X – Page 5

AMC to pay $8M for allegedly violating 1988 law with use of Meta Pixel

AMC, facebook, free speech, Google, hidive, Meta, Online Privacy, Policy, shudder, streaming services, sundancenow, Twitter, video privacy protection act, vppa, X / Rejus Almole / February 16, 2024

Stream like no one is watching —

Proposed settlement impacts millions using AMC apps like Shudder and AMC+.

Ashley Belanger – Feb 15, 2024 8: 56 pm UTC

On Thursday, AMC notified subscribers of a proposed $8.3 million settlement that provides awards to an estimated 6 million subscribers of its six streaming services: AMC+, Shudder, Acorn TV, ALLBLK, SundanceNow, and HIDIVE.

The settlement comes in response to allegations that AMC illegally shared subscribers’ viewing history with tech companies like Google, Facebook, and X (aka Twitter) in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

Passed in 1988, the VPPA prohibits AMC and other video service providers from sharing “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider.” It was originally passed to protect individuals’ right to private viewing habits, after a journalist published the mostly unrevealing video rental history of a judge, Robert Bork, who had been nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan.

The so-called “Bork Tapes” revealed little—other than that the judge frequently rented spy thrillers and British costume dramas—but lawmakers recognized that speech could be chilled by monitoring anyone’s viewing habits. While the law was born in the era of Blockbuster Video, subscribers suing AMC wrote in their amended complaint that “the importance of legislation like the VPPA in the modern era of datamining is more pronounced than ever before.”

According to subscribers suing, AMC allegedly installed tracking technologies—including the Meta Pixel, the X Tracking Pixel, and Google Tracking Technology—on its website, allowing their personally identifying information to be connected with their viewing history.

Some trackers, like the Meta Pixel, required AMC to choose what kind of activity can be tracked, and subscribers claimed that AMC had willingly opted into sharing video names and URLs with Meta, along with a Facebook ID. “Anyone” could use the Facebook ID, subscribers said, to identify the AMC subscribers “simply by entering https://www.facebook.com/[unencrypted FID]/” into a browser.

X’s ID could similarly be de-anonymized, subscribers alleged, by using tweeterid.com.

AMC “could easily program its AMC Services websites so that this information is not disclosed” to tech companies, subscribers alleged.

Denying wrongdoing, AMC has defended its use of tracking technologies but is proposing to settle with subscribers to avoid uncertain outcomes from litigation, the proposed settlement said.

A hearing to approve the proposed settlement has been scheduled for May 16.

If it’s approved, AMC has agreed to “suspend, remove, or modify operation of the Meta Pixel and other Third-Party Tracking Technologies so that use of such technologies on AMC Services will not result in AMC’s disclosure to the third-party technology companies of the specific video content requested or obtained by a specific individual.”

Google and X did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment. Meta declined to comment.

All registered users of AMC services who “requested or obtained video content on at least one of the six AMC services” between January 18, 2021, and January 10, 2024, are currently eligible to submit claims under the proposed settlement. The deadline to submit is April 9.

In addition to distributing the $8.3 million settlement fund among class members, subscribers will receive a free one-week digital subscription.

According to AMC’s notice to subscribers (full disclosure, I am one), AMC’s agreement to avoid sharing subscribers’ viewing histories may change if the VPPA is amended, repealed, or invalidated. If the law changes to permit sharing viewing data at the core of subscribers’ claim, AMC may resume sharing that information with tech companies.

That day could come soon if Patreon has its way. Recently, Patreon asked a federal judge to rule that the VPPA is unconstitutional.

Patreon’s lawsuit is similar in its use of the Meta Pixel, allegedly violating the VPPA by sharing video views on its platform with Meta.

Patreon has argued that the VPPA is unconstitutional because it chills speech. Patreon said that the law was enacted “for the express purpose of silencing disclosures about political figures and their video-watching, an issue of undisputed continuing public interest and concern.”

According to Patreon, the VPPA narrowly prohibits video service providers from sharing video titles, but not from sharing information that people may wish to keep private, such as “the genres, performers, directors, political views, sexual content, and every other detail of pre-recorded video that those consumers watch.”

Therefore, Patreon argued, the VPPA “restrains speech” while “doing little if anything to protect privacy” and never protecting privacy “by the least restrictive means.”

That lawsuit remains ongoing, but Patreon’s position is likely to be met with opposition from experts who typically also defend freedom of speech. Experts at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, like AMC subscribers suing, consider the VPPA one of America’s “strongest protections of consumer privacy against a specific form of data collection.” And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has already moved to convince the court to reject Patreon’s claim, describing the VPPA in a blog as an “essential” privacy protection.

“EFF is second to none in fighting for everyone’s First Amendment rights in court,” EFF’s blog said. “But Patreon’s First Amendment argument is wrong and misguided. The company seeks to elevate its speech interests over those of Internet users who benefit from the VPPA’s protections.”

AMC to pay $8M for allegedly violating 1988 law with use of Meta Pixel Read More »

Bluesky finally gets rid of invite codes, lets everyone join

at protocol, bluesky, content moderation, decentralized social media, elon musk, federation, Jack Dorsey, Policy, social media app, Twitter, X / Paul Patrick / February 6, 2024

After more than a year as an exclusive invite-only social media platform, Bluesky is now open to the public, so anyone can join without needing a once-coveted invite code.

In a blog, Bluesky said that requiring invite codes helped Bluesky “manage growth” while building features that allow users to control what content they see on the social platform.

When Bluesky debuted, many viewed it as a potential Twitter killer, but limited access to Bluesky may have weakened momentum. As of January 2024, Bluesky has more than 3 million users. That’s significantly less than X (formerly Twitter), which estimates suggest currently boasts more than 400 million global users.

But Bluesky CEO Jay Graber wrote in a blog last April that the app needed time because its goal was to piece together a new kind of social network built on its own decentralized protocol, AT Protocol. This technology allows users to freely port their social media accounts to different social platforms—including followers—rather than being locked into walled-off experiences on a platform owned by “a single company” like Meta’s Threads.

Perhaps most critically, the team wanted time to build out content moderation features before opening Bluesky to the masses to “prioritize user safety from the start.”

Bluesky plans to take a threefold approach to content moderation. The first layer is automated filtering that removes illegal, harmful content like child sexual abuse materials. Beyond that, Bluesky will soon give users extra layers of protection, including community labels and options to enable admins running servers to filter content manually.

Labeling services will be rolled out “in the coming weeks,” the blog said. These labels will make it possible for individuals or organizations to run their own moderation services, such as a trusted fact-checking organization. Users who trust these sources can subscribe to labeling services that filter out or appropriately label different types of content, like “spam” or “NSFW.”

“The human-generated label sets can be thought of as something similar to shared mute/block lists,” Bluesky explained last year.

Currently, Bluesky is recruiting partners for labeling services and did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment on any initial partnerships already formed.

It appears that Bluesky is hoping to bring in new users while introducing some of its flashiest features. Within the next month, Bluesky will also “be rolling out an experimental early version of ‘federation,’ or the feature that makes the network so open and customizable,” the blog said. The sales pitch is simple:

On Bluesky, you’ll have the freedom to choose (and the right to leave) instead of being held to the whims of private companies or black box algorithms. And wherever you go, your friends and relationships can go with you.

Developers interested in experimenting with the earliest version of AT Protocol can start testing out self-hosting servers now.

In addition to allowing users to customize content moderation, Bluesky also provides ways to customize feeds. Anyone joining will be defaulted to only see posts from users they follow, but they can also set up filters to discover content they enjoy without relying on a company’s algorithm to learn what interests them.

Bluesky users who sat on invite codes over the past year have joked about their uselessness now, with some designating themselves as legacy users. Seeming to reference Twitter’s once-coveted blue checks, one Bluesky user responding to a post from Graber joked, “When does everyone from the invite-only days get their Bluesky Elder profile badge?”

Bluesky finally gets rid of invite codes, lets everyone join Read More »

Elon Musk drops price of X gold checks amid rampant crypto scams

cloudsek, Cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency scam, cyber threat analysts, elon musk, Ethereum, Google, hacker, Mandiant, NFTs, phishing scam, Policy, Twitter, X / Rejus Almole / January 6, 2024

There’s currently a surge in cryptocurrency and phishing scams proliferating on X (formerly Twitter)—hiding under the guise of gold and gray checkmarks intended to mark “Verified Organizations,” reports have warned this week.

These scams seem to mostly commandeer dormant X accounts purchased online through dark web marketplaces, according to a whitepaper released by the digital threat monitoring platform CloudSEK. But the scams have also targeted high-profile X users who claim that they had enhanced security measures in place to protect against these hacks.

This suggests that X scammers are growing more sophisticated at a time when X has launched an effort to sell even more gold checks at lower prices through a basic tier announced this week.

Most recently, the cyber threat intelligence company Mandiant—which is a subsidiary of Google—confirmed its X account was hijacked despite enabling two-factor authentication. According to Bleeping Computer, the hackers used Mandiant’s account to “distribute a fake airdrop that emptied cryptocurrency wallets.”

A Google spokesperson declined to comment on how many users may have been scammed, but Mandiant is investigating and promised to share results when its probe concludes.

In September, a similar fate befell Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, who had his account hijacked by hackers. The bad actors posted a fake offer for free non-fungible tokens (NFTs) with a link to a fake website designed to empty cryptocurrency wallets. The post was only up for about 20 minutes but drained $691,000 in digital assets from Buterin’s unsuspecting followers, according to CloudSEK’s research.

Another group monitoring cryptocurrency and phishing scams linked to X accounts is MalwareHunterTeam (MHT), Bleeping Computer reported. This week, MHT has flagged additional scams targeting politicians’ accounts, including a Canadian senator, Amina Gerba, and a Brazilian politician, Ubiratan Sanderson.

On X, gold ticks are supposed to reassure users that an account can be trusted by designating that an account is affiliated with an official organization or company. Gray ticks signify an account is linked to government organizations. CloudSEK estimated that hijacked gold and gray checks could be sold online for between $1,200 to $2,000, depending on how old the account is or how many followers it has. Bad actors can also buy accounts affiliated with gold accounts for $500 each.

A CloudSEK spokesperson told Ars that its team is “in the process of reporting the matter” to X.

X did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

CloudSEK predicted that scams involving gold checks would continue to be a problem so long as selling gold and gray checks remains profitable.

“It is evident that threat actors would not budge from such profit-making businesses anytime soon,” CloudSEK’s whitepaper said.

For organizations seeking to avoid being targeted by hackers on X, CloudSEK recommends strengthening brand monitoring on the platform, enhancing security settings, and closing out any dormant accounts. It’s also wise for organizations to cease storing passwords in a browser, and instead use a password manager that’s less vulnerable to malware attacks, CloudSEK said. Organizations on X may also want to monitor activity on any apps that become connected to X, Bleeping Computer advised.

Elon Musk drops price of X gold checks amid rampant crypto scams Read More »

Elon Musk told bankers they wouldn’t lose any money on Twitter purchase

elon musk, Policy, syndication, Twitter, X / Rejus Almole / December 15, 2023

Value destruction —

Lenders unlikely to get even 60 cents on the dollar for the bonds and loans.

Joshua Franklin, Eric Platt, Ortenca Aliaj, and Hannah Murphy, FT – Dec 15, 2023 3: 06 pm UTC

Elon Musk privately told some of the bankers who lent him $13 billion to fund his leveraged buyout of Twitter that they would not lose any money on the deal, according to five people familiar with the matter.

The verbal guarantees were made by Musk to banks as a way to reassure the lenders as the value of the social media site, now rebranded as X, fell sharply after he completed the acquisition last year.

Despite the assurances, the seven banks that lent money to the billionaire for his buyout—Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale—are facing serious losses on the debt if and when they eventually sell it.

The sources did not specify when Musk’s assurances were made, although one noted Musk had made them on several occasions. But the billionaire’s behavior, both in attempting to back out of the takeover in 2022 and more recently in alienating advertisers, has more broadly stymied the banks’ efforts to offload the debt since he engineered the takeover.

Large hedge funds and credit investors on Wall Street held conversations with the banks late last year, offering to buy the senior-most portion of the debt at roughly 65 cents on the dollar. But in recent interviews with the Financial Times, several said there was no price at which they would buy the bonds and loans, given their inability to gauge whether Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive, could turn the business around.

One multibillion-dollar firm that specializes in distressed debt called X’s debt “uninvestable.”

Selling the $12.5 billion of bonds and loans below 60 cents on the dollar—a price many investors believe the banks would be lucky to achieve in the current market—would imply losses before accounting for X’s interest payments of $4 billion or more, writedowns that have not yet been publicly reported by the syndicate of lenders, according to FT calculations. The debt is split between $6.5 billion of term loans, as well as $6 billion of senior and junior bonds and a $500 million revolver.

Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale declined to comment. A spokesperson for X declined to comment. Musk did not return a request for comment.

The banks have held the debt on their balance sheets instead of selling at a steep loss in the hope that X’s performance will improve following a series of cost-cutting measures. Several people involved in the transaction noted that there was no plan to sell the debt imminently, with one saying there was no guarantee the banks would be able to offload the debt even in 2024.

The people involved in the deal cautioned that Musk’s guarantee was not based on any formal contract. One said they understood it as a boastful statement that the entrepreneur had never let his lenders down.

“I have never lost money for those who invest in me and I am not starting now,” he told Axios earlier this month, when asked about a separate fundraising push by his company X.ai Corp.

Some on Wall Street view Musk’s personal guarantees with skepticism, given that he tried to back out of his agreement to buy Twitter despite a watertight contract, before relenting.

Nevertheless, the guarantee from a man whose net worth Forbes pegs at about $243 billion has helped some of the bankers make the pitch to their internal committees that they can ascribe a higher price to the debt while they hold it on their balance sheets.

Morgan Stanley, the largest lender on the deal, in January disclosed $356 million in mark-to-market losses on corporate loans it planned to sell and loan hedges. Banks rarely report specific losses tied to an individual bond or loan, and often report write-downs of multiple deals together.

Wall Street was saddled with the Twitter buyout loan at the same time they were holding a smattering of other hung bridge loans—deals they were forced to fund themselves after failing to raise cash in public bond and loan markets. The FT has previously reported on large losses tied to other hung loans at the time, including the buyouts of technology company Citrix and television rating provider Nielsen.

How the debt has been marked on bank balance sheets has been an open question for traders and investors across Wall Street, given how much X’s business has deteriorated since Musk bought the company.

Musk, already out of favor with marketers for loosening content moderation, last month lost more advertisers after endorsing an antisemitic post. In November he followed by telling brands that were boycotting the business over his actions to “go fuck” themselves, criticizing Disney’s Bob Iger in particular.

According to a report last week from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower, in November 2023 total US ad spend among the top 100 advertisers on X was down nearly 45 percent compared with October 2022, prior to Musk’s takeover.

Elon Musk told bankers they wouldn’t lose any money on Twitter purchase Read More »