The royals are perennial clickbait, but the wild online bunkum over the Princess of Wales hints at new and darker forces

On TikTok, there is a short clip of what an AI voiceover claims is a supposed “ring glitch” in the video in which Princess of Wales reveals her cancer diagnosis. It has 1.3 million views. Others, in which users “break down” aspects of the video and analyse the saga with spurious evidence, also rack up millions of views and shares. I have then seen them surface on X, formerly known as Twitter, and even shared on WhatsApp by friends and family, who see in these videos, presented as factual and delivered in reporter-style, nothing that indicates that this is wild internet bunkum.

Something has changed about the way social media content is presented to us. It is both a huge and subtle shift. Until recently, types of content were segregated by platform. Instagram was for pictures and short reels, TikTok for longer videos, X for short written posts. Now Instagram reels post TikTok videos, which post Instagram reels, and all are posted on X. Often it feels like a closed loop, with the algorithm taking you further and further away from discretion and choice in who you follow. All social media apps now have the equivalent of a “For you” page, a feed of content from people you don’t follow, and which, if you don’t consciously adjust your settings, the homepage defaults to. The result is that increasingly, you have less control over what you see.

Do you shout your achievements from the rooftops, or ‘move in silence’ while waiting for the perfect moment to flex online? If only we could all sit this one out

I have belatedly discovered the phrase “move in silence”. Apparently, Lil Wayne instructed people to do it in 2011 with the line: “Real Gs move in silence like lasagne,” a lyric that prompted various polemics (is the G in lasagne actually silent ?). Even then, a music commentator told Billboard it was “such an old concept”. It hadn’t broken through in the south side of Brussels, where I was living then (despite lasagne, happily, being plentiful).

I was finally alerted to “moving in silence” by an Instagram post. The phrase grabbed me, since I am a cheerleader for silence. My take is: the more people move in silence, the better, especially if they are in coach H of the 8.02 York to London King’s Cross. It’s the “Quieter” coach! Don’t make me stare pointedly at the sign and sigh!

Enlarge / A promotional image for Sorry for Your Loss , which was a Facebook Watch original scripted series. (credit: Facebook )

Last April, Meta revealed that it would no longer support original shows, like Jada Pinkett Smith's Red Table Talk talk show, on Facebook Watch. Meta's streaming business that was once viewed as competition for the likes of YouTube and Netflix is effectively dead now; Facebook doesn't produce original series, and Facebook Watch is no longer available as a video-streaming app.

The streaming business' demise has seemed related to cost cuts at Meta that have also included layoffs. However, recently unsealed court documents in an antitrust suit against Meta [ PDF ] claim that Meta has squashed its streaming dreams in order to appease one of its biggest ad customers: Netflix.

Facebook allegedly gave Netflix creepy privileges

As spotted via Gizmodo , a letter was filed on April 14 in relation to a class-action antitrust suit that was filed by Meta customers, accusing Meta of anti-competitive practices that harm social media competition and consumers. The letter, made public Saturday, asks a court to have Reed Hastings, Netflix's founder and former CEO, respond to a subpoena for documents that plaintiffs claim are relevant to the case. The original complaint filed in December 2020 [ PDF ] doesn’t mention Netflix beyond stating that Facebook “secretly signed Whitelist and Data sharing agreements” with Netflix, along with “dozens” of other third-party app developers. The case is still ongoing.

Read 18 remaining paragraphs | Comments

From online courtroom to information manipulation, social media has radically changed communication. Here are five books to help navigate it

From Covid conspiracy theories to recent speculations about Catherine, Princess of Wales, social media is at the heart of how we share information, and misinformation, with one another in the 21st century. For those who want to have a better understanding of social media and how it affects us, here are a selection of titles that explore how we consume, share, and manipulate information on social media platforms.

***

The term evokes cosiness, affordability and community. But it’s being used as a cynical marketing ploy

What makes a neighbourhood restaurant? The phrase itself is evocative, bringing to mind the types of local trattorias or ocakbaşları or tavernas that punters return to regularly. The definition might vary from person to person, but surely a neighbourhood restaurant is defined by some combination of its longevity in the community, an accessible feel and affordable prices.

Over the past six months, though, I have seen the “neighbourhood restaurant” label deployed constantly in PR emails previewing a very different sort of establishment. The aim, I imagine, is to evoke a sense of cosiness and community – but there’s something off about it.

Lauren O’Neill is a culture writer

It is now used as a full social network – and is changing how we think about our identities and accomplishments. Time for us all to be a lot more honest ...

A friend recently asked me to help her look for a job. She wanted help writing a cover letter, a CV and an update on her LinkedIn profile. The first two tasks were easy, but the third? Not so much.

If, like me, you haven’t been on LinkedIn for a while, it is – for lack of a better word – weird , now. What used to be a perfunctory, professional space sitting in stark contrast to the oversharing of other social media, LinkedIn is now full of 1,000-word polemics from unqualified people (“here’s really what makes people tick” says a “wizard of wellbeing”), photos of holidays (“work hard, play hard!”) and empty motivational platitudes (“give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to code and …” OK, sorry, I did just make that one up). It’s all a bit cultish, and work is what is worshipped. Stepford Wives, employment edition.

Notorious attack ad against Sadiq Khan reflects political era where social media is used to provoke outrage

One of the more depressing political lessons from the Brexit campaign was that it doesn’t necessarily matter if nobody believes the NHS will get an extra £350m a week, just as long as they are talking about it. And it seems to be one taken to heart by the Conservatives.

The reaction of many in Westminster to the Tories’ swiftly notorious attack advert against the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was initially almost baffled amusement: was this thing actually meant to be taken seriously?

Spurious video on London mayor’s record on crime allegedly had no input from Tory candidate Susan Hall’s team

The controversial Conservative attack video that portrayed London as a crime-racked hellhole was put together by the central party rather than its mayoral candidate, and has dismayed some around Susan Hall, the Guardian has learned.

The brief but dramatic film, in which an American-accented voiceover declared the city the “crime capital of the world” and, using dubious claims, sought to blame Sadiq Khan.

The rightwing social network’s flotation, supported by fans of the ex-president, make it a part of the ‘meme stock’ phenomenon

• Business live – latest updates

Donald Trump’s social network went public on Tuesday and almost immediately hit a valuation of almost $8bn (£6.3bn). The valuation fell back to a more modest $6.58bn by the time markets closed in New York, but that still represented a gain of more than 15% on its initial public offering (IPO) value. That enormous success has raised questions, and not all of them are easy to answer.