Connect with us

SOCIAL

Meta Announces New Restrictions on the Creation and Use of Profile Image Frames on Facebook

Published

on

Meta Announces New Restrictions on the Creation and Use of Profile Image Frames on Facebook


Here we have yet another example of why we can’t have nice things.

Back in 2015, Facebook rolled out profile image frames, aligned with sports teams initially, which gave users a simple, customized way to share their support for their favorite team in the app. Facebook expanded on that over the coming years, and opened up the capacity for users to create their own frames and at one stage, there were thousands of potential options for profile frames available via its Frames Gallery in the app.

But that all changed over the last year.

Following Facebook’s decision to ban anti-vaccine messaging in its apps in late 2020, some activists switched to profile frames instead, creating anti-vax statements that could be shared via your main Facebook image.

Facebook COVID frames

CNBC found a rising number of these anti-vaccine frames, and alerted Facebook accordingly, which first began removing the offending frames from its Frames Gallery one by one. Then it removed all of its frames entirely, except for those from approved partners, while it also shut down the capacity for people to create their own frames via its Frame Studio tool.

Facebook Frame Studio

If you’ve noticed a lot fewer profile frames on Facebook of late, this would be why – and now, parent company Meta is moving to officially tighten its restrictions on profile frame creation, with new regulations on the creation and use of such across the app.

As per Meta:

Last year, we limited the ability to create profile frames on Facebook to authoritative organizations. We’re continuing that work now, so that Profile frames from unapproved Pages and profiles can no longer be applied to new profile pictures. On March 21, only profile frames from certain government services or organizations and those providing authoritative information on COVID-19 will be available. This change reflects our continued emphasis on helping people express their support around important issues like voting and reliable health information.

Again, nice things.

Advertisement

Meta says that only municipal, state and local agencies (including local election offices), municipal government agencies, emergency response agencies, public health agencies and local law enforcement will now be allowed to create profile frames.

See also  The Best Times to Post on Social Media in 2020 [Report]

Authoritative sources on COVID-19 that will continue to have access to frames globally include organizations such as the World Health Organization, UNICEF, Centers for Disease Control, and national government agencies or ministries of health.”

So, basically, profile frames will now be cause-aligned specifically, and there’ll be no more fun, decorative frames, outside of some of the generic ones provided by Meta.

Which is a bit of a shame. It’s not a major functional change, and it won’t have a big impact on how people use Facebook, but still, it is a little sad that we lose an entire creative option because of a level of misuse, which, due to complexities in detection, Meta can’t simply weed out and police at scale.

Meta says that existing profile frames will be removed from the Frame Studio on March 21st. Organizations that currently have an active frame will be able to download their frame from Frame Studio till that date.

But basically, you can expect to see a lot fewer profile image frames in the app moving forward.

I guess, in theory, Meta could still look to use profile frames as a paid promotional option in future, under strict approval in each case, so we may still see more colorful, themed frames at some stage. But really, Meta’s probably more focused on its 3D avatars now anyway – and maybe, in that context, profile frames don’t serve any real purpose moving forward either way.

But it’s another impact of the pandemic – an unexpected one, but a forced change in process nonetheless.

Advertisement
See also  Google announces new features for Search Ads 360



Source link

SOCIAL

New Legal Challenges Could Further Impact Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Push

Published

on

Elon Musk Mulls Tender Offer for Twitter as an Alternative Path to Take Over the App

So as the fifth week of the Elon Musk Twitter takeover drama comes to a close, let’s just check in on how things are progressing.

Oh, it’s bad. Nothing good to see here.

This week, as Musk maintains that his $44 billion takeover offer remains ‘on hold’ due to questions over the accuracy of Twitter’s claim that 5% of its active users are fake, Twitter itself has faced its own drama, connected to the takeover push.

Having already lost several top executives, either directly or indirectly stemming from the pending change in ownership (as well as former CEO Jack Dorsey exiting the company entirely), Twitter is now facing a battle over its board members, with Silver Lake Partners’ Egon Durban resigning from the board after Twitter shareholders blocked his re-election.

Durban was given a Twitter board seat in 2020, following a push by Elliott Management Group to buy up Twitter shares, and force Jack Dorsey out of his position as CEO. Elliott’s view was that Dorsey was underperforming, and it partnered with Silver Lake to put pressure on the company to either improve its bottom line, or accept a change in management.

That lead to Twitter implementing tough new revenue and growth targets, which it recently admitted that it’s not on track to meet.  

In addition to his work with Twitter and various other public companies, Durban has also been a longtime ally of Elon Musk, and earlier this week, Twitter shareholders voted to stop Durban from being re-appointed, in a move that many viewed as a statement of protest, of sorts, from Twitter investors.

Advertisement

But as with all things Elon and Twitter, it’s not that simple – today Twitter itself has refused to accept Durban’s resignation.

See also  Google announces new features for Search Ads 360

In a statement to the SEC, Twitter explained that Durban’s board re-election was likely rejected by shareholders due to him also serving on the board of six other publicly traded companies. Durban has vowed to take a step back from these other commitments, which Twitter says is enough to keep him on its team.

As per Twitter:

“While the Board does not believe that Mr. Durban’s other public company directorships will become an impediment if such engagements were to continue, Mr. Durban’s commitment to reduce his board service commitment to five public company boards by the Remediation Date appropriately addresses the concerns raised by stockholders with regard to such engagements. Accordingly, the Board has reached the determination that accepting Mr. Durban’s Tendered Resignation at this time is not in the best interests of the Company.”

Why does Twitter want to keep Durban on? It’s hard to say – especially given that Musk has noted that he’ll be looking to eliminate Twitter’s board if/when he becomes the platform’s owner.

The inclusion of representatives from key investors, however, may ensure Twitter maintains a level of stability, in case the deal goes south.

And there could be another key reason to maintain the link between Twitter’s board and Musk.

On another front, Twitter shareholders are also mulling a class-action lawsuit against Elon Musk over his Twitter takeover push, based on the allegation that Musk has ‘violated California corporate laws on several fronts’ with his Twitter acquisition commentary, effectively engaging in market manipulation.

Advertisement

As reported by CNBC:

In one potential violation, they claim that Musk financially benefited by delaying required disclosures about his stake in Twitter and by temporarily concealing his plan in early April to become a board member at the social network. Musk also snapped up shares in Twitter, the complaint says, while he knew insider information about the company based on private conversations with board members and executives, including former CEO Jack Dorsey, a longtime friend of Musk’s, and Silver Lake co-CEO Egon Durban, a Twitter board member whose firm had previously invested in SolarCity before Tesla acquired it.”

Maybe that’s why Twitter wants to keep Durban in-house, due to both his past dealings with Musk, which may help ease the deal through, or to assist shareholders in their class action.

See also  India’s IT minister accuses Facebook of suppressing right-leaning pages

Durban’s current participation likely doesn’t hold any additional legal clout in this respect, but there may be some linkage between these two aspects of the increasingly messy Twitter deal.

And yes, there is still a possibility that the Musk takeover may not happen.

Musk himself has repeatedly and publicly vowed that he will not pay for the company unless it can convince him that its data on fake profiles is accurate – though Twitter maintains that there’s no such thing as the deal being ‘on hold’ and it’s continuing to prepare for the final transaction to be approved.

But there may also be other complications, with the SEC now investigating Musk’s conduct in the lead-up to his Twitter takeover push. Add to that his many public criticisms and disclosures, which border on market manipulation (as per the proposed shareholder action) and there could well be a breakpoint for Musk’s Twitter deal, where authorities simply veto the process entirely due to his conduct.

Could that be Musk’s plan? Various analysts have suggested that Musk is looking for a way out of the acquisition, and while the overall sentiment is that Musk will, eventually, be forced to pay-up, and take ownership of the app, there are still some legal cracks that he could explore that could end the transaction.

Advertisement

Which would be a disaster for Twitter.

While investors are unhappy with Musk right now, especially since his various comments and critiques have tanked the stock, Musk walking away would leave Twitter in a much lesser state, with many product leaders gone, and a declining share price that would be difficult to correct, given the various questions raised by Musk about its processes.

See also  How Hiring Managers Use Social Media to Assess Candidate Political Stances [Infographic]

Could Twitter get itself back on track, and back to growth, if Musk were to abandon his takeover push?

In essence, Musk walking away would be a big, public statement that Twitter is not a good investment, and as the media hype dies down, that could see interest in the app decline even further, harming growth for, potentially, years to come.

Maybe that, then, is Musk’s real intent here – to harm the company so much that it has no choice but to accept a lower offer price, which could save Elon himself millions in his takeover bid.

Either way, right now, it’s not looking good, and there are many moving parts that must be keeping current Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal up at night.

It still seems like the Elon era is coming, but when, exactly, is a whole other question.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

DON'T MISS ANY IMPORTANT NEWS!
Subscribe To our Newsletter
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

Trending