As promised, Meta has begun blocking news content in Canada. Starting today, Facebook and Instagram users in the country will no longer be able to view or share news links or see videos and photos posted by publishers and broadcasters. The company, which has threatened to make the drastic move for several months, said it will take a few weeks for the change to come into effect for all users in the country.

"News links and content posted by news publishers and broadcasters in Canada will no longer be viewable by people in Canada," Meta said. "We are identifying news outlets based on legislative definitions and guidance from the Online News Act." Any content shared by international news organizations won't be visible on Facebook and Instagram in Canada either.

Meta made the decision in response to Canadian legislators passing the Online News Act. The law requires certain platforms to negotiate revenue-sharing agreements with news organizations. The aim is to address the collapse in advertising revenue that news outlets have struggled with over the last two decades amid the growth of online services.

The CBC has noted that Facebook and Google soak up some 80 percent of digital advertising revenue between them. Google also plans to stop users in Canada from accessing links to news stories across several of its products in response to the legislation.

Meta has previously played hardball with a government over news content. In early 2021, it stopped users in Australia from sharing news links on Facebook. However, Meta, Google and other platform holders relented and eventually reached an agreement to pay publishers there for posting news links and snippets.

YouTube has released several creation tools for Shorts, such as ones that give users the ability to remix most videos and add voiceovers, ever since it was launched in an effort to make it a more veritable TikTok rival. Now, the video-hosting platform is in the process of expanding its arsenal of creation tools even further. The first addition is Collab, which lets users record short-form videos in a split screen format with other Shorts or regular clips. 

All users have to do to create a Collab video from an eligible Short or YouTube content is to hit Remix and then choose the new format. TikTok, of course has long had a split-screen effect that lets people divide the screen into multiple frames. Well, YouTube's Collab is rolling out today and will continue making its way to users coming weeks to challenge TikTok's version. iOS users are getting the format first, but Android users will follow. 

The platform is also adding a tool that lets users quickly build off of and remix existing Shorts. They only have to tap the Remix button and select "use sound" in the Shorts player to automatically surface the audio and effect used in the clip they just watched. Users can then apply both sound and effect to their own post. In addition, YouTube will start testing a new recomposition tool in the coming weeks designed to simplify transforming horizontal videos into vertical Shorts. The tool will give creators a way to adjust the layout, zoom and crop of the segment they want to use after they've chosen a video to remix, giving them an easy way to reshare old footage in a new format. They can also choose to use the new split screen effect for the video they're recomposing. 

Aside from these new creator tools, YouTube is testing a new mobile-first vertical live experience for viewers, as well. Audiences will be able to see previews of vertical live videos in the Shorts feed with this new experience, and if they tap to expand it, they'll find a scrollable feed of more live videos. YouTube is hoping this could boost discoverability for creators and calls it is a great opportunity to make money for those who recently joined its Partner Program. The new mobile-first experience will make its way to more and more viewers over the coming months.

The next internet video summary you see might not have been written by a human. YouTube is testing AI-generated video summaries that appear on search and watch pages. The text is meant to provide a "quick overview" of a clip to help you decide if it's worth watching. The company is quick to stress that these don't replace creators' own video descriptions.

The test will only be visible with a "limited number" of English-language videos, and only for some viewers. YouTube hasn't said which countries, platforms or video types will get the AI-produced summaries. We've asked the company for comment and will let you know if we hear back.

YouTube has given users a few preview features in recent weeks, as Android Policeexplains. Premium subscribers could lock the screen during playback to prevent accidental commands. You've also had the option to turn Shorts comments into entirely new short-form clips.

The experiment comes nearly three years after YouTube started testing AI-produced video chapters, but it's part of a larger generative AI push at Google. The tech giant has introduced its Bard chatbot and is using the technology to produce everything from spreadsheet templates to whole news articles, if not always for public consumption.

The YouTube summary feature may be one of the more logical extensions, however. The service says over 500 hours of content are uploaded every minute — it would be impossible for humans to keep up. The question is whether or not the AI summaries are accurate enough. Google has warned that generative systems like Bard may be prone to inaccuracies and misinformation, and it's not yet clear how well the YouTube experiment works in practice.

If reality television has taught us anything, it's there's not much people won't do if offered enough money and attention. Sometimes, even just the latter. Unfortunately for the future prospects of our civilization, modern social media has focused upon those same character foibles and optimized them at a global scale, sacrifices at the altar of audience growth and engagement. In Outrage Machine, writer and technologist Tobias Rose-Stockwell, walks readers through the inner workings of these modern technologies, illustrating how they're designed to capture and keep our attention, regardless of what they have to do in order to do it. In the excerpt below, Rose-Stockwell examines the human cost of feeding the content machine through a discussion on YouTube personality Nikocado Avocado's rise to internet stardom.

Legacy Lit

Excerpted from OUTRAGE MACHINE: How Tech Amplifies Discontent, Disrupts Democracy—And What We Can Do About It by Tobias Rose-Stockwell. Copyright © 2023 by Tobias Rose-Stockwell. Reprinted with permission of Legacy Lit. All rights reserved.

This Game Is Not Just a Game

Social media can seem like a game. When we open our apps and craft a post, the way we look to score points in the form of likes and followers distinctly resembles a strange new playful competition. But while it feels like a game, it is unlike any other game we might play in our spare time.

The academic C. Thi Nguyen has explained how games are different: “Actions in games are screened off, in important ways, from ordinary life. When we are playing basketball, and you block my pass, I do not take this to be a sign of your long-term hostility towards me. When we are playing at having an insult contest, we don’t take each other’s speech to be indicative of our actual attitudes or beliefs about the world.” Games happen in what the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga famously called “the magic circle”— where the players take on alternate roles, and our actions take on alternate meanings.

With social media we never exit the game. Our phones are always with us. We don’t extricate ourselves from the mechanics. And since the goal of the game designers of social media is to keep us there as long as possible, it’s an active competition with real life. With a constant type of habituated attention being pulled into the metrics, we never leave these digital spaces. In doing so, social media has colonized our world with its game mechanics.

Metrics are Money

While we are paid in the small rushes of dopamine that come from accumulating abstract numbers, metrics also translate into hard cash. Acquiring these metrics don’t just provide us with hits of emotional validation. They are transferable into economic value that is quantifiable and very real.

It’s no secret that the ability to consistently capture attention is an asset that brands will pay for. A follower is a tangible, monetizable asset worth money. If you’re trying to purchase followers, Twitter will charge you between $2 and $4 to acquire a new one using their promoted accounts feature.

If you have a significant enough following, brands will pay you to post sponsored items on their behalf. Depending on the size of your following in Instagram, for instance, these payouts can range from $75 per post (to an account with two thousand followers), up to hundreds of thousands of dollars per post (for accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers).

Between 2017 and 2021, the average cost for reaching a thousand Twitter users (the metric advertisers use is CPM, or cost per mille) was between $5 and $7. It costs that much to get a thousand eyeballs on your post. Any strategies that increase how much your content is shared also have a financial value.

Let’s now bring this economic incentive back to Billy Brady’s accounting of the engagement value of moral outrage. He found that adding a single moral or emotional word to a post on Twitter increased the viral spread of that content by 17 percent per word. All of our posts to social media exist in a marketplace for attention — they vie for the top of our followers’ feeds. Our posts are always competing against other people’s posts. If outraged posts have an advantage in this competition, they are literally worth more money.

For a brand or an individual, if you want to increase the value of a post, then including moral outrage, or linking to a larger movement that signals its moral conviction, might increase the reach of that content by at least that much. Moreover, it might actually improve the perception and brand affinity by appealing to the moral foundations of the brand’s consumers and employees, increasing sales and burnishing their reputation. This can be an inherently polarizing strategy, as a company that picks a cause to support, whose audience is morally diverse, might then alienate a sizable percentage of their customer base who disagree with that cause. But these economics can also make sense — if a company knows enough about its consumers’ and employees’ moral affiliations — it can make sure to pick a cause-sector that’s in line with its customers.

Since moral content is a reliable tool for capturing attention, it can also be used for psychographic profiling for future marketing opportunities. Many major brands do this with tremendous success — creating viral campaigns that utilize moral righteousness and outrage to gain traction and attention among core consumers who have a similar moral disposition. These campaigns also often get a secondary boost due to the proliferation of pile- ons and think pieces discussing these ad spots. Brands that moralize their products often succeed in the attention marketplace.

This basic economic incentive can help to explain how and why so many brands have begun to link themselves with online cause-related issues. While it may make strong moral sense to those decision-makers, it can make clear economic sense to the company as a whole as well. Social media provides measurable financial incentives for companies to include moral language in their quest to burnish their brands and perceptions.

But as nefarious as this sounds, moralization of content is not always the result of callous manipulation and greed. Social metrics do something else that influences our behavior in pernicious ways.

Audience Capture

In the latter days of 2016, I wrote an article about how social media was diminishing our capacity for empathy. In the wake of that year’s presidential election, the article went hugely viral, and was shared with several million people. At the time I was working on other projects full time. When the article took off, I shifted my focus away from the consulting work I had been doing for years, and began focusing instead on writing full time. One of the by-products of that tremendous signal from this new audience is the book you’re reading right now.

A sizable new audience of strangers had given me a clear message: This was important. Do more of it. When many people we care about tell us what we should be doing, we listen.

This is the result of “audience capture”: how we influence, and are influenced by those who observe us. We don’t just capture an audience — we are also captured by their feedback. This is often a wonderful thing, provoking us to produce more useful and interesting works. As creators, the signal from our audience is a huge part of why we do what we do.

But it also has a dark side. The writer Gurwinder Boghal has explained the phenomena of audience capture for influencers illustrating the story of a young YouTuber named Nicholas Perry. In 2016, Perry began a You- Tube channel as a skinny vegan violinist. After a year of getting little traction online, he abandoned veganism, citing health concerns, and shifted to uploading mukbang (eating show) videos of him trying different foods for his followers. These followers began demanding more and more extreme feats of food consumption. Before long, in an attempt to appease his increasingly demanding audience, he was posting videos of himself eating whole fast-food menus in a single sitting.

He found a large audience with this new format. In terms of metrics, this new format was overwhelmingly successful. After several years of following his audience’s continued requests, he amassed millions of followers, and over a billion total views. But in the process, his online identity and physical character changed dramatically as well. Nicholas Perry became the personality Nikocado — an obese parody of himself, ballooning to more than four hundred pounds, voraciously consuming anything his audience asked him to eat. Following his audience’s desires caused him to pursue increasingly extreme feats at the expense of his mental and physical health.

Legacy Lit

Nicholas Perry, left, and Nikocado, right, after several years of building a following on YouTube. Source: Nikocado Avocado YouTube Channel.

Boghal summarizes this cross-directional influence.

When influencers are analyzing audience feedback, they often find that their more outlandish behavior receives the most attention and approval, which leads them to recalibrate their personalities according to far more extreme social cues than those they’d receive in real life. In doing this they exaggerate the more idiosyncratic facets of their personalities, becoming crude caricatures of themselves.

This need not only apply to influencers. We are signal-processing machines. We respond to the types of positive signals we receive from those who observe us. Our audiences online reflect back to us what their opinion of our behavior is, and we adapt to fit it. The metrics (likes, followers, shares, and comments) available to us now on social media allow for us to measure that feedback far more precisely than we previously could, leading to us internalizing what is “good” behavior.

As we find ourselves more and more inside of these online spaces, this influence becomes more pronounced. As Boghal notes, “We are all gaining online audiences.” Anytime we post to our followers, we are entering into a process of exchange with our viewers — one that is beholden to the same extreme engagement problems found everywhere else on social media.

X (formerly Twitter) continues to struggle to keep advertisers on board, and the brands that have stuck around are seeing ads show up in unexpected places. As reported by Media Matters, brands such as Honeywell, Discovery, Showtime and USA Today are having their ads placed alongside tweets from The National Socialist Network account, a neo-Nazi group that actively advocates for violence and terrorism. A job recruitment ad for the U.S. Border Patrol also appeared on the page.

It’s clear that not only is X still allowing hate groups to exist on the platform, it's allowing them to monetize their tweets. The National Socialist Group’s leader Thomas Sewell was found guilty of "recklessly causing injury and array" following a 2021 attack. Other members of the group have pleaded guilty to "possessing documents and records of information for terrorist acts." Yet, the group’s Twitter account is still active.

Media Matters also reports that the account joined shortly after owner Elon Musk purchased Twitter. It has been "verified since July 2023," and according to Musk, all verified accounts are eligible to receive a share of ad revenue on the platform.

Earlier this week, Twitter started slashing new ad booking prices by 50 percent through the end of the month. The company says that the discount is necessary to allow advertisers to "gain reach during crucial moments" such as sporting events. Twitter was also asking brands to spend at least $1,000 per month on ads or verification in order to retain their verified badge on the platform.

Twitter has changed its official handle from @Twitter to @X, as Engadget's intrepid reporter Kris Holt noticed ("Oof," he observed). If you attempt to access @Twitter, it now states: "This account is no longer active. Follow @X for updates." All past @Twitter tweets, (or X's, or whatever they're now called), are henceforth available in the @X account. 

That's not all. The Twitter Blue subscription service is now called @XBlue (Blue subscription) in the main description page. That means the majority of X née Twitter's handles have dumped the Twitter name or replaced it with X. For instance, @TwitterSupport, @TwitterDev and @TwitterAPI are now @Support, @Xdevelopers, and @API. 

Twitter didn't possess the @X handle yesterday, as it was in the hands of a user named Gene X Hwang, from a photography/video studio called Orange Photography, as Techcrunch reported. That changed as of today, though, and Hwang tweeted from a new handle "all's well that ends well," so hopefully he was compensated in some way for relinquishing the name. 

X has been working hard to remove all vestiges of Twitter branding, including partially taking down the Twitter sign at its San Francisco HQ before police intervened to due a lack of a permit. Twitter may still have to deal with IP issues, since Microsoft has owned an Xbox related X trademark for 20 years and Meta owns another trademark covering the letter X. 

In a series of tweets last Saturday, Musk said the company’s famous bird logo and name would soon disappear. The company will change from Twitter to “X.” According to Platformer, Musk emailed staff later over the weekend saying the company would become X and his note “was the last email he’ll ever send from a Twitter email address.” And a lot of those changes have now happened.

Twitter’s own account is now all “X” branding, and it’s rolled out quickly elsewhere. Twitter employees are getting an “X” tag to their Twitter handles, next to their blue check, while the “X” logo has already been projected on a building, like a bat signal for self-aggrandizing tech executives and their minions. (I’m still not sure what this tweet (X?) even means.)

X.com was once an online bank co-founded by Musk in 1999. It eventually became PayPal and was bought by eBay. Of course, we already have SpaceX, his recently announced AI venture is called xAI and Twitter’s holding company was rammed to X Corp in April. Musk has also talked about how X would help Twitter become an “everything app.”

Terms that still need to be rebranded: subtweets, retweets, fail whales.

– Mat Smith

You can get these reports delivered daily direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!

The biggest stories you might have missed

ChatGPT's Android app arrives in the last week of July

'Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' season 2 will include a musical episode

'Oppenheimer' review: Sympathy for the destroyer of worlds

What we bought: Engadget’s favorite backpacks

Summer Samsung Unpacked 2023: What to expect

Engadget Podcast: How AI created a 'South Park' episode around us

Plus, we chat with the director and writers of Netflix's ‘They Cloned Tyrone.’

AI can now place us inside South Park episodes – should we be worried? This week, Devindra and Deputy Editor Nathan Ingraham chat with Edward Saatchi, the CEO of The Simulation, about his company’s new AI technology that can generate TV episodes, movies and more. We preview a test South Park episode featuring Devindra and discuss if this technology is actually a good thing for creatives. Also, Editor at Large James Trew joins to discuss his piece on AI-powered immortality.

Continue reading.

Redditors troll AI content farm into covering a fake 'WoW' feature

The hugely anticipated Glorbo feature is not a feature.

Blizzard

Some redditors were very excited about a new World of Warcraft feature called Glorbo. Just one problem: Glorbo isn't real. Their faux enthusiasm for Glorbo caught the attention of a blog named The Portal, which publishes "gaming content powered by Z League" – often tenuously rewritten subreddit scraping, seemingly done by AI. (We hope it’s not a human.)

Redditor u/kaefer_kriegerin noticed The Portal was turning discussions from some gaming subreddits into blog posts. They decided to try to trick the content farm into covering a fake WoW feature. The ruse was a success. The Portal's now-deleted blog post even quoted u/kaefer_kriegerin as stating, "Honestly, this new feature makes me so happy! I just really want some major bot-operated news websites to publish an article about this."

Continue reading.

Our favorite VPN is Express VPN

It’s the best one for gaming and streaming.

The best VPNs stay out of your way, and you'll barely even notice they’re running. But ExpressVPN internet speeds outperformed even our baseline internet speed measures. The service is likely circumventing traffic shaping by the internet service provider or a similar anomaly because every other VPN will hurt internet speed in some way. It was also easy to access geo-blocked content using ExpressVPN, with little-to-no buffering – which is the cheeky reason a lot of us invest in a VPN.

Continue reading.

​​

Unlike when Dogecoin's Shiba Inu briefly replaced it, it seems Twitter's longstanding bird logo is genuinely having its last curtain call. Elon Musk and Twitter (or should we say X?) CEO Linda Yaccarino announced that the company was rebranding as "X" and projected the new emblem onto the company's San Francisco headquarters. So far, the simple white logo with a black background has replaced the bird in the top left spot of the website, and the pair have it next to their respective names and blue checks. Twitter's official account has also been renamed X, with the new logo and a stark black background. As of publication, the blue bird still exists in the browser icon, but that will likely change soon.

Musk has long had an affinity for the letter X, naming his 1999 banking startup x.com, aerospace company SpaceX and recent AI venture xAI. Speaking of x.com, type that into your search bar, and it will automatically reroute you to Twitter's homepage — Musk bought x.com back from PayPal in 2017.

Musk and co have made hefty claims about Twitter's future since he first took ownership, and its rebrand is no exception. "X is the future state of unlimited interactivity – centered in audio, video, messaging, payments/banking – creating a global marketplace for ideas, goods, services, and opportunities," Yaccarino said in a Twitter thread repeating much of what Musk has said in the past. "Powered by AI, X will connect us all in ways we're just beginning to imagine." We'll have to wait and see if the rebrand does anything to bring back all the advertising dollars the company has lost or help it compete against Meta's Threads.

Twitter has again made its platform a little less usable for people who choose not to pay for a Blue subscription. The company has announced that it will soon implement a new rule that puts a limit on the number of DMs unverified accounts can send per day. In a tweet, Twitter said the change is part of its efforts to reduce spam in direct messages, which has seen a sharp uptick recently. 

On July 14th, the website added a new message setting that sends DMs from accounts people follow to their primary inbox and DMs from verified users they don't follow to their message request inbox. Twitter said it saw a 70 percent reduction in spam messages a week after the new setting came out. Before that, the website limited the ability to send DMs to people who don't follow them to Blue subscribers only. 

While Twitter said the upcoming change is meant to reduce DM spam, it's still another move that not-so-subtly pushes unverified subscribers towards paying for Blue membership. In fact, the website's announcement about it explicitly tells people to "subscribe today to send more messages" and includes a link to the subscription page. Twitter also previously put a strict cap on how many tweets a day a user can see, with unverified accounts being limited to 600 posts. 

Elon Musk tweeted this month that Twitter is suffering from an ongoing negative cash flow, because its advertising revenue has dropped by 50 percent. Even if money from subscriptions can't make up for that, it's still money in the company's pocket. 

Some redditors seem very excited about a new World of Warcraft feature called Glorbo, which some believe will "make a huge impact on the game." Their palpable enthusiasm for Glorbo caught the attention of a blog named The Portal, which publishes "gaming content powered by Z League," an app that aims to bring gamers together. 

Just one problem: Glorbo isn't real. The Portal appears to be using AI to scrape Reddit posts and turn them into content.

Redditor u/kaefer_kriegerin noticed that The Portal was seemingly turning discussions from some gaming subreddits into blog posts. They decided to try and trick the content farm into covering a fake WoW feature. The ruse was a success. Other redditors played along, as did some Blizzard developers, as WoW Head notes.

The Portal's now-deleted blog post even quoted u/kaefer_kriegerin as stating, "Honestly, this new feature makes me so happy! I just really want some major bot operated news websites to publish an article about this." You almost couldn't make this up. An archived version of the post is still available.

There appears to be at least some level of human input on The Portal. The site added "(Satire)" to the headline of the post before eventually deleting it entirely. It also published an article based on another Reddit troll post about WoW taking away players' keys (which is not a thing that's happening). That blog post is also gone from The Portal.

Engadget has contacted Blizzard to find out whether it will address the hype for Glorbo and actually bring the feature to WoW. As it happens, Blizzard is reportedly using AI to help create character outfits and concept art. We've also asked Z League for comment, and we'll let you know if it sends us a (presumably AI-generated) statement.

Given the rise of generative AI in recent months, we're likely to see a tidal wave of AI-generated guff appearing on websites, even including mainstream publications. Earlier this year, CNET had to correct dozens of AI-generated finance posts after errors were found. The site's staff has pushed back against CNET's plans to keep using AI amid efforts to unionize. Gizmodo publisher G/O Media is also forging ahead with AI-generated blog posts, despite one that was widely mocked for getting a chronological list of Star Wars movies and TV shows very wrong. That and other AI-generated articles that appeared across the G/O network this month infuriated the company's human writers and editors.

Mistakes happen. Human writers can't get everything right all of the time. But any journalist worth their salt will strive to make sure their work is as accurate and fair as possible. Generative AI isn't exactly there yet. There have been many instances of AI chatbots surfacing misinformation. However, some believe AI can help to actually combat misinformation by, for instance, assisting newsrooms with fact checking.

Meanwhile, Google appears to be working on an AI tool that can whip up news articles and automate certain tasks to help out journalists. Some critics who have seen the tool in action have suggested that it takes the work of producing accurate and digestible news stories for granted.