Zoom just announced that webinar calls can now support up to one million simultaneous participants. This is happening after various political groups used the video conferencing platform to raise money for Vice President Kamala Harris’ election campaign, often by hosting calls with hundreds of thousands of people.

The company now offers various tiers to accommodate large events. Customers can choose from webinars that feature max capacities of 10K, 50K, 100K, 250K, 500K, and, of course, 1M attendees. These are single-use webinar packages that come with support from Zoom’s Event Services team to ensure a “professional, engaging experience” for all.

“Now event organizers have the flexibility and power to host truly interactive experiences on an unprecedented scale and the ability to purchase large single-use webinars,” said Smita Hashim, chief product officer at Zoom.

Despite being recently used for political fundraising, Zoom envisions a future in which these large-scale virtual events are common across the enterprise, entertainment and public sectors. The company says, for instance, that celebrities and entertainers can use these webinar capabilities to host fan meet-and-greets and other kinds of virtual events.

These events, however, don’t come cheap. Booking a one-time webinar for a million people will set you back a cool $100,000. That’s actually a good deal, as a webinar for 10,000 people costs $9,000, which is almost a dollar per person.

Before this change, Zoom only offered official support for up to 100,000 attendees. However, reporting by Bloomberg indicates that the company recently changed course so as to accommodate the aforementioned fundraising events.

This all started in July when an organization called Win with Black Women held a Zoom call with more than 40,000 attendees in which they raised $1.5 million for the Harris campaign. This was followed by White Dudes for Harris, with 190,000 attendees, and White Women for Harris, with 164,000 attendees.

This could be a lucrative new revenue source for Zoom. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that its stock sold for $560 per share before dropping to around $60 per share. This rapid decline was expected, as the world moved on from virtual meetings and started going outside again.

In the latest example of a troubling industry pattern, NVIDIA appears to have scraped troves of copyrighted content for AI training. On Monday, 404 Media’s Samantha Cole reported that the $2.4 trillion company asked workers to download videos from YouTube, Netflix and other datasets to develop commercial AI projects. The graphics card maker is among the tech companies appearing to have adopted a “move fast and break things” ethos as they race to establish dominance in this feverish, too-often-shameful AI gold rush.

The training was reportedly to develop models for products like its Omniverse 3D world generator, self-driving car systems and “digital human” efforts.

NVIDIA defended its practice in an email to Engadget. A company spokesperson said its research is “in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of copyright law” while claiming IP laws protect specific expressions “but not facts, ideas, data, or information.” The company equated the practice to a person’s right to “learn facts, ideas, data, or information from another source and use it to make their own expression.” Human, computer… what’s the difference?

YouTube doesn’t appear to agree. Spokesperson Jack Malon pointed us to a Bloomberg story from April, quoting CEO Neal Mohan saying using YouTube to train AI models would be a “clear violation” of its terms. “Our previous comment still stands,” the YouTube policy communications manager wrote to Engadget.

That quote from Mohan in April was in response to reports that OpenAI trained its Sora text-to-video generator on YouTube videos without permission. Last month, a report showed that the startup Runway AI followed suit.

NVIDIA employees who raised ethical and legal concerns about the practice were reportedly told by their managers that it had already been green-lit by the company's highest levels. “This is an executive decision,” Ming-Yu Liu, vice president of research at NVIDIA, replied. “We have an umbrella approval for all of the data.” Others at the company allegedly described its scraping as an “open legal issue” they’d tackle down the road.

It all sounds similar to Facebook’s (Meta’s) old “move fast and break things” motto, which has succeeded admirably at breaking quite a few things. That included the privacy of millions of people.

In addition to the YouTube and Netflix videos, NVIDIA reportedly instructed workers to train on movie trailer database MovieNet, internal libraries of video game footage and Github video datasets WebVid (now taken down after a cease-and-desist) and InternVid-10M. The latter is a dataset containing 10 million YouTube video IDs.

Some of the data NVIDIA allegedly trained on was only marked as eligible for academic (or otherwise non-commercial) use. HD-VG-130M, a library of 130 million YouTube videos, includes a usage license specifying that it’s only meant for academic research. NVIDIA reportedly brushed aside concerns about academic-only terms, insisting their batches were fair game for its commercial AI products.

To evade detection from YouTube, NVIDIA reportedly downloaded content using virtual machines (VMs) with rotating IP addresses to avoid bans. In response to a worker’s suggestion to use a third-party IP address-rotating tool, another NVIDIA employee reportedly wrote, “We are on [Amazon Web Services](#) and restarting a [virtual machine](#) instance gives a new public IP[.](#) So, that’s not a problem so far.”

404 Media’s full report on NVIDIA’s practices is worth a read.

A guest who appeared on the No Jumper podcast to boast about a hack and payback scheme involving his victims’ social media accounts could face federal charges. Idriss Qibaa, also known as “Dani” and “Unlocked” who authorities allege ran the social media hacking site Unlocked4Life.com, faces two criminal felony counts filed by the US Attorney's Office in Nevada for allegedly violating interstate communications laws for threats he issued in text messages to two victims and members of their families, according to documents obtained by 404 Media.

Investigators filed the sealed complaint against Qibaa on July 25 and issued a warrant the following Monday when also made his first initial appearance in court, according to federal court records.

The criminal complaint states that the FBI received a tip about Qibaa’s alleged extortion scheme on April 1 pointing to an appearance he made on the No Jumper podcast hosted by Adam22, also known as Adam Grandmaison, back in January under his pseudonym “Dani.” Qibaa outlined a financial scheme using over 200 victims’ social media accounts in which he would lock them out of their pages and charge them to regain access.

He also boasted that he made about $600,000 a month from his activities and hired two security guards to follow him.

“You’re making $2 million a month off your Instagram and Telegraph,” Qibaa says on the podcast. “I come and I take it away and make you pay for it back and I make it public and I post it and I expose you.”

Qibaa even said on the podcast episode that he pulled the scheme on celebrities who unknowingly kept paying him to get their social media back. He later noted “I’m very petty” followed by a menacing laugh.

“I’ve talked to stars who have told me that they’ve paid to get it back 20 times over and over and over they just have to keep paying to get it back,” Qibaa says, “and I’m like you realize what’s happening to you right like the same that’s getting you it back is…you’re getting extorted.”

The criminal complaint tells the story of eight victims’ encounters with Qibaa and his services. One identified as “J.T.” operated two Instagram accounts: a cannabis news aggregate account called “theblacklistxyz” and a cannabis merchandising store under “caliplug,” both of which are currently set to private. J.T. reached out to Qibaa asking if he could obtain a username. Qibaa quoted a price back between $4,000-$5,000. J.T. refused to take Qibaa up on the offer and Qibaa responded with threats.

“Qibba told J.T. that J.T. had wasted Qibaa’s time, blocked J.T.’s Instagram pages and demanded $10,000 to reinstate it,” the complaint reads. “J.T. offered Qibaa $8,500 to reinstate the account, an offer Qibaa accepted.”

The complaint asserts that Qibba reached out to J.T. two more times. The first time, Qibba asked if J.T. would promote his Instagram page under the username “unlocked4life” that’s since been taken down. J.T. agreed but when he learned Qibaa had been threatening and extorting other victims, he confronted Qibaa and “Qibaa was irate.”

A few months later, Qibaa apparently increased the scope of his threats to J.T. and members of his family. He sent threats to call the victim’s ex-wife’s lawyer and child protective services on his kids. Screenshots of the victims’ phone show Qibaa allegedly identifying the address and phone number of the victim’s sister. He texted another family member and introduced himself as “The guy that’s gonna murder your drug dealer brother. Tell him Unlocked says hi though. We have your entire family’s info.”

Another victim identified as a journalist and comedian with the initials “E.H.” learned they were a target of Qibaa’s illegal services. Qibaa blocked their Instagram account, the name of which was redacted, at the request of a dentist in California who treated them. E.H. reached out to the Unlocked4Life account and received a reply that read, “Yo its Idriss.” He then told E.H. to pull up the No Jumper podcast episode featuring his interview. Qibaa not only took the victim’s Instagram account access away but also threatened to take their Social Security number and “blast it out” if they didn’t pay him $20,000.

According to the complaint, not even restraining orders could make Qibaa leave his victims alone. One named “R.B.” received a restraining order from Los Angeles County Superior Court in July but “Unblocked” responded, “Cute restraining order..last I checked you’re still gonna die.” Then “UNLOCKED UNCENSORED” posted on Telegram, “$50,000 reward for whoever sleeps BO this week.”

Perhaps the most disturbing threats happened to several victims in which Qibaa claimed he’d happily go to jail if payments weren’t made to him. Screenshots of the text chains show a person named “Dani” and “Daniel” telling his victims, “I will come and shoot you myself,” “I’m going to bury you for this shit” and “D., L., J., T., Children-Main Targets” referring to the victims’ children.

Another text chain shows Qibaa allegedly threatening someone that he would “rather take a life sentence for murdering you then this,” “Idc if I have to shoot you my self [sic]” and “I’ll go to jail happily.” He follows the text with the threat “Here’s the last guy that came to take photos / came near my home” and sends three pictures of an unidentified bearded man, his car and a photo of his badly bruised and bloodied on the ground.”

Adam22 concluded his podcast interview with “Dani” saying he was “very excited to see the fallout from this” and “I respect the hustle even though I can’t justify it on a moral level.”

A guest who appeared on the No Jumper podcast to boast about a hack and payback scheme involving his victims’ social media accounts could face federal charges. Idriss Qibaa, also known as “Dani” and “Unlocked” who authorities allege ran the social media hacking site Unlocked4Life.com, faces two criminal felony counts filed by the US Attorney's Office in Nevada for allegedly violating interstate communications laws for threats he issued in text messages to two victims and members of their families, according to documents obtained by 404 Media.

Investigators filed the sealed complaint against Qibaa on July 25 and issued a warrant the following Monday when also made his first initial appearance in court, according to federal court records.

The criminal complaint states that the FBI received a tip about Qibaa’s alleged extortion scheme on April 1 pointing to an appearance he made on the No Jumper podcast hosted by Adam22, also known as Adam Grandmaison, back in January under his pseudonym “Dani.” Qibaa outlined a financial scheme using over 200 victims’ social media accounts in which he would lock them out of their pages and charge them to regain access.

He also boasted that he made about $600,000 a month from his activities and hired two security guards to follow him.

“You’re making $2 million a month off your Instagram and Telegraph,” Qibaa says on the podcast. “I come and I take it away and make you pay for it back and I make it public and I post it and I expose you.”

Qibaa even said on the podcast episode that he pulled the scheme on celebrities who unknowingly kept paying him to get their social media back. He later noted “I’m very petty” followed by a menacing laugh.

“I’ve talked to stars who have told me that they’ve paid to get it back 20 times over and over and over they just have to keep paying to get it back,” Qibaa says, “and I’m like you realize what’s happening to you right like the same that’s getting you it back is…you’re getting extorted.”

The criminal complaint tells the story of eight victims’ encounters with Qibaa and his services. One identified as “J.T.” operated two Instagram accounts: a cannabis news aggregate account called “theblacklistxyz” and a cannabis merchandising store under “caliplug,” both of which are currently set to private. J.T. reached out to Qibaa asking if he could obtain a username. Qibaa quoted a price back between $4,000-$5,000. J.T. refused to take Qibaa up on the offer and Qibaa responded with threats.

“Qibba told J.T. that J.T. had wasted Qibaa’s time, blocked J.T.’s Instagram pages and demanded $10,000 to reinstate it,” the complaint reads. “J.T. offered Qibaa $8,500 to reinstate the account, an offer Qibaa accepted.”

The complaint asserts that Qibba reached out to J.T. two more times. The first time, Qibba asked if J.T. would promote his Instagram page under the username “unlocked4life” that’s since been taken down. J.T. agreed but when he learned Qibaa had been threatening and extorting other victims, he confronted Qibaa and “Qibaa was irate.”

A few months later, Qibaa apparently increased the scope of his threats to J.T. and members of his family. He sent threats to call the victim’s ex-wife’s lawyer and child protective services on his kids. Screenshots of the victims’ phone show Qibaa allegedly identifying the address and phone number of the victim’s sister. He texted another family member and introduced himself as “The guy that’s gonna murder your drug dealer brother. Tell him Unlocked says hi though. We have your entire family’s info.”

Another victim identified as a journalist and comedian with the initials “E.H.” learned they were a target of Qibaa’s illegal services. Qibaa blocked their Instagram account, the name of which was redacted, at the request of a dentist in California who treated them. E.H. reached out to the Unlocked4Life account and received a reply that read, “Yo its Idriss.” He then told E.H. to pull up the No Jumper podcast episode featuring his interview. Qibaa not only took the victim’s Instagram account access away but also threatened to take their Social Security number and “blast it out” if they didn’t pay him $20,000.

According to the complaint, not even restraining orders could make Qibaa leave his victims alone. One named “R.B.” received a restraining order from Los Angeles County Superior Court in July but “Unblocked” responded, “Cute restraining order..last I checked you’re still gonna die.” Then “UNLOCKED UNCENSORED” posted on Telegram, “$50,000 reward for whoever sleeps BO this week.”

Perhaps the most disturbing threats happened to several victims in which Qibaa claimed he’d happily go to jail if payments weren’t made to him. Screenshots of the text chains show a person named “Dani” and “Daniel” telling his victims, “I will come and shoot you myself,” “I’m going to bury you for this shit” and “D., L., J., T., Children-Main Targets” referring to the victims’ children.

Another text chain shows Qibaa allegedly threatening someone that he would “rather take a life sentence for murdering you then this,” “Idc if I have to shoot you my self [sic]” and “I’ll go to jail happily.” He follows the text with the threat “Here’s the last guy that came to take photos / came near my home” and sends three pictures of an unidentified bearded man, his car and a photo of his badly bruised and bloodied on the ground.”

Adam22 concluded his podcast interview with “Dani” saying he was “very excited to see the fallout from this” and “I respect the hustle even though I can’t justify it on a moral level.”

Calling all current or aspiring streamers: The Elgato Stream Deck XL is on sale right now. A 20 percent discount brings the device down from $250 to $200 — just $10 more than its all-time low price. 

The Elgato Stream Deck XL isn't just any old model — it has 32 macro keys. You can customize each LCD key to include controls such as changing scenes, switching cameras and adjusting the audio. Plus, it offers integration with platforms like Twitch, Discord, YouTube and Spotify. A non-slip magnetic stand allows it to sit easily on your desk, and you can connect to it with a USB cord. 

If you're looking for something a little smaller (and cheaper), then check out Elgato's Stream Deck MK.2. This model is one of our picks for tools that let you game-stream like a pro. Its biggest difference from the XL is that it comes with 15 keys, which still gives you a solid amount of customizable options. Pick one up for $125, down from $150 — a 17 percent discount. 

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter and subscribe to the Engadget Deals newsletter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

X will soon be moving the ability to live stream behind its premium paywall, the company announced. The change will make X the only major social platform to charge for the feature, which is currently free on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch and TikTok.

“Starting soon, only Premium subscribers will be able to livestream (create live video streams) on X,” the company said. “This includes going live from an encoder with X integration,” an apparent reference to X’s game streaming capabilities.

X didn’t offer an explanation for the change. The company has used additional features, like post editing, longform writing, and ad-free feeds to lure users to its paid subscriptions, but hasn’t typically moved existing, widely available, features behind its paywall. X Premium subscriptions start at $3/month for the "basic" tier, and rise to $8/month for Premium and $16/month for Premium+. 

There are, however, other signs that the Elon Musk-owned platform wants to charge for other simple features. The company introduced a $1 annual charge for new accounts to have posting privileges in New Zealand and the Philippines. Though the company still describes the scheme as a test, Musk has suggested he wants to expand the fees to all new users.

Spotify has a new plan for US subscribers that keeps you on the old $11 monthly pricing — as long as you don’t mind ditching audiobooks. The new Basic tier includes the music and podcast content you get from Premium but without 15 hours of audiobook access, a recently added feature we suspect many subscribers don’t care about anyway. Spotify said earlier this month it would hike Premium prices to $12 per month, beginning in July.

The Basic plan echoes one it rolled out in the UK last month. That one costs £11 per month compared to £12 for Premium with audiobook content.

Some have suspected Spotify’s audiobook push has nefarious motives. Earlier this month, the National Music Publishers’ Association asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the move, going as far as calling the company’s audiobook integration “a scheme to increase profits by deceiving consumers and cheating the music royalty system.” The NMPA complaint claims Spotify will pay about $150 million less in music royalties over the next year because of its audiobook fusion. Spotify told Engadget it did nothing wrong and rejected the accusations.

Spotify has been penny-pinching in other areas. It was reported last year that the company planned to overhaul its royalty model. One alleged part of that plan was to demonetize tracks earning less than five cents per month, pushing out some indie artists without established audiences.

 Spotify also laid off around 9,000 employees late last year, citing “the gap between our financial goal state and our current operational costs.”

You can switch to the audiobook-free tier (which is now live) by navigating to your account page, then “Manage your plan” and “Change plan” and picking Basic. If you’re a new subscriber, you can choose the Basic option when signing up.

Update, June 21, 2024, 2:36 PM ET: This story has been updated to note that the ability to sign up for the Basic plan is now live.

Instagram is recommending Reels with sexual content to teenagers as young as 13 even if they aren't specifically looking for racy videos, according to separate tests conducted by The Wall Street Journal and Northeastern University professor Laura Edelson. Both of them created new accounts and set their ages to 13-years-old for the tests, which mostly took place from January until April this year. Apparently, Instagram served moderately racy videos from the beginning, including those of women dancing sensually or those that focus on their bodies. Accounts that watched those videos and skipped other Reels then started getting recommendations for more explicit videos. 

Some of the recommended Reels contained women pantomiming sex acts, others promised to send nudes to users who comment on their accounts. The test users were also reportedly served videos with people flashing their genitalia, and in one instance, the supposed teen user was shown "video after video about anal sex." It took as little as three minutes after the accounts were created to start getting sexual Reels. Within 20 minutes of watching them, their recommended Reels section was dominated by creators producing sexual content. 

To note, The Journal and Edelson conducted the same test for TikTok and Snapchat and found that neither platform recommended sexual videos to the teen accounts they created. The accounts never even saw recommendations for age-inappropriate videos after actively searching for them and following creators that produce them. 

The Journal says that Meta's employees identified similar problems in the past, based on undisclosed documents it saw detailing internal research on harmful experiences on Instagram for young teenagers. Meta's safety staff previously conducted the same test and came up with similar results, the publication reports. Company spokesperson Andy Stone shrugged off the report, however, telling The Journal: "This was an artificial experiment that doesn’t match the reality of how teens use Instagram." He added that the company "established an effort to further reduce the volume of sensitive content teens might see on Instagram, and have meaningfully reduced these numbers in the past few months."

Back in January, Meta introduced significant privacy updates related to teen user protection and automatically placed teen users into its most restrictive control settings, which they can't opt out of. The Journals' tests were conducted after those updates rolled out, and it was even able to replicate the results as recently as June. Meta released the updates shortly after The Journal published the results of a previous experiment, wherein it found that Instagram’s Reels would serve "risqué footage of children as well as overtly sexual adult videos" to test accounts that exclusively followed teen and preteen influencers. 

When you think of the 20-year-old social network that is Facebook, its popularity among “young adults” is probably not what comes to mind. Naturally, Meta wants to change that and the company is once again telling the world it intends to reorient its platform in order to appeal to that demographic.

In an update from Tom Alison, who heads up the Facebook app for Meta, he says that the service is shifting to reflect an “increased focus on young adults” compared with other users. “Facebook is still for everyone, but in order to build for the next generation of social media consumers, we’ve made significant changes with young adults in mind,” he wrote.

If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because Meta executives have been trying to win over “young adults” for years in an effort to better compete with TikTok. Mark Zuckerberg said almost three years ago that he wanted to make young adults the company’s “North Star.” And Alison and Zuckerberg have both been talking about the Facebook app’s pivot to a discovery-focused feed rather than one based on users’ connections.

That shift is now well underway. Alison said that the company’s AI advancements have already improved recommendations for Reels and feed, and that “advanced recommendations technology will power more products” over the next year. He added that private sharing among users is also on the rise, with more users sharing video (though no word on the once-rumored plan to bring messaging back into the main app).

Notably, Alison’s note makes no mention of the “metaverse,” which Zuckerberg also once saw as a central part of the company’s future. Instead, he says that “leaning into new product capabilities enabled by AI” is a significant goal, along with luring younger users. That’s also not surprising, given that Meta and Zuckerberg have recently tried to rebrand some of the company’s metaverse ambitions as AI advancements.

But it’s also not clear how successful Meta will be in its efforts to win over young adults. Though Alison says Facebook has seen “five quarters of healthy growth in young adult app usage in the US and Canada,” with 40 million young adult daily active users, that’s still a relatively small percentage of the 205 million daily US Facebook users the company reported in February, the last time it would break out user numbers for the app.

Liz Reid, the Head of Google Search, has admitted that the company's search engine has returned some "odd, inaccurate or unhelpful AI Overviews" after they rolled out to everyone in the US. The executive published an explanation for Google's more peculiar AI-generated responses in a blog post, where it also announced that the company has implemented safeguards that will help the new feature return more accurate and less meme-worthy results. 

Reid defended Google and pointed out that some of the more egregious AI Overview responses going around, such as claims that it's safe to leave dogs in cars, are fake. The viral screenshot showing the answer to "How many rocks should I eat?" is real, but she said that Google came up with an answer because a website published a satirical content tackling the topic. "Prior to these screenshots going viral, practically no one asked Google that question," she explained, so the company's AI linked to that website.

The Google VP also confirmed that AI Overview told people to use glue to get cheese to stick to pizza based on content taken from a forum. She said forums typically provide "authentic, first-hand information," but they could also lead to "less-than-helpful advice." The executive didn't mention the other viral AI Overview answers going around, but as The Washington Post reports, the technology also told users that Barack Obama was Muslim and that people should drink plenty of urine to help them pass a kidney stone. 

Reid said the company tested the feature extensively before launch, but "there’s nothing quite like having millions of people using the feature with many novel searches." Google was apparently able to determine patterns wherein its AI technology didn't get things right by looking at examples of its responses over the past couple of weeks. It has then put protections in place based on its observations, starting by tweaking its AI to be able to better detect humor and satire content. It has also updated its systems to limit the addition of user-generated replies in Overviews, such as social media and forum posts, which could give people misleading or even harmful advice. In addition, it has also "added triggering restrictions for queries where AI Overviews were not proving to be as helpful" and has stopped showing AI-generated replies for certain health topics. 

Instagram launched Notes in December 2022 as a way for people to share statuses (not so dissimilar to Facebook) on the platform. Now, the Meta-owned app is taking inspiration from its sister site for more features, with the addition of Note Prompts. 

Instagram first experimented with Note Prompts earlier this year, and the feature allows users to share questions such as "What should I eat?" or "Who is going to be in X city this weekend?" Friends can then respond with tips, suggestions and random thoughts on the subject. It feels very Facebook circa 2012, as does another new feature, Mentions, in which users can tag a friend directly in their Notes. The example Instagram gives, "Hanging with @user later," would be right out of the early 2010s with just adding "Text! :)" Instagram also announced Note Likes, which works similarly to how likes function everywhere else on Instagram — all users need to do is double tap a note or click the heart. 

Notes have only emerged on Instagram in the past couple of years. They mirror stories in many ways, lasting only 24 hours and with controls as to who can see them (such as just mutual followers). Notes are visible in a user's inbox and on profiles. 

OpenAI reportedly made exiting employees choose between keeping their vested equity and being able to speak out against the company. According to Vox, which viewed the document in question, employees could “lose all vested equity they earned during their time at the company, which is likely worth millions of dollars” if they didn’t sign a nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreement, thanks to a provision in the off-boarding papers. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman confirmed in a tweet on Saturday evening that such a provision did exist, but said “we have never clawed back anyone's vested equity, nor will we do that if people do not sign a separation agreement (or don't agree to a non-disparagement agreement).”

An OpenAI spokesperson echoed this in a statement to Vox, and Altman said the company “was already in the process of fixing the standard exit paperwork over the past month or so.” But as Vox notes in its report, at least one former OpenAI employee has spoken publicly about sacrificing equity by declining to sign an NDA upon leaving. Daniel Kokotajlo recently posted on an online forum that this decision led to the loss of equity likely amounting to “about 85 percent of my family's net worth at least.”

In Altman’s response, the CEO apologized and said he was “embarrassed” after finding out about the provision, which he claims he was previously unaware of. “[T]here was a provision about potential equity cancellation in our previous exit docs; although we never clawed anything back, it should never have been something we had in any documents or communication,” he wrote on X. “this is on me and one of the few times i've been genuinely embarrassed running openai; i did not know this was happening and i should have [sic].” In addition to acknowledging that the company is changing the exit paperwork, Altman went on to say, “[I]f any former employee who signed one of those old agreements is worried about it, they can contact me and we'll fix that too.”

All of this comes after two more high-profile resignations from OpenAI this week. OpenAI co-founder and Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever announced on Wednesday that he was leaving the company, and was followed soon after by Jan Leike, who was a team leader on OpenAI’s now-dissolved “Superalignment” AI safety team.

Twitter officially went through a rebranding almost a year ago, but most of its pages still used Twitter in their URL until now. Now, Elon Musk has announced that the social network is done moving all of its core systems on X.com, which means it's done transitioning into its new identity and scrubbing all traces of the name Twitter and its iconic blue bird logo. As The Verge notes, the website has also edited its landing and log-in page with a note at the bottom that says: "Welcome to x.com! We are letting you know that we are changing our URL, but your privacy and data protection settings remain the same." It then links to its Privacy page, which now uses x.com in its address.

Over the past year, the company has been shedding its pre-Elon Musk identity little by little. It changed its official handle from @Twitter to @X and replaced the Twitter logo on its headquarters building. Its website changed favicons, which initially triggered some browsers' security safeguards, while its apps switched over to the new X logo from its previous blue bird design. Tweetdeck has been renamed into XPro and Twitter Blue became X Premium. The company has slowly been moving its pages to x.com, as well — slow enough that the move became something of a security risk, since bad actors could take advantage of the inconsistent URL to phish victims. Well, now the company is done moving to its new URL, and it's time to say goodbye to one of the last remaining parts of a website that helped shape the social media landscape.

Meta’s Oversight Board has accepted its first case involving a post on Threads and it will allow the group to weigh in on the debate over the role of political content on Threads. The board, which started taking appeals from Threads users earlier this year, announced its first case involving Meta’s newest app.

The case stems from a post by a Japanese user who was replying to a screenshot of a news article about Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and allegations of tax evasion. The reply, according to the board, included “several hashtags using the phrase ‘drop dead.’” Meta’s content moderators removed the post, citing the company’s rules against inciting violence. But after the user appealed to the Oversight Board and had the case accepted, Meta reversed course, saying that the post didn’t violate its rules after all.

All that may sound like a fairly typical case for the board, which regularly reviews Meta’s content moderation decisions and pushes the social media company to change its policies. But it’s the first time the group will apply that same process to Threads. And the board has suggested it will use the case to weigh in on the company’s controversial decision to stop showing political content in its algorithmic recommendations on Threads and Instagram.

“The Board selected thi case to examine Meta’s content moderation policies and enforcement practices on political content on Threads,” the Oversight Board wrote in a statement. “This is particularly important, in the context of Meta’s decision not to proactively recommend political content on Threads.”

As usual, it will likely be several months before we see the Oversight Board’s decision actually play out in any policy changes at Meta. In the meantime, the board is seeking public comment on “how Meta’s choice not to recommend political content on Threads and Instagram newsfeeds, or pages not followed by users, affects access to information and political speech.”

They say "Twitter isn't real life," but Black Twitter proved otherwise. For years, that phrase has been a way to ignore the real-world impact of social media conversations, especially when they spark radically new ideas. But that's clearly not true when you look at Black Twitter, an unofficial community made up of the site's black users, which inspired culturally significant movements with hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #OscarsSoWhite. Hulu's new documentary, "Black Lives Matter: A People's History," adapted from Jason Parham's Wired article, explores the rise and global influence of the community. Over the course of three engaging and often hilarious episodes, the series cements itself as an essential cultural document.

"The way I would define Black Twitter is a space where Black culture specifically was hanging out in a digital way," said Prentice Penny, the series director and former show-runner of HBO's Insecure, in an interview on the Engadget Podcast. "And even though it was a public space — clearly, it's Twitter, anybody can get on it — it still felt like you were having conversations with your friends that are like on the back of the bus. Or like on the stoop, or in the lunchroom. I mean, that's the energy of it."

In particular, Penny says that Twitter felt special because there was no real hierarchy, especially in the early days. That meant that even celebrities weren't immune to being mocked, or acting out on their own social media profiles (like Rihanna's notorious early Twitter presence). Twitter in its heyday felt like a place where money or class didn't really matter.

"This was kind of an equalization of a lot of things, that somebody in Kentucky who nobody knows could have the same strong opinion as someone who you revere, right?" Penny said. "And I think that's what made the space so fresh, because we don't really have spaces that are kind of a level playing ground in this country."

Twitter also felt genuinely different from the other social networks in the late 2000s. At the time, Facebook was mostly focused on connecting you with schoolmates and family members — it wasn't really a place for simply hanging out and joking around. Prentice notes that the forced brevity on Twitter also made it unique, since you had to really focus on what you were trying to say in 140 characters. 

"Each of the creators [in the series] had a different idea of what Twitter should be," Penny added. "Some thought it should be a town square, some people thought it should be a news information thing... I think like with Black culture, the one thing we do really well is, because we're often given the scraps of things, we have to repurpose something, like taking the worst of the pig and making soul food... I think we are really good at taking things that could kind of be different things and make it be pliable for us."

The documentary recounts the many ways Black Twitter leveraged the platform, both for fun and for kicking off serious social movements. The community helped make live-tweeting TV shows a common occurrence, and it's one reason Scandal became a hit TV show. But Black users also helped raise the profile around Trayvon Martin's killing by George Zimmerman. His eventual acquittal led to the creation of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, a movement which sparked national protests in 2020 following the killing of George Floyd and other Black Americans.

If you've been online and following the Black Twitter community for years, the Hulu documentary may not seem particularly revelatory. But there's value in charting the impact of cultural movements, especially given how quickly social media and the tech world moves.  

They say "Twitter isn't real life," but Black Twitter proved otherwise. For years, that phrase has been a way to ignore the real-world impact of social media conversations, especially when they spark radically new ideas. But that's clearly not true when you look at Black Twitter, an unofficial community made up of the site's black users, which inspired culturally significant movements with hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #OscarsSoWhite. Hulu's new documentary, "Black Lives Matter: A People's History," adapted from Jason Parham's Wired article, explores the rise and global influence of the community. Over the course of three engaging and often hilarious episodes, the series cements itself as an essential cultural document.

"The way I would define Black Twitter is a space where Black culture specifically was hanging out in a digital way," said Prentice Penny, the series director and former show-runner of HBO's Insecure, in an interview on the Engadget Podcast. "And even though it was a public space — clearly, it's Twitter, anybody can get on it — it still felt like you were having conversations with your friends that are like on the back of the bus. Or like on the stoop, or in the lunchroom. I mean, that's the energy of it."

In particular, Penny says that Twitter felt special because there was no real hierarchy, especially in the early days. That meant that even celebrities weren't immune to being mocked, or acting out on their own social media profiles (like Rihanna's notorious early Twitter presence). Twitter in its heyday felt like a place where money or class didn't really matter.

"This was kind of an equalization of a lot of things, that somebody in Kentucky who nobody knows could have the same strong opinion as someone who you revere, right?" Penny said. "And I think that's what made the space so fresh, because we don't really have spaces that are kind of a level playing ground in this country."

Twitter also felt genuinely different from the other social networks in the late 2000s. At the time, Facebook was mostly focused on connecting you with schoolmates and family members — it wasn't really a place for simply hanging out and joking around. Prentice notes that the forced brevity on Twitter also made it unique, since you had to really focus on what you were trying to say in 140 characters. 

"Each of the creators [in the series] had a different idea of what Twitter should be," Penny added. "Some thought it should be a town square, some people thought it should be a news information thing... I think like with Black culture, the one thing we do really well is, because we're often given the scraps of things, we have to repurpose something, like taking the worst of the pig and making soul food... I think we are really good at taking things that could kind of be different things and make it be pliable for us."

The documentary recounts the many ways Black Twitter leveraged the platform, both for fun and for kicking off serious social movements. The community helped make live-tweeting TV shows a common occurrence, and it's one reason Scandal became a hit TV show. But Black users also helped raise the profile around Trayvon Martin's killing by George Zimmerman. His eventual acquittal led to the creation of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, a movement which sparked national protests in 2020 following the killing of George Floyd and other Black Americans.

If you've been online and following the Black Twitter community for years, the Hulu documentary may not seem particularly revelatory. But there's value in charting the impact of cultural movements, especially given how quickly social media and the tech world moves.  

They say "Twitter isn't real life," but Black Twitter proved otherwise. For years, that phrase has been a way to ignore the real-world impact of social media conversations, especially when they spark radically new ideas. But that's clearly not true when you look at Black Twitter, an unofficial community made up of the site's black users, which inspired culturally significant movements with hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #OscarsSoWhite. Hulu's new documentary, "Black Lives Matter: A People's History," adapted from Jason Parham's Wired article, explores the rise and global influence of the community. Over the course of three engaging and often hilarious episodes, the series cements itself as an essential cultural document.

"The way I would define Black Twitter is a space where Black culture specifically was hanging out in a digital way," said Prentice Penny, the series director and former show-runner of HBO's Insecure, in an interview on the Engadget Podcast. "And even though it was a public space — clearly, it's Twitter, anybody can get on it — it still felt like you were having conversations with your friends that are like on the back of the bus. Or like on the stoop, or in the lunchroom. I mean, that's the energy of it."

In particular, Penny says that Twitter felt special because there was no real hierarchy, especially in the early days. That meant that even celebrities weren't immune to being mocked, or acting out on their own social media profiles (like Rihanna's notorious early Twitter presence). Twitter in its heyday felt like a place where money or class didn't really matter.

"This was kind of an equalization of a lot of things, that somebody in Kentucky who nobody knows could have the same strong opinion as someone who you revere, right?" Penny said. "And I think that's what made the space so fresh, because we don't really have spaces that are kind of a level playing ground in this country."

Twitter also felt genuinely different from the other social networks in the late 2000s. At the time, Facebook was mostly focused on connecting you with schoolmates and family members — it wasn't really a place for simply hanging out and joking around. Prentice notes that the forced brevity on Twitter also made it unique, since you had to really focus on what you were trying to say in 140 characters. 

"Each of the creators [in the series] had a different idea of what Twitter should be," Penny added. "Some thought it should be a town square, some people thought it should be a news information thing... I think like with Black culture, the one thing we do really well is, because we're often given the scraps of things, we have to repurpose something, like taking the worst of the pig and making soul food... I think we are really good at taking things that could kind of be different things and make it be pliable for us."

The documentary recounts the many ways Black Twitter leveraged the platform, both for fun and for kicking off serious social movements. The community helped make live-tweeting TV shows a common occurrence, and it's one reason Scandal became a hit TV show. But Black users also helped raise the profile around Trayvon Martin's killing by George Zimmerman. His eventual acquittal led to the creation of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, a movement which sparked national protests in 2020 following the killing of George Floyd and other Black Americans.

If you've been online and following the Black Twitter community for years, the Hulu documentary may not seem particularly revelatory. But there's value in charting the impact of cultural movements, especially given how quickly social media and the tech world moves.  

Facebook’s News Feed algorithm has long been at the center of debates about some of Meta’s biggest problems. It’s also been a near constant source of complaints from users. But, if a newly filed lawsuit is successful, Facebook users may be able to use the social network with a vastly different feed. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University is suing Meta on behalf of a researcher who wants to release a browser extension that would allow people to “effectively turn off” their algorithmic feeds.

The extension was created by Ethan Zuckerman, a researcher and professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He argues that Facebook users would be better off with more control over their feeds. “The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, would allow users to unfollow their friends, groups, and pages, and, in doing so, to effectively turn off their newsfeed—the endless scroll of posts that users see when they log into Facebook,” the lawsuit explains. “Users who download the tool would be free to use the platform without the feed, or to curate the feed by refollowing only those friends and groups whose posts they really want to see.” (Meta officially renamed the News Feed to “Feed” in 2022.)

Zuckerman isn’t the first to come up with such a tool. He was inspired by a similar project, also called “Unfollow Everything,” from 2021. Facebook sued the U.K man who created that extension and permanently disabled his account. Zuckerman is trying to avoid a similar fate with his lawsuit. The suit, filed in San Francisco federal court Wednesday, asks the court “to recognize that Section 230 protects the development of tools designed to empower people to better control their social media experiences.”

The case could be a novel test of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which is mostly known as the law that shields online platforms from legal liability for the actions of their users. But unlike recent Supreme Court cases involving the statute, Zuckerman’s case “relies on a separate provision protecting the developers of third-party tools that allow people to curate what they see online, including by blocking content they consider objectionable.”

A spokesperson for Meta declined to comment on the lawsuit. The company has a history of heavy-handed tactics when it comes to independent researchers. In addition to shutting down the earlier version “Unfollow Everything,” the company disabled the Facebook accounts of a group of NYU researchers attempting to study political ad targeting in 2021. Those types of tactics have led to some researchers pursuing “data donation” programs, which recruit volunteers to “donate” their own browsing data for academic studies.

If released, Zuckerman’s browser extension would also have a data donation component, allowing users to opt-in to sharing “anonymized data about their Facebook usage.” The data would then be used for research into the effects of Facebook’s feed algorithm.

Slack just rolled out its AI tools to all paying users, after releasing them to a select subset of customers earlier this year. The company’s been teasing these features since last year and, well, now they’re here.

The AI auto-generates channel recaps to give people key highlights of stuff they missed while away from the keyboard or smartphone, for keeping track of important work stuff and office in-jokes. Slack says the algorithm that generates these recaps is smart enough to pull content from the various topics discussed in the channel. This means that you’ll get a paragraph on how plans are going for Jenny’s cake party in the conference room and another on sales trends or whatever.

There’s something similar available for threads, which are smaller conversations between one or a few people. The tool will recap any of these threads into a short paragraph. Customers can also opt into a daily recap for any channel or thread, delivered each morning.

Slack

Another interesting feature is conversational search. The various Slack channels stretch on forever and it can be tough to find the right chat when necessary. This allows people to ask questions using natural language, with the algorithm doing the actual searching.

These tools aren’t just for English speakers, as Slack AI now offers Japanese and Spanish language support. Slack says it’ll soon integrate some of its most-used third-party apps into the AI ecosystem. To that end, integration with Salesforce’s Einstein Copilot is coming in the near future.

It remains to be seen if these tools will actually be helpful or if they’re just more excuses to put the letters “AI” in promotional materials. I’ve been on Slack a long time and I haven’t encountered too many scenarios in which I’d need a series of auto-generated recaps, as longer conversations are typically relegated to one-on-one meetings, emails or video streams. However, maybe this will change how people use the service.

Journalists, creators and long-winded VCs on X now have a new way to be exhausting on main. X now allows verified organizations and Premium+ subscribers to publish long-form “Articles."

The feature adds a basic text-editing interface that includes embedded media and some text formatting options, like the ability to make bulleted lists. It also appears that articles can be longer than the 25,000-character limit currently in place for premium subscribers’ “longer posts” feature. According to my initial tests, I hit the character limit for articles at just over 100,000 characters or about 15,000 words.

Here’s what the editing interface looks like:

Screenshot via X

Notably, Twitter began working on longer form posts long before Elon Musk’s takeover of the company. The company showed off an early version, originally called “Notes” in 2022, as it looked to lure newsletter writers and other creators to the service. Musk confirmed last summer that the publishing tools were still in the works.

The rollout of publishing tools is notable as Musk has often been hostile to journalists on his platform. Last year, Musk directed a change to X’s recommendation algorithm so that links to newsletter platform Substack would not appear in users’ “For You” feeds, which has throttled many independent writers’ reach on the service. X also stripped headlines from news stories shared on the platform last fall (headlines eventually returned, in a much smaller font).

X has updated its abuse and harassment page in January, and it has added a new section that explains its new rule against intentionally using the wrong pronouns for a person or using a name they no longer go by. As noticed by Ars Technica, the new section entitled "Use of Prior Names and Pronouns" states that the service will "reduce the visibility of posts" that use pronouns for a person different from what they use for themselves and those who are now using a different name as part of their transition. 

The social networking service formerly known as Twitter removed its longtime policy against deadnaming and misgendering transgender individuals just as quietly back in April 2023. GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said at the time that X's decision was "the latest example of just how unsafe the company is for users and advertisers alike." It's worth noting that Elon Musk, the website's owner, has a history of liking and sharing anti-trans posts and talking points. 

Under the new policy, X will only act on a post if it hears from the target themselves "given the complexity of determining whether such a violation has occurred." That puts the onus on the target who might end up being blamed for not reporting if they choose to distance themselves from the abuse. Jenni Olson, GLAAD's senior director of social media safety, told Ars that the organization doesn't recommend self-reporting for social media platforms. Still, policies clearly prohibiting the deadnaming and misgendering of trans people are still better than vague ones that don't clarify whether or not they're in violation of a platform's rules, Olson said. 

X reduces the visibility of posts by removing them from search results, home timelines, trends and notifications. These posts will also be downranked in the replies section and can only be discovered through the authors' profiles. Finally, they will not be displayed on the X website or app with ads adjacent to them, which could prevent a repeat of the ad revenue losses the company suffered last year. In late 2023, advertisers pulled their campaigns from the website just before the holidays after Media Matters published a report showing ads on the website right next to antisemitic content.

In early April, the Facebook News tab will start disappearing for users in the US and Australia. Meta has announced that it's deprecating the dedicated tab found in the bookmarks section of its social network as part of its efforts to "align [its] investments to [its] products and services people value the most." The company already retired the News tab in the UK, France and Germany in early December 2023, explaining that it's funneling its resources to other things that people want to see more of, such as short form videos. 

In Meta's new post, it said the number of people using the News tab in the US and Australia over the past year has dropped by 80 percent. News makes up less than three percent of what users see on Facebook apparently, and it's just not a big part of their experience. "We know that people don’t come to Facebook for news and political content — they come to connect with people and discover new opportunities, passions and interests," the company wrote. 

By pulling the News tab in Australia, the company will also stop paying publishers in the country for their content after their current deals end. A few years ago, Facebook blocked news links in the country in response to the then-proposed law that would require companies like Meta to pay media organizations for their content. The company unblocked news links just a few days later after it started striking deals with Australian media organizations.

According to The Age, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission believes that Google and Meta inked deals with dozens of outlets, including Guardian Australia and News Corp Australia, worth about $200 million a year. Meta is responsible for around one-third or $66 million of that total amount, meaning its decision is bound to have a huge impact on the news business in the country. And there seems to be no room for negotiation: The company made it clear in its announcement that it's not going to enter new commercial deals for traditional news content in any of the regions where it has already removed the News tab. 

Meta has not blocked news links in the aforementioned countries, however, and Facebook users can still access any that's been posted on the social network. Publishers can also continue posting links to their stories on their official pages as usual. 

Substack newsletter writers and readers can now send direct messages to each other. The company says this was a highly requested feature and it adds to the platform's slate of social networking tools.

You'll find DMs in the Chat tab on the app and website. You can start a private conversation from that tab, someone's profile page or by selecting the Share option on a note or post. When you get a DM, Substack will let you know in the app and by email.

By default, DMs from people you're connected to will land in your inbox and those from others will drop into a Requests folder. Writers can restrict incoming DM requests to paid or founding subscribers. Free subscribers who try to message you will then see a prompt to become a paid subscriber. Writers can include a "send a message" button on their posts if they wish.

If you've blocked or banned someone, they won't be able to send you a DM. You can also turn off DMs entirely by disabling message requests in your settings. If you receive a message that breaks Substack's rules, you can report it. 

Substack has added a number of social networking features over the last year or so, such as the X-like Notes function for short-form posts. It also last week updated a system that allows writers to recommend other scribes to readers.

The platform came under fire last month over its handling of pro-Nazi content. It removed five newsletters that promoted white nationalist and Nazi views. However, some prominent newsletter writers left Substack in protest over its approach to content moderation.

Despite quickly amassing more than 100 million users, Meta’s Threads hasn’t exactly broken through to the zeitgeist the way its main rival, X/Twitter, did. It’s arguably still awaiting its plane-on-the-Hudson moment. Nevertheless, Meta is doing what it can to bring attention to and keep eyes on the text-based platform, including by displaying popular threads on Facebook and Instagram.

Its latest test is out of a previous playbook too. The company is toying with letting users cross post from Facebook to Threads with ease. That could eventually make it easier for heavy Facebook users and/or content creators to share their thoughts, videos and photos on Threads without much more effort. As it stands, some users can share text and link posts from Facebook to Threads. There's no guarantee that Meta will deploy the feature in the long term or expand it to include images.

It makes sense for Meta to at least try this. Users have long been able to post stories and Reels to Facebook and Instagram simultaneously, so adding Threads to the mix is a logical step. Meta confirmed to TechCrunch that it's running the test, which is limited to iOS and isn't available in the EU. 

The opt-in approach is far more sensible than automatically sharing a user's Threads posts on Facebook, which Meta was doing for a while to boost awareness of the former. People often have different identities on Facebook and Instagram/Threads, even if they're tied to the same account. They might not want a highly political Threads post or dirty joke to show up in their friends' and family's Facebook feeds. At least this way they'll have the option to share a post on both platforms.

Tinder has announced it’s bringing an advanced ID verification system to the US, UK, Brazil and Mexico. This is part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of catfish swimming around the old dating pool. The new system requires that users take a video selfie and upload a valid driver’s license or passport.

Tinder has long required users to take photos or video selfies as part of its verification process, which would provide a blue checkmark to illustrate authenticity. So the passport and driver’s license stuff is new. Once you upload the ID, Tinder will check to see if it lines up with your video selfie and the photos on your profile. It’ll also look at the date of birth on the license or passport to confirm your age.

If the idea of uploading your ID to a dating app gives you an icky feeling, you can still get verified with just a video selfie. However, your profile will get a blue camera icon badge, and not a blue checkmark.

Tinder started testing this system last year in New Zealand and Australia, and it must have worked out just fine, given the broader roll-out. The updated verification tool is coming to the UK and Brazil by spring and the US and Mexico by summer. In other words, catfish only have a few more months left to do their thing. That includes you, AI catfish.

This shouldn’t be confused with Tinder’s recently-abandoned background check feature, which was powered by the non-profit Garbo. Tinder and Garbo paired up to provide a robust background check tool on the app in 2019, to check users for histories of violence.

Garbo ended up breaking it off with Tinder’s parent company, Match Group, after disagreements over payments and how to best use the tool. Garbo’s CEO said she’d rather leave the partnership instead of allowing "the vision of Garbo to be compromised and relegated to a piece of big corporations’ marketing goals.”

Tinder has announced it’s bringing an advanced ID verification system to the US, UK, Brazil and Mexico. This is part of an ongoing effort to reduce the number of catfish swimming around the old dating pool. The new system requires that users take a video selfie and upload a valid driver’s license or passport.

Tinder has long required users to take photos or video selfies as part of its verification process, which would provide a blue checkmark to illustrate authenticity. So the passport and driver’s license stuff is new. Once you upload the ID, Tinder will check to see if it lines up with your video selfie and the photos on your profile. It’ll also look at the date of birth on the license or passport to confirm your age.

If the idea of uploading your ID to a dating app gives you an icky feeling, you can still get verified with just a video selfie. However, your profile will get a blue camera icon badge, and not a blue checkmark.

Tinder started testing this system last year in New Zealand and Australia, and it must have worked out just fine, given the broader roll-out. The updated verification tool is coming to the UK and Brazil by spring and the US and Mexico by summer. In other words, catfish only have a few more months left to do their thing. That includes you, AI catfish.

This shouldn’t be confused with Tinder’s recently-abandoned background check feature, which was powered by the non-profit Garbo. Tinder and Garbo paired up to provide a robust background check tool on the app in 2019, to check users for histories of violence.

Garbo ended up breaking it off with Tinder’s parent company, Match Group, after disagreements over payments and how to best use the tool. Garbo’s CEO said she’d rather leave the partnership instead of allowing "the vision of Garbo to be compromised and relegated to a piece of big corporations’ marketing goals.”