Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Going forward, there will be a new Reels feed that includes videos that your friends have liked or commented on, so you can see what your friends have watched and what they like. Your friends will also be able to see the videos that you have liked, which is something to be aware of.
I actually feel lucky to have grown up before social media. I’m sure if it’s something you’re really into this feature sounds great. But to me it’s just putting more distance between friends.

If you see a video that you think a friend would like why not send it to them and maybe even chat about it. iPhones can make phone calls. Call up a friend and talk to them. Better yet go have a coffee with them.

I’m not judging folks who are into all this. I just feel like they may be missing out on more fulfilling interactions. I love technology, but using it for social media isn’t the direction I ever imagined or hoped for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CasinoOwl
The Chinese should not get data about your life!

Give your data and your life to Zuckerberg and Musk instead 🤑🤑🤑.
And trust them to take great care of your privacy...
That’s not what it’s about at all. The difference with those apps is that the US government can influence what content is allowed on there, specifically in regard to US foreign policy. When the US has a foreign policy agenda to push notice that ALL major media outlets are in lockstep agreement with the US position, including social media. For example “free Palestine” and anti-Ukraine content was allowed to spread on TikTok but suppressed or blocked on the other apps.

The US relies on the media to get Americans engaged in supporting these policies so a platform like TikTok has the power to undermine them. In the event of any future foreign engagements its ownership by a foreign adversary could use the app’s influence to undermine the US position. The government is completely fine with TikTok existing as is as long as a US entity owns it so it has nothing to do with competition for US social media apps. For a more mainstream example, the government sees TikTok as like China or Russia owning NBC, CBS, or ABC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CasinoOwl
They want to ban TikTok, but they can't ban pornography sites in America, on what planet does this make sense?

That's an easy one actually. One is a foreign company controlled by one of America's primary adversaries.

The other is an issue for the citizens within that country and the degree to which government can control those citizen's specific actions. Also "complicated" by that pesky Constitution, which is completely irrelevant to the TikTok situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CasinoOwl
I wish Apple would make a social network. Just family and friends, no ads, no reels, just your people. Make it part of Apple One, done.

1. Apple has been historically bad at anything social throughout its history (Ping says hello)

2. I doubt most people want a PG social network for "family and friends". Certainly not teens, the most coveted demographic on the planet
 
I wish Apple would make a social network. Just family and friends, no ads, no reels, just your people. Make it part of Apple One, done.
I agree. Whether it's Apple or whoever, I would relish a social NETWORK site like facebook used to be. Maybe even ad-supported, but without an algorithm designed to manipulate. Just a place for family and friends to share photos, stories, and ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane


With TikTok on track to be banned from U.S. app stores starting on Sunday, Instagram is adding new features to Reels, its video-based feature that's modeled after TikTok.

Instagram-Feature-2.jpg

Going forward, there will be a new Reels feed that includes videos that your friends have liked or commented on, so you can see what your friends have watched and what they like. Your friends will also be able to see the videos that you have liked, which is something to be aware of.

In this new Reels feed filled with friend recommendations, there will be an option to "start a conversation" with someone over a reel that they've liked.

"We want Instagram to not only be a place where you consume entertaining content, but one where you connect over that content with friends," Instagram head Adam Mosseri said in a video announcing the change.

Instagram used to have a dedicated Activity feed that offered up this information, but it was removed several years ago. It is not yet known if Instagram plans to provide an opt-out for the new feed.

The new feed is rolling out in a handful of countries right now, with Instagram set to expand it in the future.

Instagram competitor TikTok could be unavailable to use starting on Sunday, which is the day U.S. app stores will be prohibited from distributing the app. Instagram could absorb some displaced TikTok users if that ends up happening.

Article Link: Instagram Adds New Features to Reels as TikTok Ban Looms
Boycott META!
 
why let the Chinese spy on you when the US gov. can spy on you just as much?
 
Constitutionally speaking, corn is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. The TikTok ban is considered completely separate because it was more of an economic regulation. Even the Supreme Court said they they were a bit leery of the TikTok ban, but ultimately decided in favor.
Some of these comments are frightening, too many people couldn't care at all about free speech, they just want things banned they don't like
 
I agree. Whether it's Apple or whoever, I would relish a social NETWORK site like facebook used to be. Maybe even ad-supported, but without an algorithm designed to manipulate. Just a place for family and friends to share photos, stories, and ideas.
I would say timeline only algorithm should be the default screen IMO.
 
Reels from strangers are always being suggested in my main feed, while regular posts from friends or other accounts I want to see don't show up for days.
 
Mark is bending over backwards to try and stay relevant. How is it he can find new ways to get more people to dislike him and his company is beyond me.
 
Mark is bending over backwards to try and stay relevant. How is it he can find new ways to get more people to dislike him and his company is beyond me.
He may not have a lot of choice. In the book The Big Sort, the author tracked the progress of Americans over time into self-segregating ideological communities (real world neighborhoods, I'm not talking about online, though that's a thing), and the impact on politics. A big question was whether polarized politics (e.g.: such as Newt Gingrich's influence on the Republicans) had drive polarization of the people, or whether polarization amongst the American people had driven it amongst politicians.

I thought he'd conclude polarized politicians polarized the people, but this 'chicken and egg' scenario ran the other other way. Quite a surprise. And while we lament the seemingly loss of centrist types (whether Center-Right or Center-Left), research showed that there was been a marked drop-off in centrist Congressmen (IIRC), and politicians with more nuances positions instead of more of a 'hard party line' found it more difficult to get elected.

Look at how we vacillate back and forth between very different Presidential administrations. From Zuckerberg's claims about strong pressure to censor during the pandemic from the Biden administration, to his recent trips to Trump's place, it's evident he has to dance to the tune of the ruling power to some extent.

And to make it worse, over time in the American 'culture war,' there's pressure of big companies, universities and leaders to come out in favor of one side in controversies, even if the business of that company or university isn't about that. From what I've read, Disney World's leadership (in Florida) didn't originally want to waded into the 'Don't Say Gay' bill controversy, but some people were determined to drag them into it. Major hassles ensued.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump in 2016, many people blamed Zuckerberg for not better policing 'misinformation' and alleged Russian meddling (although such accusations are on very shaky ground - see A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century). During the pandemic, there was a lot of pressure to suppress content encouraging anti-vax views, etc...

And now, if he doesn't want to find out what Trump can bring down on his head, it's free speech time!

Wasn't long ago I saw video of him being grilled by Senator Ted Cruz (sad to see the antagonistic posturing by Cruz, or such was my impression, while Zuckerberg had to remain respectful).

However much he might wish to stay away from it, Zuckerberg has to get political, American politics whip back and force between poles, and so he is at risk to come across as a flip flopping greedy hypocrite.

In a nation with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, we're not supposed to have to fear and kowtow to the government like that, but hey... Tim Cook, the gay CEO of Apple, an obviously socially liberal company, made a big contribution to Trump's inaugural fund. And if Kamala Harris comes back and wins in 2028, watch the butt kissing stampede unfold then.

We may sometimes envy the very wealthy and famous, but the nail that sticks up is at risk to get hammered down.
 
He may not have a lot of choice. In the book The Big Sort, the author tracked the progress of Americans over time into self-segregating ideological communities (real world neighborhoods, I'm not talking about online, though that's a thing), and the impact on politics. A big question was whether polarized politics (e.g.: such as Newt Gingrich's influence on the Republicans) had drive polarization of the people, or whether polarization amongst the American people had driven it amongst politicians.

I thought he'd conclude polarized politicians polarized the people, but this 'chicken and egg' scenario ran the other other way. Quite a surprise. And while we lament the seemingly loss of centrist types (whether Center-Right or Center-Left), research showed that there was been a marked drop-off in centrist Congressmen (IIRC), and politicians with more nuances positions instead of more of a 'hard party line' found it more difficult to get elected.

Look at how we vacillate back and forth between very different Presidential administrations. From Zuckerberg's claims about strong pressure to censor during the pandemic from the Biden administration, to his recent trips to Trump's place, it's evident he has to dance to the tune of the ruling power to some extent.

And to make it worse, over time in the American 'culture war,' there's pressure of big companies, universities and leaders to come out in favor of one side in controversies, even if the business of that company or university isn't about that. From what I've read, Disney World's leadership (in Florida) didn't originally want to waded into the 'Don't Say Gay' bill controversy, but some people were determined to drag them into it. Major hassles ensued.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump in 2016, many people blamed Zuckerberg for not better policing 'misinformation' and alleged Russian meddling (although such accusations are on very shaky ground - see A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century). During the pandemic, there was a lot of pressure to suppress content encouraging anti-vax views, etc...

And now, if he doesn't want to find out what Trump can bring down on his head, it's free speech time!

Wasn't long ago I saw video of him being grilled by Senator Ted Cruz (sad to see the antagonistic posturing by Cruz, or such was my impression, while Zuckerberg had to remain respectful).

However much he might wish to stay away from it, Zuckerberg has to get political, American politics whip back and force between poles, and so he is at risk to come across as a flip flopping greedy hypocrite.

In a nation with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, we're not supposed to have to fear and kowtow to the government like that, but hey... Tim Cook, the gay CEO of Apple, an obviously socially liberal company, made a big contribution to Trump's inaugural fund. And if Kamala Harris comes back and wins in 2028, watch the butt kissing stampede unfold then.

We may sometimes envy the very wealthy and famous, but the nail that sticks up is at risk to get hammered down.
This will be a long response. I'll try my best to go point for point and conclude at the end. Mark has choices. He just chose to chase money over innovation. Ironically the same thing he accuses Apple of. I read The Big Sort back in college. What the author stayed away from and the article, The Myth of the Big Sort goes into deeper yet brief detail on, is your politic stance has less to do with your location and upbringing and more to do with your current view of the future. Mark's decision to go back and forth doesn't express political aptitude, but a conjecture to appease the current administration for survival.

TikTok rather than change ownership, took their case to the supreme court. They loss and yet they are still here. Ironically India and China both have bans on TikTok. Apple refused to break open an iPhone that could or couldn't have relevant information to certain crimes. Warren Buffet has remained consistent on his liberal leanings, so to has Charles Schwab towards his conservative leanings. Both gentlemen operate in an environment that heavily correlates to the current administrations.

As the CEO and de facto leader of a company, you can argue that one needs to appease the political realm at various points. You can also argue that they have a responsibility to ensure the validity of there products and services against adverse affects. As Mark and Facebook were blamed for allowing a company to use its data to influence a presidential election, that is one of the same arguments being made against TikTok.

However one may try to slice it, Mark is a coward and will back whichever bully offers him the largest win. As for the Ted Cruz encounter, Mark need not remain respectful. In my opinion that may be his greatest downfall. You give respect to those that have earned it, show it and give it. That particular showing, showed his in ability to standup for himself. I will say that he is willing to take as many bullets for his company as necessary, so that says something. Your reputation is built over a lifetime and to say the least, Mark doesn't have a good one.

I personal have no issue with a company or person trying to carry favor with power. It's when attempting to carry that favor you change the ideals you previously had. I don't see Tim no longer being gay because it helps Apple in some way. This reminds me of a scene in The Simpsons movie where Millhouse says he cares about the planet, only for Nelson to threaten him and he changes his stance. Then Nelson hits him anyway, stating "That's for selling out your beliefs". Mark again and again has shown his is a Millhouse.

The is no need to envy wealth. "Life is a banquet and most poor bastards are starving to death!" Auntie Mame

 
I read The Big Sort back in college. What the author stayed away from and the article, The Myth of the Big Sort goes into deeper yet brief detail on, is your politic stance has less to do with your location and upbringing and more to do with your current view of the future. Mark's decision to go back and forth doesn't express political aptitude, but a conjecture to appease the current administration for survival.
Thanks for the article link. Yes, I think appeasement to survive and prosper is a lot of what's going on (and has been for some time).
 
  • Like
Reactions: harmonthe3rd
1. Apple has been historically bad at anything social throughout its history (Ping says hello)

2. I doubt most people want a PG social network for "family and friends". Certainly not teens, the most coveted demographic on the planet
Ping wasn’t really a social network it was just an iTunes advertising system. I think you’d be surprised how popular an old school social network would be. Teens have plenty to choose from already. Millennials and Gen Xers would definitely be willing to sub to Apple One for a retro Facebook I’m sure.
 
Ping wasn’t really a social network it was just an iTunes advertising system. I think you’d be surprised how popular an old school social network would be. Teens have plenty to choose from already. Millennials and Gen Xers would definitely be willing to sub to Apple One for a retro Facebook I’m sure.

Yeah I just think Apple has a massive lack of institutional knowhow or culture when it comes to social networks.

I also doubt users would be interested in a social network that applies Apple's PG/Disney approach to censoring many areas of content
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.