Ta kontakt med oss

SOCIAL

Snapchat Offers Tentative Support for UK MP’s Call for Labels on Digitally Altered Images

Publicerad

Negative self comparison is one of the biggest risks for young people online, and the availability of advanced photo editing and image-altering tools now means that many of the photos of people you see posted are not realistic depictions of what they actually look like.

That can have serious impacts, and recently, a UK MP called for direct action to address it.

Back in September, Tory MP Dr. Luke Evans proposed a new law which would force social platforms to add labels to any posted image that had been digitally altered or enhanced. Evans said that such enhancements create an “unrealistic and unachievable aspiration” for young people, which can cause significant psychological impacts.

“With the click of a mouse you can have bigger biceps, with the swipe of a thumb you can have a slimmer waste.”

Evans additionally noted that 1.25 million people in the UK are believed to be living with either anorexia or bulimia. 

The proposal would create a new standard which would mandate a level of detection in digital uploads, in order to highlight any such editing. And last week, Snapchat’s UK policy chief Henry Turnball gave his tentative support for the bill.

“I understand the proposals behind Dr. Luke Evans’ Bill to add some kind of logo or symbol to images or videos that have been digitally altered. I think that is something that has some merit and should be carefully thought through.”

That’s not a clear endorsement, and there are various factors which would need to be considered in the proposal. But it could be an important, effective way to reduce unrealistic comparison, and address the concerns noted by Evans in regards to mental hälsa impacts.

Se även  Twitter's New 'Tip Jar' Button Leads to Privacy Issues, Requests for Payment

Interestingly, Google is also investigating the same.

Back in October, Google shared the results of tests that it had conducted in regards to digital image re-touching and its impacts on mental health.

“We conducted multiple studies and spoke with child and mental health experts from around the world, and found that when you’re not aware that a camera or photo app has applied a filter, the photos can negatively impact mental wellbeing. These default filters can quietly set a skönhet standard that some people compare themselves against.”

Google has since updated its Pixel settings so that re-touching is switched off by default, while it’s also investigating other ways to highlight digital image altering. 

It’s an interesting proposal, and one which won’t be welcomed by all, but it could have far-reaching psychological benefits, especially considering the young audiences of apps like Snapchat. Of course, people would seek alternative ways around this, editing their images in other apps in order to avoid any detection. But new tools are also being developed which can highlight changes in digital code, in order to pick out such changes.

Definitely, this is a key area of concern, and it’s important for all platforms to be looking into how their tools can impact mental wellbeing, and what they can do to assist, where possible. 

Labeling altered images would definitely have an impact – but would that reduce usage? And then, which is a more important consideration for the platforms?

It’ll likely be a key point of debate in the new year. 

Socialmediatoday.com

SOCIAL

Elon Musk beskriver nya bockmarkeringar i alternativa färger för att förtydliga verifieringen

Publicerad

Elon Musk Outlines New, Alternate Color Checkmarks to Clarify Verification

Elon Musk has revealed more details of the coming revamp of Twitter’s $8 verification program, which was initially launched three weeks back, but then pulled from live production due to a raft of impersonations which caused significant confusion in the app.

Those impersonations also led to stock price dips, corporate apologies, misreporting – the $8 verification plan, while only available to some users, for a short amount of time, immediately caused significant issues for Twitter and it’s as partners.

So Elon and Co. took it back, in order to revise and re-shape the program in a more brand-safe, user-friendly way.

And now, Musk has revealed more details as to exactly how the updated $8 verification plan will work.

First, to limit the potential of misrepresentation of corporate and government accounts, Musk says that those profiles will now get a different colored checkmark, which will ensure that people can’t just buy a blue tick and then pretend to be Coca-Cola for example.

Enligt Mysk:

“Gold check for companies, gray check for government, blue for individuals (celebrity or not)”

App researcher Alessandro Paluzzi Postad dessa exempel of how these new ticks might look in the app.

It’s a sensible move, which will avoid similar incidents like this tweet from an $8 verified account, which tanked Eli Lilly’s stock price.

Eli Lilly tweet

The updated gold checkmark will ideally limit the potential for future users to do the same, because they won’t be able to buy the official gold tick – though there will be a period of adjustment and education on such for users.

The alternate checkmarks will also likely kill off Twitter’s new gray ‘Official’ tick, which looks pretty ridiculous.

Twitter Official checkmark

Of course, the new variations of checkmarks do also add the potential problem of another elusive marker that people will be trying to get. But we’ll cross that extra complication when we come to it.

Another concern with this approach is that it’ll require manual checking, as Twitter can’t know for sure that it’s a brand or government account without some kind of confirmation.
Initially, Twitter has thus far opted to avoid any kind of manual confirmation in this new process, due to the additional labor requirement, but now, Musk says that this will be integrated into the updated process:

Se även  Instagram Launches New Global Branding Campaign, Highlighting the Benefits of Community Connection in the App

“All verified accounts will be manually authenticated before check activates. Painful, but necessary.”

How Musk and Co. do that with any level of efficiency, with 65% less staff, I don’t know, but it seems like they’re going to at least try to find a way to check each $8 subscriber before approving their blue tick.

Musk also noted last week that any change in user name will result in a blue tick being deactivated till Twitter approves the new name.

So, like, a lot of manual monitoring, with a lot less staff.

Also, for the traditional blue checkmarks, there’ll be no differentiation between those who’ve been given the marker, and those who’ve paid for it:

“All verified individual humans will have same blue check, as boundary of what constitutes ‘notable’ is otherwise too subjective.”

Which is true – there are a lot of blue checkmarks on random accounts, and it has been a confused system. But at the same time, there are also a lot of high-profile individuals who could be at risk of impersonation under this system – which, incidentally, is why the blue ticks were introduced in the first place (in 2009, an MLB star sued Twitter for allowing a scammer to use his likeness to dupe people in the app).

Det finns också detta:

“Individuals can have secondary tiny logo showing they belong to an org if verified as such by that org.”

So an additional qualifier for spokespeople, CEOs and journalists, as another measure to avoid impersonation.

The updated elements will certainly lessen the scope for scam activity, but still, they do also introduce a level of risk, and at the same time, the scheme itself is unlikely to work out as Musk hopes.

The revamp of Twitter’s verification program is Elon’s first grand plan to save the app (aside from cutting costs), by giving users access to one of the most in-demand in-app features – the elusive blue checkmark.

Se även  Facebook Adds New, Free Courses in Effective Community Management

Charging for verification could theoretically kill two birds with one stone, in verifying real humans (while making it cost-prohibitive to crate bot accounts) while also providing a direct revenue stream, thereby reducing the company’s reliance in ads. People want the blue tick, now they can get it, while Musk has also sought to amplify the cultural divide element, by presenting this as a way to even the field, and enable all users to get what only celebrities have thus far been able to access.

Initially, Musk was set to charge $20 per month for this service, but after an argument with the author of ‘Misery’, he reduced this to $8 per month.

In Musk’s view, this is a good deal, because who doesn’t have an extra $8 to spend?

He’s since sought to establish this as the norm, repeatedly telling his critics to ‘now pay $8’, as if it’s a forgone conclusion that people will indeed pay.

But they won’t, and history shows that there’s almost no chance that Musk’s paid verification scheme will actually work as intended.

Take, for example, Twitter blå, which provides Twitter users with a raft of additional features, which was initially available for $3 per month.

Twitter Blue never saw much take-up, peaking at 100k subscribers, with even the addition of tweet editing, the most requested feature in social media history, failing to shift the needle in any significant way.

Given this, it’s difficult to see Musk’s new, $8 verification getting the number of sign ups he’d need to achieve his aims for the option.

For context:

  • If Elon wants to get subscriptions to contribute 50% of Twitter’s revenue, as he’s previously stated, he’ll need 24.6 million users to sign on to pay $8 per month for a blue tick
  • If he wants to use this as a means to verify all the humans, so that only bot accounts are the ones that don’t have a blue tick, you’d think he’d be looking at upwards of 75% of Twitter’s user base, or around 178 million users paying each month
  • Twitter’s likely to actually lose around $6 per US user, per month, for each person that signs up to the new $8 Twitter Blue scheme, due to Musk’s plan to show Blue subscribers ‘half the ads’. Factoring in App Store fees from the monthly $8 payment, it could actually be a difficult balance from a revenue standpoint, with Twitter potentially even losing money on the deal, if it does end up cutting ad exposure
  • The majority of Twitter users are outside the US, where $8 per month could be a lot more cost-prohibitive. This is especially true in India, where most of Twitter’s growth has come from over the past three years. India now has 18.8m users making it Twitter’s third biggest audience market, and while Musk has also flagged variable pricing by region, even $1 per month could be too high for developing markets
     
Se även  Twitter's New 'Tip Jar' Button Leads to Privacy Issues, Requests for Payment

Essentially, there’s no precedent to suggest that enough users will sign up to Elon’s $8 per month checkmark plan to make it worthwhile for the company to run, as either a revenue or verification pathway. Just 0.41% of Snapchat users pay for Snapchat+, a fraction of LinkedIn users pony up for Premium, while Meta concluded long ago that charging users was no where near as lucrative as serving a bigger audience more ads.

These new measures do counter some of the issues that the initial version of Musk’s $8 verification program introduced, but then again, they could also avoid them entirely by revising the current blue check system, as opposed to simply letting people pay for the marker.

But regardless, Musk is determined to push ahead, and find out for himself either way

Musk says the updated $8 verification plan will launch on Friday next week (12/2).



Källlänk

Fortsätt läsa




MISSA INTE NÅGRA VIKTIGA NYHETER!
Prenumerera på vårt nyhetsbrev
Vi lovar att inte spamma dig. Avsluta prenumerationen när som helst.
Ogiltig e-postadress

Trendigt

sv_SESvenska