Meta has taken down a network of fake accounts that posed as US military families and anti-war activists. The fake accounts on Facebook and Instagram originated in China and targeted US audiences, according to the company’s security researchers.

Meta detailed the takedowns in its latest report on coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB). The cluster of fake accounts was relatively small — 33 Facebook accounts, four Instagram profiles, six pages and six groups on Facebook. The accounts posted about US aircraft carriers and other “military themes,” as well as “criticism of US foreign policy towards Taiwan and Israel and its support of Ukraine,” Meta wrote in its report.

The group also ran accounts on YouTube and Medium and shared an online petition “claiming to have been written by Americans to criticize US support for Taiwan.” The company’s researchers said the fake accounts originated in China, but didn’t attribute the effort to a specific entity or group. During a call with reporters, Meta’s global threat intelligence lead Ben Nimmo said that there has been a rise in China-based influence operations over the last year.

“The greatest change in the threat landscape,” Nimmo said, “has been this emergence of Chinese influence operations.” Nimmo said. He noted that Meta has taken down 10 CIB networks originating in China since 2017, but that six of those takedowns came in the last year. Last summer, Meta discovered and removed an especially large network of thousands of fake accounts that attempted to spread pro-China propaganda messages on the platform.

In both cases, the fake accounts were apparently unsuccessful at spreading their message. The latest network only managed to reach about 3,000 Facebook accounts, according to Meta, and the two Instagram pages had no followers at the time they were discovered.

Still, Meta’s researchers note that attempts like this will likely continue ahead of the 2024 election and that people with large audiences should be wary of resharing unverified information. “Our threat research shows that, historically, the main way that CIB networks get through to authentic communities is when they manage to co-opt real people — politicians, journalists or influencers — and tap into their audiences,” the report says. “Reputable opinion-makers represent an attractive target and should exercise caution before amplifying information from unverified sources, particularly ahead of major elections.”

We’ve spent the last week with the Apple Vision Pro and we have thoughts! This week, Senior Writer Sam Rutherford and Podcast Producer Ben Ellman join Devindra to chat about his Vision Pro review, as well as their first impressions of the headset. It’s far from a slam dunk, but it’s also one of the most fascinating devices we’ve ever seen. We dive into Apple’s impressive 3D Immersive Videos, the elegant simplicity of the Vision Pro’s eye tracking and hand gestures, and the trouble with wearing such a heavy headset.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

• Devindra’s Apple Vision Pro review – 0:49

• Microsoft’s gaming division is expected to announce former exclusive games going multiplatform – 51:06

• Maliciously edited video of President Biden is allowed to stay by Facebook’s oversight board – 54:30

• Add Taylor Swift to the list of celebrities who don’t want their jets tracked – 57:35

• Working on – 1:00:10

• Pop culture picks – 1:00:50

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Credits
Hosts: Devindra Hardawar and Sam Rutherford
Guest: Ben Ellman
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

Meta’s Oversight Board wants the company to update its manipulated media policy, calling the current rules “incoherent.” This follows the board’s decision about a misleadingly edited video of President Joe Biden.

The video featured footage from October 2022, when the president accompanied his granddaughter, who was voting in person for the first time. News footage shows him placing an “I voted” sticker on her shirt. A Facebook user later shared an edited version that looped the moment, so it appeared as if he repeatedly touched her chest, adding the caption that Biden was a “sick pedophile.”

The Oversight Board said the video did not violate Meta’s manipulated media policy because it wasn’t edited with AI tools, and because the edits were “obvious and therefore unlikely to mislead.” (Has the board been on Facebook?)

The board said it was concerned about the current manipulated media policy in many ways, including how it was overly focused on how content has been created rather than on which specific harms it prevents (like damaging electoral processes). It wrote Meta should “reconsider this policy quickly, given the number of elections in 2024.”

— Mat Smith

The biggest stories you might have missed

Final Fantasy 14 will require two subscriptions on Xbox

How to watch Super Bowl 2024

The best air fryers

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

Microsoft may bring Bethesda’s Starfield and Indiana Jones games to the PS5 after all

The company may reveal ‘more details’ next week.

Microsoft

Microsoft’s gaming division appears to be considering a significant shift in its major-exclusives strategy. Rumors have been swirling for a while about the company bringing Hi-Fi Rush, a well-received game from last year, and Sea of Thieves to Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 5. But the company could add some of its more recent blockbuster Xbox exclusives to the PS5 as well, which would mark a monumental change in policy. Multiple publications suggested several games could make the jump, including the Gears of War series, Indiana Jones and Starfield. “We’re listening and we hear you,” Xbox boss Phil Spencer wrote on X: “We’ve been planning a business update event for next week, where we look forward to sharing more details with you about our vision for the future of Xbox. Stay tuned.”

Continue reading.

Microsoft is teaming up with Semafor on AI-assisted news stories

Signals will be written entirely by journalists, using Microsoft’s chatbot as a research tool.

Microsoft is teaming up with media website Semafor on a new project that uses ChatGPT to aid the creation of news stories, called signals. It’s one of several journalism collaborations Microsoft is announcing, conveniently following that New York Times lawsuit filed against the company and OpenAI for copyright infringement.

Continue reading.

YouTube may have an Apple Vision Pro app on its roadmap

Google said in January it had no immediate plans to support Apple’s headset.

Engadget

Google reportedly plans to develop a YouTube app for the Apple Vision Pro. A YouTube spokesperson confirmed to The Verge that the company plans to make a native Vision Pro app while optimizing YouTube for Safari as a stopgap solution. Despite Vision Pro launching with over 600 native apps, YouTube said on January 19 it had no plans for a Vision Pro app. Netflix is another high-profile holdout, while Disney+ went all in.

Continue reading.

It’s been 20 years since Mark Zuckerberg first brought thefacebook.com online from his dorm room. What happened next has been endlessly documented: the Harvard-only social network took over college campuses and, eventually, the world.

The social network occupies an increasingly awkward space in Meta’s “family” of apps. A majority of American adults still use the service, but three out of four believe Facebook — perhaps because it fueled a global misinformation crises and promoted genocidal hate speech — is “making society worse.” Facebook still generates billions of dollars in ad revenue for Meta, but user growth has slowed to the point where the company just announced it will no longer share how many people use it.

“Amen spam” regularly appears in Facebook’s list of most-viewed posts. The most prolific users on its game-streaming service are spammers. Faced with increased pressure from TikTok, Meta rejiggered its feed, yet again, to emphasize recommendations over posts from people you know. But the shift hasn’t made Facebook feel like TikTok as much as a strange window into what Meta’s algorithms deem most engaging and least offensive.

My own Facebook feed is inundated with posts from groups I don’t belong to dedicated to anodyne topics like home remodeling, cast iron pan enthusiasts and something called the “Dull Men’s Club.” I haven’t shared anything to my own page in more than a year, despite logging in almost daily. I’m hardly an outlier. A majority of adults now say they are “pickier” than they used to be about what they post on social media.

Unsurprisingly, teens have almost no interest in the social network of their parents and grandparents. Just 33 percent of US teens report “ever” using the service, compared with 71 percent in 2015. These dynamics, in which Facebook’s user base is aging faster than its product, has led some academics to conclude that the social network will one day have more profiles for dead people than alive.

Today, Facebook has more than 3 billion users and remains the workhorse of the Mark Zuckerberg cinematic universe, even if it's no longer the title character. Instead, it’s just one of his company’s “family” of apps. In 2021, it was formally demoted when Zuckerberg rebranded the company as Meta. "Our brand is so tightly linked to one product that it can't possibly represent everything that we're doing today, let alone in the future," Zuckerberg said of Facebook. "From now on, we're going to be metaverse-first, not Facebook-first."

Whether Meta has succeeded in becoming a “metaverse-first” company is, at best, debatable. But few would argue it’s anything close to “Facebook-first.” More recently, Zuckerberg has tried to pitch Meta as a metaverse company and an AI company, joining the race to create human-level superintelligence.

At the same time, the only reason Zuckerberg’s ambitions are even possible is because of Facebook’s success. Meta has lost tens of billions of dollars on its metaverse investments, and expects to lose even more for the foreseeable future. The company also plans to spend billions more on AI infrastructure (AGI doesn’t come cheap).

These investments will determine whether Zuckerberg’s bet on the future of social media is correct. And if he realizes his vision for an AI chatbot, metaverse-enabled future, it will have been possible largely because of the unparalleled financial success of the oldest and dullest part of his empire.

Samsung’s Galaxy S24 phones are all about AI, but how do they compare against Google’s AI tech? This week, Cherlynn and Devindra discuss what works and doesn’t about Samsung’s ambitious new smartphones, and why it may be a good thing for the Korean giant to directly compete with Google. Also, Senior Editor Karissa Bell joins to discuss the social media CEO Senate hearing, which, unsurprisingly, doesn’t really amount to much.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

• Samsung Galaxy S24 and S24 Ultra reviews: AI with mixed results – 0:47

• Senate gathers social media CEOs over online child safety – 15:15

• Graphic images of Taylor Swift on X prompts U.S. bill to let people sue over sexual deepfakes – 28:11

• Universal Music Group pulls songs from TikTok during talks on a new music rights deal – 33:05

• Delaware court denies Elon Musk’s “unfathomable” Tesla payday – 38:31

• Neuralink claims to have implanted its first chip in a human test subject – 40:32

• Google reveals new text-to-image generative AI tool, ImageFX – 41:46

• Working on – 47:00

• Pop culture picks – 51:29

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Credits
Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Guest: Karissa Bell
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

One of Google Search's oldest and best-known features, cache links, are being retired, Google's search liaison said in an X post seen by The Verge. Best known by the "Cached" button, those are a snapshot of a web page the last time Google indexed it. However, according to Google, they're no longer required. 

"It was meant for helping people access pages when way back, you often couldn’t depend on a page loading,” Google's Danny Sullivan wrote in the post. “These days, things have greatly improved. So, it was decided to retire it.

Nowadays, however, the feature is used for more than just a web page backup. Many people rely on it to check to validity of a site, and SEO managers can employ the feature to check their pages for errors. Many users, particularly news professionals, use the cache to see if a website has recently been updated, with information added or removed. And sometimes, a cache can let you check a site that's geoblocked in your region. 

Previously, clicking on the three-dot menu next to a result would open an "about this result" dialog with the Cached button at bottom right. Now, however, it opens a much larger menu showing a website's "about" page, a Wikipedia descrtipoin, privacy settings and more. The cached button is now nowhere to be seen.

None of the comments in Sullivan's replies were positive, with one SEO user saying "come on, why delete the function? It's really helpful for all SEO." Sullivan did say that Google may one day add links to the Internet Archive where the cache link button used to be, within About This Result. 

However, that sounds like it's far from a done deal, and would shift a massive amount of traffic over to the Internet Archive. "No promises. We have to talk to them, see how it all might go — involves people well beyond me. But I think it would be nice all around," he wrote. 

YouTube has hit a new milestone with its Music and Premium offerings. The paid services have more than 100 million users between them as of January, including those who were on a free trial. That's an increase of 20 million members in just over a year, and the figure has doubled since September 2021. YouTube has successfully grown the figures despite a $2 per month increase for Premium that came into force last summer.

It's unclear how many people are actually using YouTube Music (Premium includes access to that service). However you slice it, the music streaming service has significantly fewer paid users than Spotify, which had 220 million Premium members as of September 30. Spotify will reveal its latest membership numbers in an earnings report next week. Apple no longer breaks out its number of Apple Music subscribers. The last firm number the company gave for the service was 60 million subscribers back in 2019.

Regardless, the comparison between YouTube's paid service and Apple Music and Spotify Premium is hardly like-for-like. YouTube Premium is its own thing with its own benefits. It can be tough to go back to the lousier ad-strewn free version of the service after having Premium. The option to download videos for offline viewing without having to resort to workarounds and background playback feature are both very useful. YouTube Music is just an extra perk on top of that for many members.

The Pew Research Center has published an updated survey of US adult social media usage. Although YouTube (especially) and Facebook retain their dominant status from the last poll in 2021, TikTok is the fastest-growing platform, with more than a third of adults now saying they use the app.

The survey polled 5,733 US adults between May 19 and September 5, 2023. YouTube was far and away the most used platform, with 83 percent of respondents reporting using it at some point. Meanwhile, 68 percent of users reported using Facebook.

Those two are the only platforms with a majority of people using them through each age demographic. However, gaps based on age groups still exist — especially among YouTube’s users. For example, 93 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds report using Google’s video platform, while 60 percent of those 65 and older say the same. (Facebook only has a nine percent difference between the same two demographics.)

Instagram came in third place overall, as 47 percent of respondents said they use it. Pinterest (35 percent), TikTok (33 percent), LinkedIn (30 percent), WhatsApp (29 percent) and Snapchat (27 percent) all fall into the next tier down. TikTok’s growth stands out the most: The ByteDance-owned platform shot up 12 points from 21 percent from two years before. That’s by far the biggest leap of any platform on the list.

Richard Bord via Getty Images

The next tier down includes Reddit and X, each sitting at 22 percent. Complicating matters, Elon Musk’s company changed its name from Twitter to X (and brought in a new CEO) while the surveys were in the field. The company’s reported users dropped slightly in two years, from 23 percent in 2021. Meanwhile, Reddit rose four points from 18 percent two years before — despite the platform’s API controversy happening while the surveys were out.

Other platforms with significant age-group discrepancies include Instagram (78 percent of 29-and-under survey participants use it, compared to 15 percent of 65 and older) and Snapchat (65 percent use it for those under 30, four percent for 65 and up). The 40- to 49-year-old demographic, which includes younger Gen-Xers and all but the youngest Millennials, has especially high rates for LinkedIn (40 percent), WhatsApp (38 percent) and Facebook (75 percent).

In other demographic-based notables, Pew reports TikTok is especially popular among Hispanic users, with 49 percent reporting use (and women reported using it at a 15 percent higher rate than men). X is more popular with adults with annual household incomes of at least $100,000 — a nine-point swing compared to the $70,000 to $99,999 tier. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, given its career-oriented focus, LinkedIn has a higher rate of respondents with at least a bachelor’s degree (25 points higher than those with “some college education” and 43 percent higher than those with a high school diploma or less).

Instagram is testing yet another feature meant to give users an alternative to finstas. It’s called “flipside” and it allows people to create a secondary photo grid that only designated friends can see.

If that sounds somewhat familiar it’s probably because Instagram already makes it pretty easy for users to create posts intended for a more limited audience. The app added the ability for users to share grid posts with “close friends” back in November (Stories for close friends has been a thing since 2018). More recently, it tested audience lists for Stories, so users could create multiple lists for small-group sharing. The app, of course, also makes it fairly easy to create an actual finsta.

Flipside, somewhat confusingly, offers yet another way of doing essentially the same thing. Users create a separate list of friends, distinct from “close friends,” to add to their “flipside.” They can then choose to post to their main grid or to their “flipside,” which is also accessible from their profile but only visible to the aforementioned list of friends. People will know if they have access to someone’s flipside if they see a key icon in someone’s grid, according to screenshots shared on Threads. (You can see a video of it in action over on Threads.)

Apparently, even Instagram head Adam Mosseri realizes this is all a bit redundant. “On one hand it feels good to create a clear space that feels more private,” he wrote in a post on Threads. “On the other, it's yet another way to reach a smaller audience on top of secondary accounts and Close Friends.”

He added that “we're not even sure we'll launch it,” which might explain why the company has been relatively quiet about the test. Flipside was first spotted back in December but was an internal prototype at the time, according to TechCrunch. However, it's now started to appear for actual users, with a number of reports of it appearing on Threads over the last day.

Early reactions seem to be mixed, with some enthusiasm for the update and some wondering why on earth they need yet another social media profile to maintain. Others seem to be, understandably, confused.

While finstas have (sometimes hilariously) been maligned, Meta’s recent obsession with creating “more private” spaces on Instagram is likely about more than simply adding convenience. Mosseri has noted many times over the last couple years that Instagram users simply aren’t posting as much as they used to, especially in their feeds. For an app that relies on advertising — much of it in users’ feeds — that’s less than ideal. So it’s not all that surprising Instagram would be looking for new ways to get people to spend more time posting to and scrolling their feeds.

AI-generated content can be found everywhere online, including your Google News feed. A report from 404 Media revealed that Google is boosting websites filled with AI-generated articles ripped from other outlets. While this isn’t a total surprise, the revelation is disappointing. Google News used to be a place you’d find the latest and most accurate information on most topics. But just because something makes it to Google News doesn’t necessarily mean the information is reliable.

404 Media cited several examples of AI-written articles getting past Google. One example involved a “news site” called Worldtimetodays, that recently published an article about Star Wars. An analysis of the article showed it was highly similar to one published earlier by Distractify. The Worldtimetodays article included the same author photo along with some odd phrasings, as you’d expect with AI. The ripped article read “Let’s be honest, war of stars fans,” instead of Star Wars fans. The site also had articles that were barely rewritten from Heavy, without bothering to replace Heavy’s watermarked images.

As AI advances and becomes even more accessible, we will likely continue to see mass output of plagiarized articles and unreliable information on Google News. Because as of right now, it’s clear Google may not be ready to fully audit the articles populating its news feed. The company told 404 Media that while it tries to filter spam on Google News, it isn’t overly concerned whether an article is written by humans or AI. A Google representative said it’s more about the quality of the content.

“Our focus when ranking content is on the quality of the content, rather than how it was produced. Automatically-generated content produced primarily for ranking purposes is considered spam, and we take action as appropriate under our policies,” the statement read.

Google went on to reiterate that websites are considered for Google News automatically, and new websites may not be immediately detected by the system. The company added that its goal is to reward “original content that demonstrates things such as expertise and trustworthiness,” but it looks like it’s missing the mark by letting these AI-generated articles through in the first place.