Australia, Trolls, and Social Media
August 19, 2026
The Internet isn’t a friendly place.? ? It’s full of trolls who want to bully and cancel individuals faster than lightning.? ? Anytime you post something heartfelt you’re ridiculed worse than children taunting each other.? ? We’re told not to give these trolls credence, but it’s only natural that we let them affect us.? ? There’s power in anonymity.
According to nautili.us, “We Overestimate the Prevalence of Online Trolls.”? ? We believe that trolls have way more power than they truly possess.? ? This is the finding of an online survey conducted by Stanford University.? ? These researchers found that…
“…asked more than 1,000 adults in the United States about their perceptions of the social media trolls behind “severely toxic” comments, which were defined as “hateful, aggressive, and disrespectful” posts that could encourage people to exit an online discussion. The study volunteers were recruited strategically so that the participant pool mirrored proportions of certain demographics, including gender and race, reported in the 2020 U.S. census.”
The respondents estimated how many users posted toxic comments on Reddit.? ? They guessed the number to be 43%, but in reality it’s closer to 3%.? Also the amount of fake news circulated on Facebook isn’t the predicted 47%, instead it’s 8.5%. They also wrongly believed that a whopping 38% of Reddit users were trolls when it was about one third.
When the respondents were given this data they felt less negative about their fellow humans and society was in less decline that previously predicted.? ? In short they found that “But this potentially perilous mismatch can be fixed, they noted, by “teaching people that social media can overrepresent the views of vocal accounts that post disproportionately often.”
Whitney Grace, August 19, 2026
Surprise! Australian Teens Still On Social Media
August 12, 2026
Australia made it illegal for anyone sixteen years or younger to use social media. Yet kids eight in ten kids still remain on social platforms says Reuters in the story, “Most Australian Teens Still On Social Media Three Months After Under-16 Ban Began,Study Finds.” Tech companies failed to implement proper effective age checks. It translates to them saying: no one cares about your laws.
A recent study from eSafety discovered that kids are still using the same amount of social media as before the ban in March. Parental awareness of their habits decreased, however, because they need to be on social media in secret. About half of the respondent to the study said they kept their old accounts or created new ones. The kids did report they are not being asked their age in order to create accounts on the platforms.
Australia will try to do something:
“After the March update, eSafety announced it was investigating possible non-compliance by five platforms: Meta’s (META.O) Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat (SNAP.N), TikTok and Google’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube. The government said in June it would double the maximum penalty on tech firms that failed to uphold the ban, and strengthen eSafety’s information-gathering powers. ‘While eSafety has observed some improvements by industry since its March social media minimum age update, concerns remain about the compliance of the five platforms named at that time,’ the regulator said.”
Is anyone else laughing at the Australian authorities right now? They’re trying to keep kids off social media, it’s worse than attempting to herd cats. Because Australia is unable to enforce its own law, Big Tech sees itself as the makers of the law, not law followers.
Whitney Grace, August 12, 2026
The Frisky French: Snag Durov, Summon Musk, and Step on Social Media
July 29, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I have a gizmo
In rural Kentucky, France means eating frogs, nasty waiters, and crazy drivers. To those who have a bit more exposure to la belle France, the country values its language, its historical culture, and education. (Yep, French shopkeepers can make change. I know that sounds crazy to someone from Kentucky.)
France also watches, thinks, and then acts. In the thrashing about American big tech outfits, France took a couple of notable actions. First, the French judiciary picked up Pavel Durov, the self-proclaimed GOAT (greatest of all time) Russian innovator, held him for a few days, and explained that he would [a] have to check in with the J3 unit each week, [b] could not leave the borders of France without a note from Madame Brousse (one of the French judiciary officials not amused by online crime), and [c] would be standing trial for a numbers of criminal acts. As a French citizen, France just arrested Durov.
Tech bros get invited to go with a French law enforcement officer. The police van is the weird white vehicle chock full of other officers. Thanks, Midjourney. The van is old fashioned but good enough.
Then France raided the offices of one of Elon Musk’s companies. As part of that legal action, France summoned Mr. Musk and a former member of the Musk “leadership” to an interview. Musk and his former colleague did not show up. As a result, a quick trip to Cannes to catch some sun and a nice dinner could result in the arrest of Mr. Musk. The ensuring legal process would be interesting to observe as the world’s richest person and his legal team poke their hands into the Nutty Putty of the French criminal system.
“French Lawmakers Approve a Sweeping Social Media Ban for Children under 15” reports that France is taking direct action against what is another manifestation of American big tech. The write up reports:
France banned children under 15 from using social media on Tuesday, becoming the first country in the European Union to pass a blanket ban on the platforms as concerns grow worldwide over the harmful effects of digital content on kids. Both chambers of the Parliament voted in favor of the measure, a flagship initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron’s second term. The bill also bans the use of mobile phones in high schools.
The news article contains what I think the true message of this action is. The AP report quotes M. Macron as saying (presumably in French but translated by the AP system):
We will keep on going.
The news stories don’t ask what is to me the big question, “What’s the next French move that is aimed at online crime and US big tech?” The Telegram crowd has learned that keeping its founder and GOAT on a tether has not boosted the fortunes of the firm. Musk and his acolyte have not been given first hand exposure to the French legal system. The youth and the enablers who allow kids to doomscroll have not been directly affected by these unilateral French actions.
Therefore, I want to speculate, based on my limited experience, interacting with the French firms over the decades:
- The French Foreign Legion marches at a slower pace than most special military groups. The menacing beat of the blood sausage means, in my vernacular, “Here we come. Get out of the way or you get stepped on, maybe killed.” You can listen to the tune on the social media superstar platform YouTube. (Are you listening, Google?) France is making clear that it will do more than just terminate Palantir Technologies’ hopes of selling licenses to the French government.
- When the French turn their attention to platforms that do not assist the government in enforcing the ban, my hunch is that the offices of these firms will be raided, executives arrested, and American leadership summoned. Obviously some big tech AI companies will ignore the French requests. However, that creates the potential for excitement when one of these high fliers enters France and possibly one of those cute little police vans.
- French officials will make certain that appropriate, low key reports about the ban mechanics are communicated to other European Union states, Europol, and probably to other key entities; for example, EU data center operators and the authorities in the countries in which the data centers are domiciled.
How will these actions affect the futures of big tech outfits? The Durov arrest has allowed Telegram to demonstrate some cracks in its 13 year super structure. The xAI facilities in Paris are obviously attentive to what the French judiciary is doing. The US social media companies are probably adding the ban to the agenda of one of those Silicon Valley type executive meetings.
Net net: France is taking action. Other, less bold countries, are likely to follow suit. Social media is synonymously with US technology. I think there are some storm clouds visible on the horizon.
Stephen E Arnold July 29, 2026
PS. Here’s a segment of the lyrics to Le boudin (the blood sausage):
(French)
Nous sommes des dégourdis,
Nous sommes des lascars,
Des types pas ordinaires,
Nous avons souvent notre cafard,
Nous sommes des légionnaires.(Google Translate English)
We are resourceful,
We are tough guys,
Not your ordinary types,
We often feel down,
We are legionnaires.
India and Stealth Message Dislike. Yo, Mr. Dorsey
July 29, 2026
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/green-dino_thumb_thumb3-2.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
It seems to me that India is just as annoyed with some US big tech linked software as the European Union. “India Orders Takedown of Jack Dorsey’s Bitcoin-Linked Messaging App Bitchat.” I am not going to trudge through how Mr. Dorsey’s approach to messaging sidesteps service providers. The idea is simple. Two or more people in proximity want to chat. No problemo. Just use Bitchat. Perfect for certain types of operators who want to remain beyond the reach of SS7, cell tower spoofers, and similar nifty techniques for message access.
Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
The article explains the technology this way:
Bitchat is built to relay bitcoin transactions offline, passing them phone to phone through the mesh until a device with connectivity broadcasts them to the network, a design meant to keep payments alive during blackouts, disasters or state-imposed shutdowns. That is the property bitcoin’s supporters value most, the ability to transact without permission from any government or intermediary, and it is now being tested against a government trying to switch it off.
The write up says:
The order targets Bitchat, an offline Bluetooth mesh app built to relay encrypted messages and bitcoin transactions, as ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ protesters in Delhi use mesh tools to communicate through internet shutdowns…. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, part of the Home Ministry, issued the order late Thursday under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, naming three GitHub repositories tied to Bitchat and giving the platform three hours to disable access.
I don’t know much about the Cockroach Junta Party, but if I were still working in government services, I would not wear a brightly colored baseball cap with Cockroach Junta embroidered on it. (I do like the phrase Cockroach Junta, however. Very cute.)
The write up points out:
India’s top cybercrime watchdog has ordered GitHub to take down Bitchat, the offline messaging app built by Block chief executive and bitcoin advocate Jack Dorsey, as anti-government protesters in Delhi adopt mesh-networking tools to communicate through repeated internet shutdowns.
My thought is that Mr. Dorsey may not want to travel to India for a week with Bihar trained yoga teachers at the Ananda. It is possible that Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre might want to talk face to face with him.
Several observations:
- India, like France, is just taking action.
- The knock on effects of India’s GitHub order are difficult to predict. Microsoft GitHub is an important service, but when Microsoft enterprise licenses may be at stake, India’s action — like France’s arrest of the GOAT Pavel Durov — may provide governments with a way to catch the attention of real big time deciders like Microsoft’s leadership.
- The push back signals that sitting down with the Cockroach crowd is unlikely. It is possible for India to amp up punitive actions against those in the junta. (I think that’s why my hat idea is not going to be adopted.)
Net net: US big tech and high profile technology innovators appear to be less popular than in years past.
Stephen E Arnold, July 29, 2026
Is Social Media More Than a Cultural Dumpster Fire?
July 22, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I walk away from burning dumpsters. No, let me be more precise. I avoid dumpsters. Scurrying sounds, a noisome miasma, and the possibility a fan of opioids is catching some winks make me cautious. I perceive social media as a bunch of burning dumpsters. However, for decades — maybe more than 20 years — the kumbaya world of social media has not attracted me. One reason is that I am a dinobaby, and I don’t take pix of my breakfast and post them online. Another is that a failure of social media to validate identities, thus anchoring outputs to a specific person creates an ideal hot house for ill-considered behavior. You don’t have to agree, and that is okay with me. I want to be clear about my bias on this topic.
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
I read “The Great Digital Fatigue: How Digital Burnout Is Changing Social Media Use.” The data from surveys can illuminate facets of the world about which I was ignorant. However, I am also interested in how the surveys are structured and some of the decisions about sample size, analytic methods, and results interpretation impact the “findings.”
On these topics, here’s what the cited write up says:
The survey was conducted between the 1st and 9th of June, 2026, with the participation of 1,000 respondents. It was conducted via Cint and captured a representative sample of Americans (by age and geographic distribution).
Since the mechanics of the survey are not explained, I can only say, “I am not sure how accurate the statistics are, nor if the conclusions are based on data that are not skewed in multiple dimensions. With that observation out of the way, what’s the top finding from the report?
My reading of the article suggests that the main message is that usage of social media is not just declining, it is falling off a cliff. The reason is that social media is work. Too much work produces burnout. Burnout, therefore, results in social media disengagement.
The write up hits a meme top 10 list; for instance:
- 55 percent of those in the sample are posting less than five years ago
- 47 percent self censor
- GenZ and millennials are more like to “cite mental health” as a reason for killing their accounts
- Disconnecting is the 2026 equivalent of what I would call “dropping out.”
I want to point out that attempts to impose restrictions on social media users in Australia and in some families on my block don’t work. Those who want access to social media find a way to get to the services their friends use. Thus, while some old hands may not understand that effort invested in social media is less useful than reading, interacting with humanoids, and applying effort to rewarding activities.
Furthermore, social media outfits come in many shapes and sizes. I wonder if the sample and survey process asked about YouTube-type services, Telegram-type services, and localized Nextdoor-type services. My hunch is that I won’t know the answer to this series of points by re-reading the article.
Observations are indeed in order:
- My hunch is that the write up is designed to make a splash with a claim that the sky is falling for certain demographics’ social media use. Is that statement verifiable? I am not sure based on the write up.
- The idea that social media is work is something I am not qualified to address; therefore, it seems to me that additional information about what makes an online communications and interaction “work” and not informative, fun, or entertaining. The perception of “work” seems to be the whipping post.
- The flip side of the survey is what are the users of social media finding useful and rewarding. Someone like the social media companies should be digging into this question.
- How many other individuals perceive social media as a dumpster fire in countries in which large user pools exist? My hunch is that in some countries, social media may be the primary way people obtain information, entertain themselves, find employment or “gigs,” etc. The dumpster fires may be raging in certain places and not in others.
Let me be clear. Social media is essentially high velocity flows of information. Information has mass and the power to erode institutions, societal norms, and established processes like traditional education. I think that glittering generalities about digital burnout are catchy. I prefer research that probes the digital dumpster fires, the owners and operators, and the regulators who have only recently realized that sleeping at the switch has allowed a train carrying flammable chemicals to crash into society.
Want a prediction about the future? No. Well too bad. It is now too late. The damage has been done.
Stephen E Arnold, July 22, 2026
The EU Punches the Cash Register and Says, “Pay Up”
July 16, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I loved the old-fashioned cash register I used at the A&W Root Beer Stand in 1958. Put your fingers on the keys for the amount. Push. Ka ching. The cash drawer would open. Put in the customer’s money. Slam the cash drawer. Ker-chunk. My boss, the owner of the root beer stand, told me, “I love that sound.” I did too. Ker-chunk. None of that beep stuff. Ker-chunk.
A playground is unused. The children are immersed in their mobile phones. They consume Threads-type of information and communicated by sending Instagram-type messages. The playground is silent. Modern life. Thanks, Midjourney. Not what I prompted, but I understand your problems with cash, computational resources, and precision. I just don’t really care. Sorry.
The EU just rang its old fashioned cash register. According to “Commission Preliminarily Finds the Addictive Design of Instagram and Facebook in Breach of the Digital Services Act”:
or the addictive design of Instagram and Facebook. The investigation focuses on features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and the platforms’ highly personalised recommender systems.
As a point of fact, Facebook “became” a US company in 2004. My math is not too good but that looks like more than two decades ago. Call it a generation. In that time, PhDs have been issued to people who have what I call the Brittany Kaiser-type of information expertise. To me, Cambridge Analytica is a company set up to surf on Facebook and other social media. If I had a for-fee LexisNexis account again, I would look up how many times “social media” and “harm” have been mentioned in the for-fee content in that estimable LexisNexis system. If I were more energetic, I would probe for articles in publications similar to London, UK tabloids with details about a teen suicide connected to online abuse via social media. But after two decades of ignoring the corrosive impact and remarkable “force” of information flows, the EU is leaping into action. I think this is speedier that US action, but I could be incorrect. That, of course, is nothing new.
The write up continues:
Meta disregarded available information about the time minors spend on Instagram or Facebook at night and how the optimisation of its different formats – such as reels and stories – could lead to excessive or compulsive use of the services. Evidence also shows that Meta’s current mitigation measures failed to effectively tackle the risks stemming from its addictive design. For example, Instagram’s and Facebook’s time management tools, including those activated by default for teens, can be easily dismissed and do not lead to a meaningful reduction and control of the usage of the service. Moreover, the Commission considers that Meta’s parental controls are only effective if parents and guardians possess adequate technical expertise, as well as devote effort and time to understand them effectively. This undermines the efficiency of such measures in addressing the inherent risks posed by Instagram and Facebook’s addictive design.
I think the EU is correct.
Here’s the fingers on the keys of the cash register. Not touching, mind you. Quivering in anticipation:
If the Commission’s views are ultimately confirmed, the Commission may issue a non-compliance decision, which can trigger a fine proportionate to the nature, gravity, recurrence and duration of the infringement, capped at 6% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the provider.
Several observations seem to be warranted:
- What took so long? In my Eagleton Lecture at Rutgers University in the late 1980s, I pointed out that flows of online information would erode social structures. Increase the velocity and volume of the flows and the human is going to be overwhelmed by what was then called “the information revolution.” Did anyone care? I know that my audience in New Jersey sure didn’t. Online information was perceived as a good thing. How’s that working out?
- The combination of social media and an unregulated environment is a happy path. The Facebook ecosystem replaced indigenous species of information. Examples range from hanging out with friends in person to reading books. Social media is one reason college graduates today may not be able to read a book. Forget reading something like Kenichi Ohmai’s The Mind of the Strategist (1982). I am talking about reading “The Little Engine That Could.” Not good, right?
- Governments operate on one type of time. Online companies operate on another. When the times mismatch, quite interesting things happen. Example: How about that artificial intelligence revolution? AI is bigger than fire or the wheel or the invention of the nuclear bomb. Is it regulated? Ho ho ho.
Net net: Houston, we have a problem.
Stephen E Arnold, July 16, 2026
News American Style: Read? What Is That?
July 1, 2026
It is time to scythe quiet thing out loud and this information is confirmed by Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report:
- “Social media and video networks have overtaken both television and owned news websites as the most widely used source of news globally, for the first time.
- Trust in news has fallen to its lowest recorded point since the report began tracking it in 2015.
- Interest in news has declined so sharply that a quarter of the global online population now qualifies as casual or passive consumers at best.”
The Media Stack shared these facts in the article, “The Numbers UK Publishers Were Dreading.” The Media Stack doesn’t mince words:
“In the UK, all three trends are present, and playing out against a domestic backdrop of specific institutional turbulence that the report captures with unusual directness.”
The report finds across forty-eight markets that 54% of respondents use social media/video networks for news before TV news at 52% and news websites 51%. AI chatbots were used at 56%. The numbers don’t seem to be off by much, but it is the trajectory that is worrisome, because use of TV news and websites has fallen 12-13% since 2020. It means this:
“Social media and video networks have held broadly stable in absolute terms, meaning the shift into the lead is as much a consequence of legacy source decline as platform growth. The effect is the same regardless of cause: publishers’ branded digital properties, which took years and significant investment to build, now reach a smaller weekly audience than the platforms where their content frequently ends up.”
Search referral traffic is going down hill too:
- “Google organic search traffic to news sites fell 33% globally between November 2024 and November 2025.
- The United States saw a 38% drop over the same period.”
This means that publishers have deprioritized audience reach in favor of engagement with a smaller, niche audience. The revenue model for this new trend is still being worked on.
Chatbot usage is up. One of the reasons is due to the ability to ask the chatbots follow up questions:
“This suggests a use pattern oriented around explanation and contextualisation rather than simple headline delivery, the kind of depth that good journalism should, in theory, also provide.”
Trust with traditional UK publishers is also down, down, down! Why? The culprits are misinformation, direct political attack on journalism, changing consumption habits, and categories that have always scored low on trust. The write up asserts:
“Trust is corroding at system level even as individual brands hold on. And a generation is arriving that will need to be reached on entirely different terms, through entirely different channels, if it is to be reached at all.”
This report takes a broad look art UK media outlets so it is probably objective. What do these allegedly accurate data suggest about Google’s providing users with AI snips? Will US online users read or will these advertiser-targets gravitate to TikTok-style videos for news and other information? My answer: It’s video.
Whitney Grace, July 1, 2026
New Social Media Bans For Younger Teens
June 23, 2026
Here we go again with more bans on social media for the younger sect. Deadline tells the story in. “UK Brings In Full Social Media Ban For Under-16s.”? The United Kingdom will ban TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, and X. This decision follows the Australian government’s ban on social media for kids in 2025. This is part of Keir Starmer’s administration and they responded to the new legislation with:
“ ‘Children will be given back their childhoods,’ the government said this morning as it unveiled more detail and stated an aim to ‘capture user-to-user platforms, whose purpose is to enable social interaction and?which allow users to post material, alongside algorithms.’”
Nothing is better than speedy action when it comes to social media. It’s been about 20 years and now that evidence of numerous reading, writing, and arithmetic type knowledge gaps, bans are coming. Norway just put down its snowshoe clad foot too.
But the UK is going further than Australia and is claiming “world leading action” related to banning social media.? ?For example, romantic-type chatbots will be required to enforce a minimum age of eighteen for usage. The government also wants to break the doom scrolling addiction among younger social media users. Personally I am not sure that the kids will be supportive of that effort.
Ofcom, a UK organizations that has the power to enforce online safety regulations, will conduct a study on which age is the most effective way to verify a person is over sixteen. A government survey also found that 90% of adults and large portion of kids are favor of the ban.
This might sour relations with the US:
“The Australian social media ban has been controversial, with American tech giants unsurprisingly reacting with alarm. As these giants get closer and closer to Donald Trump in the States, Starmer, who has consistently attempted to keep relations with the U.S. on a solid footing, may find himself falling foul of the U.S. President, although the POTUS is at present distracted with Iran.”
It’s probably going to be as effective as the media ban in Australia. In other words, they’re twenty years too late. Good luck Starmer, you’re already doing a bang up job protecting kids, especially girls. Gee, are females negatively affected by social media?
Whitney Grace, June 23, 2026
Meta and NSO: Jousting Again
June 19, 2026
Two estimable companies. Another dust up. Which does one believe? I will leave it to you, but did I hear a collective groan. The allegation is that NSO Group of Pegasus fame is supposedly targeting people inside WhatsApp. Is there an injunction order to case and desist? Yep, says The Register in the article “NSO Group Back In Meta’s Crosshairs After Alleged WhatsApp Targeting.” Meta investigated reports from users that said there was activity attempting to lure users off WhatsApp and onto outside websites. This is part of a longer battle between the two companies. The Register says:
“The move marks the latest chapter in the long-running legal battle between Meta and the Israeli spyware maker. A US court found NSO liable in December 2024 for hacking WhatsApp users via its Pegasus spyware. In May 2025, a jury awarded Meta roughly $168 million in damages, but the judge later cut that to $4 million while issuing a permanent injunction barring NSO from targeting WhatsApp or its users.”
WhatsApp defines NSO Group as a “malicious company” and it is listed on the US government’s Entity List. If the restrictions were eased, it would place Americans, American companies, US national security, and the entire slew of the world’s population would be vulnerable.
Engadget reported on the same situation in their article, “WhatsApp Spyware Maker NSO Group Is Still Targeting Its Users.” They have more information on the people who were targeted by NSO Group:
“Less than a year later, Meta says it’s caught NSO violating the terms of that order. According to the company, it caught a cluster of NSO-linked accounts that were attempting to trick WhatsApp users into clicking on malicious links that were similar to other phishing campaigns that have been tied to the spyware maker. According to a Meta spokesperson, the latest phishing campaign targeted fewer than 10 WhatsApp users who were “primarily” in Jordan and Lebanon.”
What’s the truth of the matter? First, we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation, and malformation of data. Second, a “he says, she says” argument is a matter for the courts, not a dinobaby’s blog. Third, software roughly comparable to NSO’s Pegasus innovation is available from other vendors. Therefore, my question is, “What are regulatory authorities in the US and other countries to block or curtail the use of malware specifically designed to exfiltrate data from services bursting with juicy personal information?
Whitney Grace, June 19, 2026
Is LinkedIn Terminating Humanoids AND Pretending to Kill AI Slop?
May 26, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I have a team member who has figured out how to send a notice to Microsoft LinkedIn that one of my team or I has created a short item for my blog Beyond Search. Since 2008, I have been using the blog to capture my ideas. Once in a while, I query my content and sometimes find a gem to include in one of my books. A good example was the September 2025 publication “The Telegram Labyrinth.” The book — despite one of my team member’s protestations — it is not available to anyone. The book is free to those in my law enforcement, cyber fraud, and intel lectures. Those lucky souls at my upcoming series of Ciifer talks will get my last three books for suffering through my non-AI assisted comments about the future of online crime. (Here’s lookin’ at you, OpenAI.)
Not long ago, I read that Microsoft LinkedIn was allowing some employees to find their future elsewhere. With vanlife vlogs dead, I hope these capable professionals can explore other opportunities to generate substantive revenue. Maybe thrifting, car detailing, and dog walking? Here’s the statement:
New CEO Daniel Shapero, appointed last month, is overseeing a 5% workforce reduction targeting around 875 roles in engineering, product, marketing, and sales operations. Internal communications describe the move as simplifying operations and reallocating staff toward faster-growing business segments. This marks Shapero’s first major strategic action since succeeding Ryan Roslansky, signaling a focus on long-term positioning rather than short-term cost cutting.
Thanks, Venice. Good enough.
Okay, but what’s the second strategic shift? I have an answer because my newsfeed delivered to me “LinkedIn Doesn’t Want Your AI Slop Anymore.” I try not to produce AI slop. I am just myself generating dinobaby blog posts. I do want to point out that BearBlog, a somewhat interesting cycling obsessed outfit in Cape Town, South Africa, labeled my own dinobaby output as AI slop. There’s nothing like censorship and AI to catch my attention. If you want censorship, give that operation a whirl.
“LinkedIn Doesn’t Want Your AI Slop Anymore” reports:
In a blog post, the company’s VP of Product Laura Lorenzetti says the changes will target everything from outright engagement bait, to recycled “thought leadership” and other “generic” content that “lacks the authenticity and originality.” The company is also taking aim at posts and comments that have obvious signs of AI construction like “it’s not X, it’s Y,” phrasing. LinkedIn isn’t sharing a lot of detail about how it’s defining or detecting AI slop, but says that its engineers collaborated with its in-house editorial team to identify “patterns in how members engage, recognizing what adds perspective, context, or expertise versus what simply repeats existing ideas without contributing anything new.”
You ask, “What’s the strategic part for CEO Daniel Shapero?” My view is that Microsoft is the outfit that kicked off the generative AI craze for anyone using Word, Excel, et al. Now the Mother Goose of AI Craziness is trying to figure out exactly how it landed into the pickle of putting its smart software in Notepad, an ASCII text editor. Banning AI in a Microsoft product may create a situation causing Mr. Shapero to consider selling items on eBay or organizing walking tours of his city as a possible alternative work challenge. Why? LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is now a BAIT, a big AI tech outfit mired in the swamp of issues associated with Microsoft’s leadership of it own artificial intelligence HMS Titanic clone.
LinkedIn has filtered some of my Telegram-related content. Now Microsoft will filter AI generated content, not just information about a major online platform whose founder awaits trial in France on about a dozen serious online crime charges. What about those LinkedIn luminaries who have built a brand to attract consulting business with tens of thousands of followers? What about people who use LinkedIn to create synthetic personas, populating their backgrounds with what sure looks to me like AI generated craziness? What about the companies whose advertisements seem to have the scent of a LLM output?
LinkedIn is now on a voyage to long term positioning. I hope the route does not retrace the journey of that Titanic vehicle.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2026
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
