was underreacting or the Ivy League was overreacting following the Ivy League’s decision to cancel its conference tournament. We were all watching when Dr. Fauci said, “We would recommend not having large crowds. If that means not having anyone in the audience when the NBA plays, so be it.” That was the morning of March 11. We all heard it.

WHO spokesperson Margaret Harris was in the room when Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced at a press conference that COVID-19 was a pandemic:

Because there was a buzz around the term “pandemic” and this sort of sense of moment around the term, we did realize people would take it as a more important moment than it was in terms of management of the response. But we also realized that it was important to be describing it that way because it was critical that countries got the message: This is very, super, super serious. This is not a game. This is not a test. This is not a dress rehearsal.

And Chet Hanks talked about going on Instagram to reassure people that his parents were “fine.”

Everyone I know was hitting me up, sending their wishes and whatnot, so I just figured I would just address it on Instagram because people were really worried, and I just wanted to reassure people that my parents were OK and everything was good.

Go read the full story here.