SpaceX and AI company Cursor have struck a new partnership that could see the owner of X buy the AI company for $60 billion later this year. "SpaceXAI and  @cursor_ai  are now working closely together to create the world’s best coding and knowledge work AI," SpaceX wrote in a post on X. 

According to SpaceX, the deal allows for it to either invest $10 billion into the company known for its AI coding tool, or acquire it entirely "later this year" for $60 billion. If an acquisition were to happen, it's not clear at what point Cursor could officially join the fold of Elon Musk's rapidly expanding and increasingly enmeshed web of companies. SpaceX bought xAI, the billionaire's AI company that also controls X, earlier this year. SpaceX is currently getting ready to go public this summer in what will likely be the biggest initial public offering (IPO) in history. 

Cursor, which has reportedly been in talks to raise its own $2 billion round of funding, is known for its AI coding tool of the same name that's become the vibe coding platform of choice for many developers. It allows people to use either its own models or those from other leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and xAI.

In a statement, Cursor said its partnership with SpaceX will "accelerate our model training efforts" while addressing infrastructure-related issues that have slowed it down in the past. "We've wanted to push our training efforts much further, but we've been bottlenecked by compute," the company said. "With this partnership, our team will leverage xAI's Colossus infrastructure to dramatically scale up the intelligence of our models for coding and beyond."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/spacex-and-cursor-strike-partnership-that-might-end-in-a-60-billion-acquisition-232131487.html?src=rss

©

Meta is facing a new lawsuit over its advertising practices. The nonprofit group Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has filed a proposed class-action suit against Meta for "failing to protect users" from scam ads on Facebook and Instagram. 

The lawsuit, which was first reported by Wired, alleges that Meta has run afoul of consumer protection laws in Washington D.C. for misleading Facebook and Instagram users about scams on its apps and that the company has "chased profits rather than protecting its users." The filing includes numerous examples of alleged scam ads that CFA says it found in Meta's ad library. These include ads promoting a "free government iPhone," as well as those claiming to offer $1,400 checks to people born in certain years. Many of the ads use AI videos, according to CFA.  

CFA

Meta's advertising practices have been in the spotlight since last year when Reuters reported on internal documents that indicated the company was making billions of dollars from ads promoting scams and banned goods. The report also highlighted how Meta's own processes have at times made it harder for its own employees to fight malicious advertisers.

"Meta claims it is doing all it can to crack down on scam advertising on its platforms," CFA's lawsuit states. "But in reality, Meta has knowingly taken steps and adopted policies that pad its bottom line at the expense of its users’ safety and well-being. In fact, rather than prohibiting advertisers who the company itself has determined pose a higher risk to its users (as other tech companies like Google have), Meta just charges these advertisers more. The perverse result is that the riskier the advertiser, the more money Meta makes."

CFA's allegations "misrepresent the reality of our work and we will fight them," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "We aggressively combat scams across our platforms to protect people and businesses — last year alone, we removed over 159 million scam ads, 92% of which we took down before anyone reported them, and took down 10.9 million accounts on Facebook and Instagram associated with criminal scam centers. We fight scams because they are bad for business — people don't want them, advertisers don't want them, and we don't want them either.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-has-misled-users-about-scam-ads-on-facebook-and-instagram-lawsuit-says-193220235.html?src=rss

©

Mastodon seems to be recovering after a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack that took down its primary mastodon.social instance. As TechCrunch notes, the platform began reporting issues early Monday morning as much of the Mastodon-operated server became inaccessible. 

It's not clear who might be behind the attack, but Mastodon's head of communications Andy Piper described it as a "major" incident. A couple hours later, Mastodon shared on a status page that it had implemented countermeasures and that users should be able to access mastodon.social once again. Piper said that "some ongoing instability is a possibility" as the site recovered. It's unclear if any other instances of the service were also targeted; mastodon.social is run directly by the nonprofit and is the largest server on the federated platform. 

Mastodon is the second decentralized platform to be targeted with a DDoS in recent days. Last week, Bluesky also dealt with a significant DDoS incident that took parts of the service offline for several hours. The company posted what it said was its final update Monday morning, saying that its service had "remained stable" and that there was "no evidence of unauthorized access to private user data." A few hours later, however, it seemed Bluesky was once again experiencing some issues, though the cause was unclear. Its official status page was down, and a post from its server status account indicated that there were "elevated errors and timeouts on some Bluesky-hosted services." Bluesky said it was investigating.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/mastodon-was-hit-by-a-major-ddos-attack-that-briefly-took-down-parts-of-the-service-204823221.html?src=rss

©

You can now use LinkedIn to test out some of the latest AI models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and other companies without having to worry about token limits or paying for an extra subscription. The professional network is experimenting with a new feature that allows people to test AI platforms' latest offerings within LinkedIn. 

It’s called Crosscheck, and it's rolling out now to anyone with a LinkedIn Premium subscription in the United States. The feature is meant to be a kind of "blind taste test" for AI models, according to the company's Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan. Users start with a prompt and get two answers, each of which is provided by a different model. It's only after choosing which model you like better that you can see the underlying models behind each. 

Srinivasan says that Crosscheck is still an "early product" from LinkedIn Labs and that "there’s work to do to make it faster and add more models and question types." But it already seems to support a fairly wide range of models. In my initial tests of the feature I saw multiple answers generated by Anthropic models, as well as those from Google, MoonshotAI, Mistral and Amazon. Crosscheck will also have its own leaderboard that tracks how people in different industries are rating the various models.

LinkedIn Screenshot

Crosscheck only supports text-based prompts, so you can't generate images, upload files or use some of the more advanced tools that would be available natively on the AI platforms themselves. But there are no limits on the number of text-based chats you can have, so you don't have to worry about token limits or signing up for a pricey subscription if you find a model that's helpful.

LinkedIn is, however, sharing data back to the respective AI companies who will presumably use information gleaned from LinkedIn usage to improve their products. "Anonymized data is shared with model builders to help them understand how their models are performing amongst different occupations," the company explains. "No personally identifiable information is shared with model builders."

While Crosscheck is initially only available to LinkedIn Premium subscribers in the United States, the company plans to expand the the feature to more countries and free users “soon.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/linkedins-crosscheck-feature-lets-premium-subscribers-test-ai-models-for-free-183949210.html?src=rss

©

Sam Altman's cryptocurrency turned identity verification startup Tools for Humanity is offering a new set of perks to people who scan their eyes at one of the company's orbs. Among them, is a new tool called Concert Kit that could help bands and artists fight back against ticket scalping bots. 

The new feature relies on the revamped World ID, the orb-based verification system that scans users eyeballs and faces to create a "proof of human" signature that lives on users' mobile devices. "It's basically like a little human passport for the internet that lets you prove on apps and websites that you are a real and unique human without revealing anything about yourself," Tools for Humanity Chief Product Officer Tiago Sada tells Engadget. 

Now, as more apps and services are starting to support World ID, that "human passport" can unlock some new abilities. Coupled with Concert Kit, it allows artists to designate a specific pool of tickets for "verified" humans only. The concept is a bit like how pre-sales currently work, with artists (or their teams) setting aside a specific number of tickets for people who have set up a World ID. Those folks can then use their World ID to get ticket codes for Ticketmaster, Eventbrite, AXS or other major ticketing platforms. 

Because World ID is limited to actual, "verified," humans the system won't be susceptible to the same tactics that have enabled bots to ruin the ticket-buying process for so many, Tools for Humanity says. Artists are also in control of what level of verification they want to require from their fans. (The new World ID app will also allow people to set up an account with a selfie check if they don't have ready access to an orb.) 

Just how much of a dent Concert Kit will be able to make in the massive scalping bot problem that plagues the concert industry is less clear. So far, Bruno Mars is slated to use the solution on his upcoming world tour — no word on just how many of his tickets will be reserved for World ID-verified humans, though — and Concert Kit is available to other artists starting today.

Concert Kit is one of several new integrations and updates to World ID that Tools for Humanity announced at an event in San Francisco Friday. Tinder, which earlier this year started testing World ID as an age verification solution in Japan, will be rolling out support worldwide. In the US, Tinder's integration won't be for age verification, though. Instead, it will indicate whether there is an actual "verified" human behind a given profile.

Tools for Humanity

On the enterprise side, Zoom and DocuSign are also adding support for World ID to help businesses verify that there is an actual person (and not a deepfake or bot) joining their video calls or signing important documents. Tools for Humanity is also introducing a standalone app for World ID that separates its identity verification tools from its existing crypto wallet app.

The updates are Tools for Humanity's latest attempt to make their orb-based verification system, which has been widely mocked, more mainstream and perhaps a little less dystopian. (Elsewhere, orbs have begun appearing in some new places like a San Francisco Gap.) 

On their part, Tools for Humanity seems aware that a lot of people aren't ready to scan their faces at a bunch of orbs controlled by Altman just to "prove" they are humans. I asked Sada, Tools for Humanity's Chief Product Officer, what he would say to people who think that the company is solving for the wrong problem: that really it should be up to ticketing platforms and dating apps and other services to strengthen their security and bot-fighting tools, rather than rely on their users to "prove" their humanness. 

He said it was a "completely understandable question" and compared it to some people's initial discomfort with things like Apple's TouchID or FaceID. "Not everyone has to do it upfront, and that's important," he said. "It's optional. If you want to have a World ID, you get access to that enhanced experience."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/sam-altmans-human-verification-company-thinks-its-eye-scanning-orbs-could-solve-ticket-scalping-171500555.html?src=rss

©

Meta is starting to test a long-overdue facelift for Threads on web. The company's head of Threads Connor Hayes showed off a new look for the web version of Threads that finally adds direct messaging and makes it easier to navigate between multiple feeds.

The new layout adds a bunch of new shortcuts to the site's left rail, including saved posts, insights, activity, and the ability to move between different feeds. Those features have all been accessible on web before, but many were hard to find. For example, the only way to currently get to "insights" is to navigate to your own profile or save it as a "pinned" column. Most importantly, though, the update finally adds the Threads inbox, which has not been available to web users even though the feature was added to the app last June.

It's not clear when the new look will roll out, but Hayes said Meta has already started to test it and that the company will "be investing more here going forward." The last time the Threads website got a major update was last April, which added some basic functionality. But since then, Meta has focused much of its efforts on the Threads app, rather than the website. Some newer features, like disappearing "ghost posts," are able to be viewed on the web but can only be created in the app.

Speaking of the Threads app, the web updates come one day after Hayes previewed some tweaks to how replies look on mobile. With the change, replies under a post will be indented slightly to make it easier to follow conversations. That change is rolling out now on iOS and currently "testing" on Android. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-is-giving-threads-on-web-a-redesign-that-finally-adds-direct-messages-192903284.html?src=rss

©

The Oversight Board — the policy body Meta created to weigh its most impactful moderation rulings — has seen its role within Mark Zuckerberg's empire come into question due to shifting content policy priorities and dwindling investment. The Oversight Board has taken steps to formalize its long-contemplated desire to work with other companies, but Engadget has learned Meta has thus far declined to move forward with that process. 

Over the last year, board members have become increasingly interested in artificial intelligence policy and how their experience shaping Meta's content rules could translate into advising companies in the generative AI space. That interest has intensified as some AI companies have privately signaled they would be open to working with the board, according to a source familiar with the organization who was not permitted to speak publicly. The board began talks with Meta last fall about the possibility, which would require the company to sign off on changes to the legal documents that govern the board's operations. But Meta officials have not indicated whether the company is willing to make those changes, which would likely require approval from top executives. 

Platformer, which first reported on Meta's budget negotiations with the Oversight Board, noted that the company "has long encouraged the board to seek additional funding sources." So far, no other company has publicly shown interest in working with the group, though the board has had conversations with other firms behind the scenes. 

Oversight Board co-chair Paolo Carozza told Engadget in December that there had been "really preliminary" discussions between the board and AI companies, though he declined to name which ones in particular. "It feels like quite a different moment now, largely because of generative AI, LLMs, chatbots [and] the way that a variety of retail-level users of these technologies are facing a whole new set of challenges and harms that's attracting a lot of scrutiny," he said at the time. 

Meta has readily agreed to amend the board's governing documents in the past — like when the trust that controls the Oversight Board's budget funded a new organization to mediate content moderation disputes in Europe. While Meta executives once promoted the idea of its ostensibly independent Oversight Board working with other social media platforms, the prospect of the group working with a competitor as it pursues AI superintelligence is apparently more complicated. 

Over the last five years, board members have received briefings from officials at Meta about the inner workings of its moderation systems and other non-public details as part of their work with the company. That raises practical questions about how the board would safeguard Meta's proprietary information, as well as larger strategic questions about whether Meta would want its Oversight Board to work with some of the companies it's now fiercely competing with, the source said. It's not clear how invested Meta's current leadership is in ensuring a future for the board. Former president of global affairs Nick Clegg, who was one of the most vocal champions of the board's work, left the company last year.

Meanwhile, other board members have publicly made the case that the group, which consists of free speech and human rights experts from around the world, is well-positioned to guide AI companies grappling with an increasing number of real-world harms. When Anthropic published a "Claude Constitution" earlier this year, the board published a lengthy analysis from member Suzanne Nossel arguing that Claude also needed the kind of "oversight" the board has provided for Meta. She made a similar argument for the wider AI industry in an op-ed in The Guardian last month.

While Nossel denied that she was directly pitching the Oversight Board to Anthropic, she said that AI companies face many of the "same dilemmas" as social media platforms. "When the board was first created, there was the notion that we might work across the industry," she told Engadget. "Now, as the world shifts toward an AI-centric paradigm, we're very interested in what our experience can bring to that conversation." 

Oversight Board members, who naturally have a vested interest in expanding their purview, aren't the only members of the industry who have warned that generative AI platforms are essentially speed-running social media companies' playbook. A former OpenAI researcher recently wrote that "OpenAI Is Making the Mistakes Facebook Made," citing the AI company's moves toward optimizing for engagement and its plans for in-app advertising. The researcher cited Meta's Oversight Board as an example of the kind of independent governance that's needed in the AI industry.

The question of working with other companies has taken on new urgency as the Oversight Board faces the possibility that it will lose its backing from Meta. In a statement, a Meta spokesperson pointed to previous reports that Meta has committed to funding the board through 2028 and said that "nothing has changed." But a source familiar with the board tells Engadget that Meta has so far only handed over half of the smaller tranche of 2028 funds to the board amid ongoing discussions about its future, including whether it will expand its purview beyond Meta. 

There are also very real questions about how the Oversight Board fits into Meta's current strategy around content moderation. Zuckerberg announced last year that Meta was shifting away from most proactive moderation, ending fact-checking in the United States and rolling back hate speech rules. Zuckerberg himself reportedly led the push for these changes following a meeting with then President-elect Donald Trump. The Oversight Board, which Meta has sometimes asked to advise on major policy changes, was not consulted. The company recently said it plans to reduce the number of human moderators in favor of AI-based systems.

"The Oversight Board is currently engaged in meaningful discussions with Meta regarding its future and the evolution of its model to ensure the organization can address the most urgent emerging challenges in AI governance, standards, and accountability," an Oversight Board spokesperson said in a statement. "At this time, no decisions have been made about the Board’s future, and the organization’s day-to-day work and mandate remain unchanged.”

Critics have long said that the board, which has received more than $280 million from Meta, moves far too slowly. In a little more than five years of operation, the board has published more than 200 decisions about specific moderation issues, which Meta is required to uphold. Those decisions — a tiny fraction of the millions of requests it receives — can take months, though the board can opt to move more quickly. The board has also made hundreds of policy recommendations, which Meta has to respond to but isn't required to implement. The company has agreed to at least some changes in response to 75 percent of recommendations, according to the board. 

For the Oversight Board, working with a company besides Meta would begin to address some of the challenges it now faces. It would boost the group's credibility at a time when Meta seems to be re-evaluating its relationship with the board, and it would open up the possibility of new sources of funding. But the situation underscores another long-simmering tension when it comes to the role of the "independent" oversight organization. Meta has always been in control of how much influence the group can actually have. And it's not clear that the company is ready to let the board, which has spent the last five years learning the minutiae of Meta's content moderation and policy processes, advise the companies it's now competing with.

During its work with Meta, the Oversight Board has weighed in on its rules for AI several times. The board has criticized the company's "manipulated media" policy that governs deepfakes and other content, which led to Meta adopting new rules around AI labeling. In its most recent decision dealing with AI, the board urged Meta to invest in better AI detection tools and to collaborate more closely with other platforms. The company has not yet formally responded to those recommendations. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-isnt-setting-its-oversight-board-free-just-yet-153000172.html?src=rss

©

TikTok and Cameo are teaming up to make it easier for TikTok users to request personalized videos. The two companies announced a new integration that makes Cameo accessible directly from TikTok for creators and fans. 

With the update, TikTok creators can add Cameo links directly to their videos and viewers can request a personalized clip without leaving the TikTok app. Creators who aren't currently on Cameo can also sign up for the service without having to onboard through Cameo. 

Up to now, Cameo has been known for its personalized videos from celebrities, but TikTok stars are "among the fastest-growing talent segments" on the app, according to the company. The new integration should make it easier for those creators to reach fans and promote their presence on Cameo.

It's not surprising that Cameo would see TikTok creators as a potentially large untapped audience for its service. It's not as clear what TikTok is getting out of the arrangement. The company could have created its own Cameo-style feature for personalized shoutouts. The app already has several features that allow fans to interact with creators, including by sending virtual gifts in livestreams. Cameo didn't immediately respond to questions about whether TikTok gets a cut of the transactions made via its app or if there are differences in pricing structure between the two apps.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/tiktok-adds-in-app-cameo-integration-for-creators-195411895.html?src=rss

©

Twitter is officially 20 years old. In another reality, that might make me kind of nostalgic. I've been lurking and scrolling and tweeting for 16 years; most of my adult life. There was a time when Twitter was a place where some internet strangers became my IRL friends, when I was excited to "live-tweet". When my infinitely more well-adjusted friends would send me memes, I would smugly say "I saw that on Twitter days ago."

Twitter stopped being that place a long time ago, but I don't have any nostalgia for it. I don't really feel anything at all, actually. 

Because I can already hear the comments: Yes, I'm still on X. I don't spend as much time there as I did a decade ago, but it's still quite a lot of time, an unhealthy amount, if I'm being honest. My job is to report on social media companies, so I keep (doom)scrolling. That's what I tell myself anyway.

A few of my favorite posters are still around. Dril's still got it. The memes are still, occasionally, good, even though X's recommendation algorithm seems to prefer pointing me toward endless AI slop, boring hot takes from thirsty mid-tier tech execs and blatant engagement bait. X's algorithm — what little we can learn about it, anyway — now relies on Grok's predictions about what you'll like.The same Holocaust-loving Grok that has spewed racism and referred to itself as MechaHitler and declared Elon Musk "the single greatest person in modern history." The same Grok that allegedly generated thousands of images of child abuse material. Hey @grok is that true? 

X is not Twitter but it's also not not-Twitter. Last year, an online marketplace startup bought the 560-pound Twitter bird that once adorned the company's San Francisco office and blew it up in a Nevada desert surrounded by Tesla CyberTrucks as part of an elaborate publicity stunt. Dumb? Yes. But also a somehow fitting adieu for "Larry."

It's been 20 years since Jack Dorsey sent the first-ever tweet, which was never even a good tweet anyway. It's been five years, by the way, since he turned that tweet into an NFT (remember NFTs??) and auctioned it for nearly $3 million. It's now functionally worthless. Another chapter in Dorsey's confusing, complicated legacy.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/twitter-turned-20-and-i-feel-nothing-140000602.html?src=rss

©

A group of former Twitter investors have prevailed at a federal civil trial over Elon Musk's actions amid his $44 billion acquisition of the social platform in 2022. A jury in San Francisco found Friday that tweets made by Musk about fake accounts on the platform had defrauded investors in the company. The jury sided with Musk on other allegations in the case. 

It's not yet clear how much Musk will owe in damages as a result of the case but, as the Associated Press reports, it could amount to billions of dollars. Jurors calculated that shareholders should get "between about $3 and $8 per stock per day." 

The class action lawsuit, one of several brought against Musk in the months following his takeover of the company, cited Musk’s tweets about fake accounts on the platform. Facing a sinking Tesla share price in the days after announcing he would buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, the suit said Musk made tweets and statements that were intentionally meant to drive down Twitter's share price in an attempt to renegotiate or exit the deal. 

The suit called out Musk's May 13, 2022, tweet that claimed the Twitter deal was "temporarily on hold" due to the number of fake accounts and bots on the platform, as well as one a few days later that suggested fake accounts might account for more than 20 percent of users. Twitter's stock dropped significantly following the May 13 tweet.

During the trial, Musk said the tweets were him "speaking his mind" and maintained that Twitter executives had "lied" about the number of bots on the platform, according to KQED. Former Twitter shareholders, on the other hand, said "they sold shares at deflated prices amid Musk’s public waffling." 

Musk faced several lawsuits during and after his $44 billion takeover of the company. That includes other shareholder lawsuits related to his delay in disclosing his stake in the company, as well as one from former executives related to unpaid severance benefits (Musk later settled those claims). He also narrowly avoided a trial over his attempts to back out of the deal. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/elon-musk-misled-investors-during-his-twitter-takeover-jury-finds-232033028.html?src=rss

©

Pinterest's CEO has thrown his support behind an Australia measure banning social media for younger teens and is calling for governments around the world to implement similar bans. "Social media, as it’s configured today, is not safe for young people under 16," Ready writes in a piece published by Time. "We need a clear standard: no social media for teens under 16, backed by real enforcement, and accountability for mobile phone operating systems and the apps that run on them."

Ready is one of the highest-profile tech CEOs to come out in favor of a broad ban on social media for teens. That may also seem like a bold stance for someone who runs a platform with a user base that's more than 50 percent Gen Z, but Ready doesn't think that ban should apply to Pinterest. Pinterest, as he notes, already bars teens under 16 from accessing messaging features and other social features. It also makes teen accounts private by default. 

A spokesperson for Pinterest confirmed the company has no plans to change its own policies regarding users under 16, and said Pinterest considers itself a "visual search platform" not social media. Pinterest, like most social media and social media-adjacent companies, doesn't allow users under 13 to sign up. 

Social media or not, Pinterest has encountered child safety-related issues in the past. In 2023, NBC News reported that Pinterest's recommendation algorithm was surfacing photos and videos of young girls to adults who were "seeking" such content. Some of those users had created Pinterest boards featuring images of young girls with titles like "sexy little girls," their investigation found. The company made profiles for teens under 16 private and "not discoverable" six months later. 

According to Ready, Pinterest's popularity with younger users is proof its policies are also good for the company's business. "Our experience shows that prioritizing safety and well-being doesn’t push young people away; it builds trust," he writes.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/pinterest-ceo-says-teens-under-16-should-be-banned-from-social-media-but-not-pinterest-211630443.html?src=rss

©

A little more than a year after ditching third-party fact checkers and rolling back much of its proactive content moderation, the company says it will further "transform" its approach by drastically reducing the number of human moderators in favor of AI-based systems. The company says the change will happen "over the next few years," and will allow the company to catch more issues faster than its current approach. 

Meta didn't say how much of its contract workforce might be cut as it makes this transition. The company employs thousands of contractors around the world to review content flagged by its AI systems and user reports among other tasks. The company said that as it shifts its approach humans will "play a key role" in "critical decisions" and aid in training and other tasks.

"Experts will design, train, oversee, and evaluate our AI systems, measuring performance and making the most complex, high‑impact decisions," Meta said in an update. "For example, people will continue to play a key role in how we make the highest risk and most critical decisions, such as appeals of account disablement or reports to law enforcement."

The company has been testing LLM-based systems for content moderation for a while and says that early tests have had "promising" results. Another advantage is that its AI can handle languages used by "98% of people online," compared with the 80 languages currently supported by its moderation capabilities. 

While Meta says its underlying rules aren't changing, the new approach could dramatically change users' perception of how Meta enforces its policies. The company already relies heavily on AI for certain rules, and many users believe that these systems make too many mistakes and make it difficult for their appeals to reach a set of human eyes. On the other hand, Meta, which stands to save a lot of money if it significantly downsizes its contract workforce, says its new systems make "fewer over-enforcement mistakes" and catch more of the most "severe" violations. 

In the nearer term, Meta is introducing an AI powered "support assistant" that will help users with certain types of account issues. The chatbot, which is rolling out now in the Facebook and Instagram app, will be able to help users report content and manage appeals, reset passwords and manage other account settings. It will also be able to help people who get locked out of their accounts "starting with select cases in the US and Canada."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-will-move-away-from-human-content-moderators-in-favor-of-more-ai-183000435.html?src=rss

©

Meta is backtracking on its plans to shut down the VR version of its metaverse. The company now plans to support Horizon Worlds in VR for the "foreseeable future," though users shouldn't expect new games, CTO Andrew Bosworth said in an update.

"We will keep Horizon Worlds working in VR for existing games, to support the fans who've reached out," Bosworth said in a post on Instagram. "For people who already have games they like that they're using in Horizon Worlds, [they] will be able to download the Horizon Worlds app and use it in VR for the foreseeable future."

The reversal comes after Meta said earlier this week that Horizon Worlds in VR would no longer be accessible after June 15 as the company pivots its metaverse experiences to mobile. Though Horizon never gained mass appeal, even among VR enthusiasts, Meta's move to shut it down was just the latest sign of how the company has pivoted away from its metaverse ambitions as it chases AI "superintelligence." 

In his post on Instagram, Bosworth said there was "a lot of misinformation" about the company's plans. "We announced, 'hey, we're moving away from Horizon Worlds in VR,' and the headline is that Horizon is dead," he said. "It's not. And likewise, VR is not dead. We're continuing to invest tremendously." The company laid off more than 1,000 employees from its metaverse division and shut down three VR studios earlier this year. Bosworth said that the company is still working on its next two generations of VR headsets.

He described the metaverse as a "misunderstood concept" that was never meant to only encompass virtual reality. He said that AR is also part of the vision and that even people scrolling their phones could be part of the metaverse. "When somebody is using their phone and you're physically with them, they're at the dinner table with you, and yet when you talk to them, they hear nothing because they've transported themselves through the glowing rectangle into a digital space," he said. "Maybe that they're scrolling media, maybe that they're in the text world, but like they have transported themselves. So we've always had this internally — at least me and Mark — this very expansive construct of the metaverse."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ar-vr/meta-isnt-shutting-down-its-vr-metaverse-after-all-165520696.html?src=rss

©

Stop me if you've heard this before: Meta has a new program to lure top creator talent to Facebook and it comes with hefty bonus payments. The company is launching a new initiative aimed at popular creators who already have large followings on TikTok, YouTube or Instagram and offering them bonuses up to $3,000 a month just for posting on Facebook.

Meta's goal is to draw more top talent to its Content Monetization program, which pays creators based on views and other engagement metrics across Stories, Reels and posts. The new bonuses will be part of an initiative Meta has dubbed "Creator Fast Track," which is meant to make the onboarding process easier — and more enticing — to Facebook newcomers.

Under the new "Fast Track" program, Meta is offering monthly bonuses of $1,000 to creators who have at least 100,000 followers on another platform and $3,000 for those that have a million or more. Creators who join will need to post a minimum number of Reels per month to earn the bonuses, but aren't required to meet engagement targets or post exclusive content to earn. They also aren't limited to video content as Facebook also rewards text and photo posts, as well as Stories. 

That may sound like a pretty good deal (it is), but it's also a limited one. The fast track bonuses will only last for three months. Creators should think of the bonuses as payment "for the hassle of starting on a new platform," not the central part of the program, Meta's VP of Product for Creators, Yair Livne, tells Engadget. "Our hope is that within a few months … the earnings that you see from Facebook Content Monetization will become the more important thing." He also notes that Meta will boost the reach of creators it fast-tracks, which should help them speed up their earning potential. 

Meta

It's far from the first time Facebook has sought to lure big names with big checks. It promised publishers big payouts when it launched Facebook Watch nearly a decade ago. It once courted game streamers for its (now defunct) Twitch competitor. A year after launching Reels to take on TikTok, it invested $1 billion in a bonus program that offered creators as much as $35,000 a month only to pull the plug in 2023.  

Livne acknowledged that it "took us a long time to find our path" to a more sustainable creator program. "We don't have a pool structure so you're not competing with other creators for dollars. It really is based on your performance." 

There are already signs that the Facebook Content Monetization program, which it introduced in the fall of 2024, is working — at least for some. Meta says it paid Facebook creators nearly $3 billion in 2025, a new high for the social network. Creators have also reported that the new streamlined program is paying off. 

One political news creator told the newsletter Chaotic Era that they made $250,000 from Facebook in January alone. Publishers told Digiday last year that they expected to make "between six and seven figures" in 2025 thanks to the program. There are numerous recent posts in Reddit's r/passiveincome forum where users report making five figures a month from the program, which is still invitation only. 

Livne agrees that Facebook's monetization program has been something of a "well kept secret" in the creator community. "We're trying to make it less well kept and less of a secret." 

Are you in Facebook's Content Monetization Program, Creator Fast Track or another creator program at Meta? You can reach Karissa by email, on X, Bluesky, Threads, or send a message to @karissabe.51 to chat confidentially on Signal.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/metas-latest-creator-push-comes-with-3000-bonuses-for-posting-on-facebook-160000283.html?src=rss

©

xAI, which is already facing multiple investigations around the world over widespread reports that Grok repeatedly created sexualized images of children, is now facing a class action lawsuit. Three teenagers, who allege that photos of them were used by Grok to generate child exploitation material, have filed a class action lawsuit against xAI in California. 

According to the lawsuit, one of the teens was alerted last December that someone was sharing AI-generated images and videos of her and other minors "in settings with which she was familiar, but morphed into sexually explicit poses." The images and videos were allegedly shared on Discord, Telegram and other platforms and used "as a bartering tool" for other CSAM imagery. Law enforcement officials who investigated the images told the girls' parents they were created with xAi's Grok, the lawsuit says.

The three teens, all of whom live in Tennessee and are identified as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3, have "suffered severe emotional distress," the filing says. "Their lives have been shattered by the devastating loss of privacy, dignity, and personal safety that the production and dissemination of this CSAM have caused," lawyers for the teens write in the complaint, which was provided to Engadget. "xAI’s financial gain through the increased use of its image- and video-making product came at their expense and wellbeing. Plaintiffs will have to spend the rest of their lives knowing that their CSAM images and videos may continue to be trafficked and traded online by child sex predators."

Though the lawsuit currently names three individuals, the complaint says that it could cover "at least thousands of minors" who have also had their photos manipulated by Grok into sexualized images. The lawsuit claims xAI has violated multiple laws, including laws barring the production and distribution of child abuse material. 

xAI didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The company is also facing multiple investigations in the US and Europe over Grok's alleged generation of nonconsensual nudity. Researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate estimated in January that Grok had produced millions of sexualized images, including 23,000 that appeared to show children.

xAI CEO Elon Musk, who previously promoted Grok's "spicy" abilities, has claimed that he was "not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok." xAI announced in January it would stop allowing people to use Grok to edit images of real people into bikinis and limit Grok's image-generation feature to paid subscribers. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/xai-is-being-sued-by-teens-who-say-grok-created-csam-using-their-photos-200102733.html?src=rss

©

The Oversight Board is once again urging Meta to overhaul its rules around AI-generated content. This time, the board says Meta should create a separate rule for AI content that's independent of its misinformation policy, invest in more reliable detection tools and make better use of digital watermarks among other changes. 

The group's recommendations stem from an AI-generated video shared last year that claimed to show damaged buildings in the Israeli city of Haifa during the Israel-Iran conflict in 2025. The clip, which racked up more than 700,000 views, was posted by an account that claimed to be a news outlet but was actually run by someone in the Philippines.

After the video was reported to Meta, the company declined to remove it or add a "high risk" AI label that would have clearly indicated the content had been created or manipulated with AI. The board overturned Meta's decision not to add the "high risk" label and says the case shines a light on several areas where the company's current AI rules are falling short.

"Meta must do more to address the proliferation of deceptive AI- generated content on its platforms, including by inauthentic or abusive networks of accounts and pages, particularly on matters of public interest, so that users can distinguish between what is real and fake," the board wrote in its decision. Meta eventually disabled three accounts linked to the page after the board flagged "obvious signals of deception."

One of the board's top recommendations is that Meta create a dedicated rule for AI-generated content that's separate from its misinformation policy. The rule, according to the board, should include specifics about how and when users are required to label AI content as well as information about how Meta penalizes those who break the rule. 

The board was also highly critical of how Meta uses its current "AI Info" labels, noting that the way they are applied is "neither robust nor comprehensive enough to contend with the scale and velocity of AI-generated content,” especially in times of conflict or crisis. “A system overly dependent on self-disclosure of AI usage and escalated review (which occurs infrequently) to properly label this output cannot meet the challenges posed in the current environment.”

Meta, the board said, also needs to invest in more sophisticated detection technology that can reliably label AI media, including audio and video. The group added that it was "concerned" about reports that the company is "inconsistently implementing" digital watermarks on AI content created by its own AI tools. 

In a statement, Meta said it “welcomed” the decision and that it would also take action “on content that is identical and in the same context” when “it is technically and operationally possible to do so.” The company has 60 days to formally respond to its recommendations. 

The decision isn't the first time the board has been critical of Meta's handling of AI content. The group has described the company's manipulated media rules as "incoherent" on two other occasions, and has criticized it for relying on third-parties, including fact checking organizations, to flag problematic content. Meta's reliance on fact checkers and other "trusted partners" was again raised in this case, with the board saying that it had heard from these groups that Meta "is less responsive to outreach and concerns, in part due to a significant reduction in capacities for Meta’s internal teams." Meta, the board writes, "should be capable of conducting such assessments of harm itself, rather than rely solely on partners reaching out to them during an armed conflict."

While the Oversight Board's decision relates to a post from last year, the issue of AI-generated content during armed conflicts has taken on a new urgency during the latest conflict in the Middle East. Since the start of the US and Israel's strikes on Iran earlier this month, there has been a sharp rise in viral AI-generated misinformation across social media. The board, which has previously hinted that it would like to work with generative AI companies, included a suggestion that would seem to apply to not just Meta. 

"The industry needs coherence in helping users distinguish deceptive AI-generated content and platforms should address abusive accounts and pages sharing such output," it wrote.

Update, March 10, 10:53AM ET: This story was updated to reflect Meta’s response to the Oversight Board.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/the-oversight-board-says-meta-needs-new-rules-for-ai-generated-content-100000268.html?src=rss

©

Bluesky CEO Jay Graber, who has led the upstart social platform since 2021, is stepping down from her role as its top executive. Toni Schneider, who has been an advisor and investor in Bluesky, will take over the job temporarily while Graber stays on as Chief Innovation Officer. 

"As Bluesky matures, the company needs a seasoned operator focused on scaling and execution, while I return to what I do best: building new things," Graber wrote in a blog post. Schneider, who was previously CEO at Wordpress parent Automattic, will be that "experienced operator and leader" while Blueksy's board searches for a permanent CEO, she said.

Graber's history with Bluesky dates back to its early days as a side project at Jack Dorsey's Twitter. She was officially brought on as CEO in 2021 as Bluesky spun off into an independent company (it officially ended its association with Twitter in 2022 and Dorsey cut ties with Bluesky in 2024). She led the company through its launch and early viral success as it grew from an invitation-only platform to the 43 million-user service it is today. During that time, she's become known as an advocate for decentralized social media and for trolling Mark Zuckerberg's t-shirt choices. 

Nearly three years since it launched publicly, Bluesky has carved out a small but influential niche in the post-Twitter social landscape. The platform is less than a third of the size of Meta's competitor, Threads, which has also copied some of Bluesky's signature features. Bluesky also has yet to roll out any meaningful monetization features, though it has teased a premium subscription service in the past.

As Chief Innovation Officer, Graber will presumably still be an influential voice at the company going forward. And, as Wired points out, she still has a seat on Bluesky's board so she will get some say in who steps into the role permanently. Until then, Schneider, who is also a partner at VC firm Tre Ventures, will lead the company. "I deeply believe in what this team has built and the open social web they're fighting for," he wrote in a post on Bluesky. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/blueskys-ceo-is-stepping-down-after-nearly-5-years-201900960.html?src=rss

©

Jurors in a New Mexico child safety trial heard testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg today. During pre-recorded testimony, Zuckerberg was repeatedly asked about the company's understanding of social media addiction and other issues that had been studied by its researchers. 

During the deposition, which was recorded last March, Zuckerberg was asked about numerous findings from researchers at Meta who studied how the company's apps affect users and teens. The CEO downplayed the significance of many of these documents.

Early in the testimony, which was viewed by Engadget on Courtroom View Network, Zuckerberg was questioned about a document on the effect of feedback on Facebook users. The document stated that "contributors on Facebook are likely to learn to associate the act of posting with feedback" which will "lead contributors to seek rewards by visiting the site more often.” Zuckerberg said he wasn’t “sure if that's actually how it works in practice, but I agree that you're summarizing what they appear to be saying.”

Later, the CEO was questioned about a document that graphed the proportion of 11 and 12-year-olds who were monthly active users on Instagram. The chart indicated that at the time, around 20 percent of 11-year-olds were monthly users of the service. "I agree that the graph says that, I am not familiar with what methodology we were using to estimate this," Zuckerberg said. "I assume that if we had direct knowledge that any given person was under the age of 13, that we would have them removed from our services."

New Mexico's attorney general sued the company in 2023 for alleged lapses in child safety, including facilitating predators' access to minors and building features it knew were addictive. In court, Meta's lawyers and executives have disputed the idea that social media should be considered an "addiction." In public statements, the company has said that lawsuits have relied on "cherry-picked quotes and snippets of conversations taken out of context" and that it "has consistently put teen safety ahead of growth for over a decade."

As with his recent testimony in a separate trial over social media addiction in Los Angeles, Zuckerberg repeatedly rejected the "characterization" of questions that were posed to him. And he said that Meta's goal was to make its apps "useful" rather than to increase the amount of time people spend with them. 

Zuckerberg was also questioned about a document written by a company researcher that stated "there is increasing scientific evidence, particularly in the US, … that the average net effect of Facebook on people's well being is slightly negative." The CEO said that "my understanding is that the general consensus view is not that."

It's not the first time a Meta executive has tried to downplay the significance of internal research. The company used a similar strategy in 2021 after former employee turned whistleblower Frances Haugen disclosed documents showing that Facebook's researchers had found that Instagram made some teen girls feel worse about themselves.

Zuckerberg's testimony was played one day after jurors heard recorded testimony from Instagram chief Adam Mosseri. The exec was also asked about Haugen's disclosures and Meta's response to them. Some of those disclosures were based on "problematic research," he said. "Most research is surveys. We run hundreds of surveys every month."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/mark-zuckerberg-downplays-metas-own-research-in-new-mexico-child-safety-trial-222924340.html?src=rss

©

Meta has sued the people and groups behind three scam operations that used images and deepfakes of celebrities to lure users to scam websites. According to the company, the three entities were based in China and Brazil and targeted people in the US, Japan and other countries. The ads promoted fraudulent investment schemes and fake health products.

Meta said that it had filed lawsuits against several people in Brazil who promoted fake or unapproved healthcare products and online courses promoting them. The company also sued a China-based entity it says used ads featuring celebrities "as part of a larger fraud scheme that lured people into joining so-called investment groups." The company didn't provide details on how many ads these groups had run on Facebook, how many social media users had seen or interacted with the ads or how long the scammers had been operating on the platform.

So-called "celeb bait" ads have been a long-running issue for the company. Engadget has previously documented celeb bait scams on Facebook, including ones that frequently use Elon Musk and Fox News personalities to hawk fake cures for diabetes. The Oversight Board has also criticized the company for not doing enough to combat such scams. In its update, Meta says that "because scam ads are designed to look real, they’re not always easy to detect." The company also noted that it has now enrolled "more than 500,000" celebrities and public figures into its facial recognition system that's meant to automatically detect scam ads using the faces of famous people. 

Meta's handling of scammy advertisers has come under increased scrutiny in recent months after Reuters reported that researchers at the company at one point estimated that as much as 10 percent of its ad revenue could be coming from scams and banned products. The fact that Meta has made billions of dollars from problematic advertisers has also caused the company to be slow to take action against repeat offenders.

In addition to the groups behind the celeb bait ads, Meta says that it's upgraded its ability to detect scam ads that use cloaking, which has at times hindered its internal review systems. The company also sued a Vietnam-based advertiser it says used scam ads to hawk "deeply discounted items from well-known brands," including Longchamp.

Meta also took legal action against eight former "Meta Business Partners," who promoted services that would "un-ban" or other "account restoration services." The company says it will "consider taking additional legal action, including litigation, if they don’t comply" with cease and desist orders.

Update, February 26, 2026, 1:16PM PT: This story was updated to specify that Meta’s internal estimates around ad revenue included scams and banned products.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-sues-advertisers-in-brazil-and-china-over-celeb-bait-scams-190000268.html?src=rss

©

Mark Zuckerberg took the stand Wednesday in a high-profile jury trial over social media addiction. In an appearance that was described by NBC News as "combative," the Facebook founder reportedly said that Meta's goal was to make Instagram "useful" not increase the time users are spending in the app. 

On the stand, Zuckerberg was questioned about a company document that said improving engagement was among "company goals," according to CNBC. But Zuckerberg claimed that the company had "made the conscious decision to move away from those goals, focusing instead on utility," according to The Associated Press. "If something is valuable, people will use it more because it’s useful to them,” he said. 

The trial stems from a lawsuit brought by a California woman identified as "KGM" in court documents. The now 20-year-old alleges that she was harmed as a child by addictive features in Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok. TikTok and Snap opted to settle before the case went to trial. 

Zuckerberg was also asked about previous public statements, including his remarks on Joe Rogan's podcast last year that he can't be fired by Meta's board because he controls a majority of the voting power. According to The New York Times, Zuckerberg accused the plaintiffs' lawyer of "mischaracterizing" his past comments more than a dozen times.  

Zuckerberg's appearance in court also apparently prompted the judge to warn people in the courtroom not to record the proceedings using AI glasses. As CNBC notes, members of Zuckerberg's entourage were spotted wearing Meta's smart glasses as the CEO was escorted into the courthouse. It's unclear if anyone was actually using the glasses in court, but legal affairs journalist Meghann Cuniff reported that the judge was particularly concerned about the possibility of jurors being recorded or subjected to facial recognition. (Meta's smart glasses do not currently have native facial recognition abilities, but recent reports suggest the company is considering adding such features.)

The Los Angeles trial has been closely watched not just because it marked a rare in-court appearance for Zuckerberg. It's among the first of several cases where Meta will face allegations that its platforms have harmed children. In this case and in a separate proceeding in New Mexico, Meta's lawyers have cast doubt on the idea that social media should be considered a real addiction. Instagram chief Adam Mosseri previously testified in the same Los Angeles trial that Instagram isn't "clinically addictive."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/mark-zuckerberg-testifies-in-social-media-addiction-trial-that-meta-just-wants-instagram-to-be-useful-234332316.html?src=rss

©