Instagram

Meta thought it was a good idea for its AI to generate images from your Instagram photos. Days later he has already turned back

by

Last week Meta launched Muse Image and Muse Video, its new AI models integrated into the Meta AI app. However, the launch was quickly overshadowed by the criticism he received one of the functions of the image generator. Within Muse Image, in addition to writing the normal prompt, Meta thought it was a good idea to let us tag other Instagram users to Generate images from your photos. All you have to do is type the at sign with your username and Muse Image can access your profile to create any image you can think of. The problem with all this is that Meta activated it by default for all public Instagram accounts, without warning or of course asking for permission. If you wanted to prevent anyone from tagging youyou had to manually disable it from your account settings. Meta backs off: they will no longer be able to tag us in Muse Image Muse Image was announced last Tuesday, July 7, and in the following days the criticism of this decision began to accumulate. Four days later, on Saturday the 11th, Meta issued a statement in which They responded to the controversy. According to Meta, their intention with the tagging feature was to “offer a useful creative tool” and “give users control over whether their public content could be mentioned.” The best way to give control to users would have been to let us activate it if we wanted to be tagged and not the other way around. Meta has confirmed that The labeling function has been removed. This is the full statement: Earlier this week, we announced that one of the ways users can generate images in Meta AI is by @-tagging the public Instagram accounts they want to reference. Our intention was to offer a useful creative tool and give users control over whether their public content could be mentioned in this way. We’ve received feedback that this feature missed the mark and is no longer available. Image | Meta, edited with Magnific In Xataka | Meta has a long history of privacy scandals. We can add one more to the list

Instagram and Facebook are “addictive” by design. And Meta faces a fine of 12 billion dollars

by

The European Commission has concludedpreliminarily, that Meta violates the Digital Services Act (DSA) due to the “addictive” design of Instagram and Facebook. The organization and Meta have been arguing for years over a multitude of aspects related to the security and privacy of their social networks but, this time, the move could be very expensive for Mark Zuckerberg’s company, as it could be forced to redesign both applications and face a fine of up to $12 billion. por that. The conclusion of the European Commission comes after an investigation of more than two years which, if confirmed, would force Meta to change the internal functioning of two of the most used social networks on the planet. And it comes at a time when regulatory pressure on big technology companies for the protection of minors it doesn’t stop growingboth in Europe and in the United States. In detail. According to has explained The European Commission itself in an official statement, Meta “did not adequately assess the risks of its addictive design for the physical and mental well-being of users, including minors and vulnerable adults.” The European organization points directly to several specific functions: Personalized recommendations. Autoplay (automatic playback of content). The infinite scroll. Push notifications. Brussels maintains that these tools push the user to continue viewing content almost unconsciously, which the institution itself describes as going into “autopilot mode.” It also ensures that Meta ignored available data on the time that minors spend on Instagram and Facebook at night, as well as the role that formats such as reels or stories could play in excessive or compulsive use of the applications. Between the lines. What is striking is not only that Brussels points out the design of the apps, but also questions the tools that Meta already offers to limit their use. The Commission states that screen time controls, even those enabled by default for teenagers, “can be easily dismissed” and do not truly reduce use of the service. Regarding parental control, consider that it only works if parents have technical knowledge and dedicate time and effort to configure it, something that, according to the organization itself, limits its real effectiveness. Nor does he consider the mental health warnings that Meta offers in its “safety center” as sufficient. With these arguments, the Commission proposes that Meta should introduce specific design changes: deactivate functions such as autoplay and infinite scroll by default, incorporate effective screen pauses and adjust its recommendation system so that it depends less on keeping the user engaged, according to the institution’s own statement. How much money is at stake. If the conclusion is confirmed, Meta could be fined up to 6% of its annual worldwide turnover. Taking 2025 revenues as a reference, close to $201 billion, the penalty could be close to $12 billion. That can make goal. It should be noted that these are still preliminary conclusions and that there is still no firm sanction. Meta has the right to defend himself, review the documentation in the file and respond in writing before Brussels adopts a final decision. In parallel, the case will be consulted to the European Committee for Digital Services. The context does not play in favor of Meta. This research It has been open since May 2024and it has not been the only one. In parallel, the company faces another European investigation into its age verification systems for children under 13 years of age, whose preliminary conclusions were published in April, as detailed by the Commission itself. In addition, Brussels is preparing a report, scheduled for next Monday, on a possible ban on the use of social networks for minors under 16 years of age throughout the community bloc, according to they count from The Verge. Pressure also comes from the United States. In August, Meta will sit on trial over whether its applications are intentionally addictive, in a case in which several states are jointly demanding compensation that could reach $1.4 trillion. depending on the medium. And it would not be the first judicial defeat, since in March, a Los Angeles jury already declared Instagram and YouTube responsible for damaging the mental health of a 20-year-old girl, in a case that forced the companies to pay 6 million dollars jointly, according to share from Bloomberg. QEU says the Comywentn. “Protecting the physical and mental health of Europeans must be a priority for social media platforms,” ​​he said. declared Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice President of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy. Virkkunen added that the Digital Services Law “offers a clear framework to hold platforms accountable for the addictive design of their services and their effects”, and assured that Brussels is “fully committed” to enforcing European regulations. What Meta says. A spokesperson for the technology giant declared to the BBC that the company did not agree with the conclusions, “which do not properly take into account the important measures we have taken to protect teenagers.” “We share the European Commission’s commitment to providing adolescents with safe and positive online experiences, and we will continue to engage constructively with them,” it continued. And now what. The case enters a phase of allegations that may be prolonged. This is not the first time that the DSA has resulted in sanctions, since the norm itself has already been used to fine X 120 million eurosand with 200 million euros to the Chinese e-commerce giant Temu. We’ll see what happens with Meta. Cover image | Guillaume Perigois and Goal In Xataka | Anyone can tag you on Instagram to generate AI deepfakes with your photos. It’s Meta being Meta

Meta just turned your Instagram photos into raw material for its AI without asking your permission: how to disable it

by

Meta is not exactly known for being a company that takes care of the privacy of its users, rather the opposite. With their latest release they have made it even clearer if possible: an image generator in which Anyone can tag your Instagram account and generate deepfakes with your facelike the one you can see on these lines. The serious thing is that this option has been activated by default for all public Instagram accounts, without asking permission or warning anythingvery much like Meta. The only ones who are spared (for legal reasons, not ethical ones, don’t believe it) are those under 18 years old, but the rest of us have been put in the bag without asking. If you don’t want anyone to be able to create AI images with your photos, you have to disable it manually. How creating user images with Meta AI works Meta has launched Muse Image, its new image generator to compete with Nano Banana and ChatGPT Images. This generator lives inside the Meta AI app and, in addition to being able to generate images from nothing, you can also do it from the photos that people upload to Instagram. Left, an image generated with Meta AI from a user’s image. Right: What appears in Meta AI when the user has disabled that option If your account is public and you are over 18 years old, you can be tagged in Meta AI to create images, as you can see in the image on the left. It should be noted that the model has safeguards against creating sensitive contentso they will not be able to create nudes with your photos. What less. In the image on the right I tried to tag my account after deactivating this option and a message appears saying that you do not have permissions to access the photos. It is still possible for someone to download your images to create a new one from them, but as with any image that circulates on the internet. How to prevent Meta AI from using your Instagram photos If your account is private you will not have to do anything since it is excluded by default from Meta AI. However, if your account is public you have to disable the option manually. The steps to follow to deactivate it In your profile, click on the three lines button horizontal lines that appear in the upper right. Scroll to option “Share and reuse.” Here, there is a block called “Allow people to reuse your content on Instagram and with AI features” (for some reason, it came out in English) Uncheck the boxes for posts and Reels. Additionally, just below you have a box that allows you to limit other people from using the original audio from your Reels to create other videos and use it in Meta AI. Many people on social networks have criticized Meta’s decision to activate this by default for millions of accounts without asking permission or warning. In statements to New York Timesa company spokesperson recalled that it can be disabled “with just a couple of clicks” and that “We will take action against any content that violates our Community Guidelines.” Images | Xataka In Xataka | Meta shoehorned its AI chatbot into WhatsApp. Now Europe issues an order: they have five days to open themselves to rivals

Commodore has launched a retro smartphone that blocks browsers, Instagram or TikTok. It is garish, original and expensive

by

My first computer was a Commodore C64, so you will understand that this news hits a nerve with me. The brand, purchased last year by YouTuber Christian “Peri Fractic” Simpson, has now risen from the ashes with the surprising release of Commodore Callback 8020. We are looking at a smartphone with a retro aesthetic that also draws attention for its focus: the idea here is not to compete with the iPhone or the best Android phones, but rather help us not be glued to the cell phone so much since the telephone is above all that: a telephone. Commodore Callback 8020. This launch wants to take advantage of this growing trend of some manufacturers of resurrect “dumb phones”: cell phones that are capped as standard so that we can detoxify a little of that addiction that we usually have to screens. And to do this, this peculiar device does something mercilessly: block access to all types of applications and platforms Neither TikTok nor Instagram. The Callback 8020 has internet access, but by default it blocks both access to web browsers and social networks. It does so according to the company’s announcement “at the system level using a technology that is pending patent.” The device is therefore not a friend of Instagram or TikTok, but it does allow access to other internet services, such as maps or reading QR codes. Banned browsers. The brand also has its own app store, called Commostore, and to limit access to unwanted applications they have a white list, and as Simpson said at Ars Technica“social networks and browsers will never enter that white list.” Nothing about doomscrolling. Not only that: they cannot be installed using common installation methods either. sideloading. Although the current owner of the brand states that other applications can be installed through this process, this will be blocked in the case of social media apps or browsers. According to Simpson, “we’ve drawn a clear line in the sand around any app that is aimed at doomscrolling“. To avoid this at all costs, the firm indicates that they have blocked access to certain services at the DNS level “so even if you manage to install TikTok, you will not be able to access its servers.” Sailfish OS as heart. We are facing a device that uses Sailfish OS as its operational system. This development, created in 2012 by the company Jolla, allows you to install and run Android applications (99%, says Simpson), although its focus is privacy. Thus, it is perfectly possible to use tools such as Spotify, Signal or WhatsApp. The bet is completed with a very nice detail: Commodore includes some games from the C64 era to be able to enjoy them on this mobile. Limited but functional. The mobile’s specifications sheet is modest: it has a MediaTek Helio G81 SoC, 4 GB of RAM, 64 GB capacity (with microSD slot), 3.25″ internal IPS screen (480×640), 1.77″ external VFD screen, as well as a “Dome-LED” notification system. Connectivity is resolved with LTE, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth support, and we have a 48 MP rear camera and an unspecified front camera that does have autofocus. The battery is 1,550 mAh and recharges via USB-C. Retro notifications. The mobile allows you to receive notifications, but instead of traditional messages in popup format, the Callback 8020 makes use of a small LED screen on the front cover that displays characters with a very retro design reminiscent of the old calculators from the 70s and 80s. Eighties sounds. Audio includes a music player for the 8-bit SID chip, which was used in the original C64. It also has, of course, an integrated DAC, an F radio and a 3.5 mm jack. There are even in-ear headphones included in the box. Shell format, interchangeable shells. The design of the mobile phone itself is most peculiar: it adopts a clamshell format, which makes the interior screen relatively small in size, and it has a physical keyboard and a small directional pad on top of that keyboard. The outer shell can be exchanged. Commodore Callback 8020, in its Founders Edition variant, at $640. Source: Commodore. lor retro is not at all cheap. The price ranges between $500 and $640 depending on the variant chosen — the most expensive is the Founders Edition, with gold tints. It is a high price if one only looks at the specifications and design, but that is not what you pay with this mobile. What you pay is more for the nod to nostalgia and for the system that tries to prevent us from being glued to the screen. We are faced with a different concept, which may be shocking and strange, but which tries to solve a problem and also do so with an original approach. I don’t know if the original Commodore would have made a mobile like that, but one thing is certain: the launch is, to say the least, original, loud and brave. That’s something. In Xataka | While the Spectrum and Commodore 64 were triumphing around the world, there was a terrible problem in Japan: kanji

We believed that açaí was pure Instagram posturing. Science has just confirmed that it is a nutritional beast

by

In the era of well-being, we have become accustomed to seeing how our social networks are flooded with exotic and aesthetic foods. We have shied away from a sedentary lifestyle and have embraced trends that a few years ago seemed impossible to find. It happened with matcha tea, with coconut milk and, in recent years, the undisputed king of healthy “posturing” has been açaí, omnipresent in bowls colorful ones promoted by nutrition gurus. However, what seemed to be simply another fad imported from the United States has just made the definitive leap to mass consumption in Spain. Mercadona has joined this fever by launching an açaí sorbet with guarana flavor for this summer. The democratization of this product raises an inevitable question: behind this commercial and aesthetic maelstrom, are there real benefits or is it just smoke? The medical evidence is resounding: we are facing a superfood that literally crushes historical competitors such as blueberries. The true story of açaí. To understand the phenomenon, we must first clarify what exactly we are eating. The açaí (Euterpe oleracea) It’s not technically a berry.but a drupe (a fruit with a large central stone that occupies up to 80% of its volume). It grows high on palm trees in the rainforests of the central and South American Amazon, where it has been a staple food for indigenous communities for centuries. Why don’t we see it fresh in our neighborhood fruit shop? The answer is logistics. The fresh açaí It has a very short useful life and it spoils in just 24 hours after harvesting. Therefore, the only way to export it is through frozen pulp or freeze-dried powder. A true antioxidant bomb. The aesthetics of Instagram initially overshadowed what the medical community has long studied in amazement. “It is fashionable, yes, but it also has more antioxidants than blueberries,” says Dr. Sara Marín Berbell forcefully. in Women’s Health. The key to its power lies in anthocyanins, the plant pigment that gives it its characteristic dark purple color and that protects our cells against oxidative damage responsible for premature aging. Its nutritional profile is a rarity in the world of fruit. As health portals such as Healthlineaçaí is unusually high in healthy fats and very low in sugar (it barely contains about 2 grams per 100 naturally). Additionally, registered dietitian Julia Zumpano explains in Cleveland Clinic that açaí is rich in phytosterols, plant compounds that block the absorption of cholesterol into the bloodstream, protecting our cardiovascular health. Its impact goes further. It is an exceptional ally for blood sugar control; Its glycemic index is only 24, well below the 72 for watermelon or the 75 for white bread. And if that were not enough, its polyphenols act as a powerful prebiotic. By reaching the colon almost intact, they serve as a banquet for our microbiota, strengthening the intestinal barrier. On a neurological level, the antioxidants in açaí help protect brain cells from oxidative stress that leads to cognitive decline. The supermarket trap. With such an impeccable medical resume, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that any product with the word “açaí” on its label is healthy. And this is where experts issue a serious warning about its arrival in supermarkets and cafes. Mercadona’s recent sorbet has set off alarms among nutritionists. Dietitian Miguel Ángel Ruiz remove your labela: “If we look at the nutritional value we see that for every 100 grams it contains 11 grams of sugar (…) Natural fruit has around 2 or 3 grams.” Although the first ingredient is açaí pulp (55%), sugar comes in third place. For his part, nutritionist Carlos Ríos add in The Mail that the product includes problematic emulsifiers, such as carboxymethyl, which is inflammatory and alters the microbiota. It spreads in cafes. Dietitian Julie Harrington warns in EatingWell that the famous açaí bowls They can quickly become high-calorie bombs if they are not prepared carefully, especially when locals use sugary bases or abuse syrups and toppings. The solution? Go to supermarkets that offer real and pure alternatives, such as the 100% frozen açaí tablets with no added sugar sold by Alcampo, allowing the consumer to prepare their own truly healthy version at home. Purple gold at the crossroads. The impact of açaí has ​​transcended our diets to become a matter of State and ecological survival. The figures it moves (it is estimated that it generates more than a billion dollars annually worldwide) have attracted the attention of large corporations. According to reports France 24earlier this year Brazil declared açaí its “national fruit” in a desperate attempt to shield itself from international biopiracy. The danger is real since in 2003, a Japanese company registered the “açaí” trademark, and it took years of litigation to regain control of the name. But the secret of açaí does not lie only in the palm tree, but in those who take care of it. Research from the scientific journal Springer has revealed that the true heroines Behind this superfood are the native stingless bees (meliponines) of the Amazon. These insects are responsible for 60% of fruit pollination. This ecosystem has created a fascinating bioeconomy. How it documents Mongabay, Amazonian families are abandoning livestock farming and deforestation to dedicate themselves to the sustainable cultivation of açaí and the breeding of these bees. The propolis generated by these insects, enhanced by the pollen of the açaí palm tree, has been shown in clinical trials to have healing and anti-inflammatory properties comparable to commercial medications, opening a new economic avenue through natural cosmetics that protects, instead of destroying, the jungle. A superfood, not a miracle. In short, science has confirmed that açaí is, deservedly, a “purple gold.” Its cardiovascular, neurological and antioxidant benefits are not a mirage created by social networks. However, rigor requires caution. The expert Julia Zumpano He is categorical when it comes to rejecting the famous “detox diets” based exclusively on taking açaí supplements, warning that they lack scientific evidence and can be dangerous. As Dr. Marín … Read more

why Instagram and TikTok are designed to make you hate billionaires’ vacations

by

With the imminent arrival of summer, the screens of our mobile phones prepare for the ritual of each year: an incessant avalanche of photographs of celebrities and billionaires exhibiting their opulence. In the coming weeks we will consume thousands of images of celebrities sunbathing on the decks of their megayachts, we will discuss the details of exclusive getaways – surely the honeymoon of Dua Lipa and Callum Turner, newlyweds – and we will witness a level of luxury that is simply unattainable. What changes this season is what those images no longer generate: indifference. This visual hyper-exposition of wealth is no longer harmless gossip magazine entertainment. As an opinion column by The Confidentialincessantly seeing what the rich brag about on the Internet has become “the greatest engine of resentment that humanity has known.” And behind this dazzling showcase, the data reveal an unprecedented social fracture. While ordinary citizens juggle paying the rent or the shopping basket, the wealth of billionaires reached an all-time high of $18.3 trillion in 2025, as revealed by the latest global report Oxfam Intermón. Anatomy of resentment: what happens when you look at that photo To understand why a photograph of a billionaire drinking champagne on a yacht today generates so much hostility—and not just passing envy—you have to turn to psychology. A study published in the scientific journal Cyberpsychology empirically demonstrates that continuous visual exposure to symbols of wealth on social networks pushes users to make constant and involuntary comparisons. The mechanism is precise: Every image of a private jet or superyacht deck triggers what researchers call “relative deprivation.” It’s not that we feel like we’re missing something in the abstract; It is that, by seeing what others exhibit, we feel much more intensely and concretely what we lack. The screen turns statistical inequality into a personal wound. But this is not new. The rich have always existed, and so has envy. The relevant question is another: what has changed in the last decade for resentment to have increased in such a specific and global way? The answer lies not in inequality itself—which has been growing for decades—but in the dose of exposure, which is unprecedented in human history. For centuries, human beings compared themselves to those close to them: the neighbor, the co-worker, the cousin who did better. It was a limited and tolerable horizon of comparison. Social networks destroyed that limit definitively. Today the telephone confronts you with 0.001% of the world’s wealth dozens of times a day, involuntarily, while you have breakfast, on the bus or before going to sleep. Psychologists call this “continuous upward social comparison”: You no longer compare yourself with your real environment, but with the global elite, on a loop and without rest. Relative deprivation is not new. What is historically unprecedented is the frequency with which they rub it in your face. This accumulated frustration, image by image and day by day, is reconfiguring our own identity. In a world where the cost of living suffocates the middle classes, essayist Mark Edmundson argues in the pages of The New York Timesyes that hate has acquired a new social function: it has become a quick way to define who we are. “I hate, therefore I am.” Loathing the elite gives many people purpose in the midst of modern precariousness. What is disturbing is not the phrase, but that it is sociologically accurate. The algorithm, perfect accomplice Social media is not a neutral mirror of reality: it is a machine designed to amplify exactly this type of content. As explained Psychology Today, Posts that use moral or emotional language act as a powerful magnet for hate speech and viralization. The more outrageous an image, the more it is shared; The more it is shared, the more the algorithm recommends it. The result is increasingly aggressive ideological bubbles, fed in a loop. This mechanism is not accidental. The algorithms of platforms like TikTok and Instagram are designed to maximize screen time prioritizing content that generates strong emotional reactions, regardless of whether those reactions are positive or negative. A yacht in Ibiza published by an heir generates more interaction than any neutral content: first impact, then anger, then debate, then virality. The system does not create resentment, but it turns it into fuel and returns it amplified. Interestingly, this dynamic is causing the truly rich to start hiding. The consulting firm Bain & Company, cited by financial magazine Fortunewarns of the rise of the “shame of luxury” (luxury shame): faced with the increase in social tension and collective anger, many elites are choosing to hide their logos and status symbols for fear of public rejection. The yacht is still there; What changes is that it is no longer published. Capitalizing on fury The most immediate danger of this resentment is not the hate itself, but where it is directed. The anger generated by seeing a private jet on Instagram could be channeled into demands for tax justice. Too often, however, it ends up being hijacked by political actors who reorient it towards other objectives. A report from Washington Post documents how far-right influencers deliberately exploit the economic hopelessness of young people: they take the rage of a suffocated generation and divert it not towards billionaires, but towards scapegoats. Class resentment turns into identity conflict. While the working classes fight among themselves, the ultra-rich consolidate their power. According to the report of Oxfama billionaire is today 4,000 times more likely to hold political office than an ordinary citizen. Yachts are not just a symbol of wealth. They are also a declaration of impunity. Perhaps the most accurate diagnosis comes from someone who knows the upper echelons well and is not afraid to say so. In an interview with Guardianacclaimed novelist Yann Martel—author of Life of Pi and self-confessed millionaire—confessed his position with unusual crudeness: “I hate the rich people of this world, of which I am a part (…). Our world is being destroyed by greed and wealth.” The paradox is … Read more

End-to-end encryption is a great idea and that’s why it’s almost impossible to understand why Instagram removes it. Almost

by

In an era where many users may be concerned about their privacy and looking to ensure their conversations are as secure as possible, Meta has made a curious move. On May 8, as planned, instagram removed end-to-end encryption in direct messages. The big question now is no longer how to communicate safely but something deeper: what interest Meta may have in those conversations. And AI leads the first suspicions. In short. Although it may seem contradictory, Meta is a company that has shown some concern about allowing the user to have secure private conversations. WhatsApp has been using end-to-end encryption for years and, although It took longer to arrive than desiredFaceBook and Instagram also implemented it for direct messages years ago. Simply put, end-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a technology that ensures that only the sender and receiver can read chats. There are applications that implemented it by default (WhatsApp), but on Instagram it wasn’t like that. It is the user who had to activate it and, if done, automatically and transparently for the user, the device blocks the message using a unique key that prevents anyone other than the recipient from accessing the conversation. It’s over. Download your messages. As we say, it has been on their support blog where Meta has confirmed that end-to-end encrypted messages are no longer available on Instagram. Since last May 8, in fact, and if you have a chat that was protected in this way, a message will appear with instructions to download the messages and keep them safe in case you want to do so. Pressure. The end of this security feature has not been accompanied by a reason why Meta abandons this feature, but it is clear that the company has not done it simply for the sake of it. A few weeks ago, when the company’s plans were announced, a Meta spokesperson told Guardian that “very few people were choosing to send end-to-end encrypted messages.” That was the main reason they cited for stopping service, but you don’t have to scratch the surface too hard to find shadier reasons. For example, different police agencies (Interpol, the United Kingdom National Crime Agency or the FBI) ​​have been pressuring FaceBook to grant them access to encrypted messages. Because of course, this technology is very useful for all of us who value privacy, but it also gives wings to those who want to use it for much darker purposes. There are organizations that have criticized the implementation in apps like Instagram because they point out that, although it is useful, if the company does not implement adequate security measures, it can intensify acts of child sexual exploitationterrorism or giving rise to violent extremism. In fact, the UK government has been searching that Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp or iMessage open or end with that end-to-end encryption. And Apple has had a media battle against the FBI for that very reason. The suspicion. But of course, for a company that has been promoting the discourse since 2019 that encryption in its applications was the way to follow to protect users, this movement seems strange and there are already those who point to more practical reasons for Meta than, simply, to please governments. Those reasons are the ability to train AI. Because if there is no encryption, there is nothing hidden. And, although there is no human reading (although it seems increasingly evident that behind the AI there are humans labeling what our video devices and voice see and hear), having access to the conversations of millions of users allows the algorithms to continue training with the aim of offer advertising more personalized (something that Meta has become very aggressive about in recent months) or chatbots that can continue drinking the Internet. It’s not such a crazy theory.. WhatsApp. “Anyone who wants to keep messaging with end-to-end encryption can go to WhatsApp,” is Meta’s own recommendation and something they said both in statements to The Guardian and on their support page. Because for their communication app they do continue to aggressively push that argument of “express yourself freely with end-to-end encryption”, “show yourself as you are, speak freely” and “no one else has access, not even WhatsApp”. Seeing that the company maintains this encryption on WhatsApp, but not on an Instagram that is increasingly a bazaar, makes the opinion that they withdraw end-to-end encryption based solely on government pressure lose some weight. In any case, as Meta itself says, if you want privacy in your conversations… you will have to go to WhatsApp. Or to any other app with end-to-end encryption. In Xataka | Meta will pay $1.4 billion to Texas for violating the privacy of its users. Used facial recognition without permission

Generation Z is uploading videos of their work routines to TikTok and Instagram, and it is already a phenomenon

by

If we have learned anything from social networks, it is that everything can be contained, including boring office work. After all there are people hooked on toilet cleaning videosso it’s not that strange. Worktok. It’s how these creators, most of them very young, tag the content they publish about their work. Browsing the hashtag we found mostly humorous gags about work life, but digging a little deeper we found all kinds of videos. There are those who tell their routine, those who use it as a space to vent to complain about their bosses and even those who broadcast his dismissal live. There is a subcategory within this trend and it is the ‘Quittok’, that is, young people who tell why they want to resign from their jobs. Some they even record themselves doing it. Viral. It is not an anecdotal phenomenon, the hashtag #worktok It has already accumulated almost 300,000 publications and the total views amount to 1.8 billion. What has led so many people to share details about their work life? The label began to become popular in 2020 during the pandemic. At a time when teleworking was imposed throughout the world, many people began to share their daily lives on TikTok and that also included work. Why is it important. In statements to the BBCAccording to Sara McCorquodale, head of an influencer firm in the United Kingdom, the fact that it has been maintained over time responds to a need to create a community and seek validation online. It’s like looking for that “coffee machine moment” that for many young people does not exist either because they work remotely or because they do not have that connection with their office colleagues. A space of identity. According to McCorquodale, sharing with the world the day-to-day life of work – with its achievements and its dramas – is also a way of reaffirming one’s identity and taking control of the narrative. It is a way of saying that my work life belongs to me and I am going to narrate it as I want, not as the company dictates. It is also a symptom of a broader trend, that of a generation that prioritizes their mental health and well-being over promotions or working hard. They are the opposite of workaholics. Yes, but. Sharing certain company details or recording videos during working hours can cause problems. It’s what It happened to a paint store worker who started recording videos of how he mixed different colors of paint. The company saw the videos and fired him for recording during work hours and using store materials. Primark also fired an employee in the United Kingdom for having recorded TikToks. It doesn’t seem like ‘worktok’ is going to disappear, so both companies and employees will have to adapt and navigate without crossing boundaries. In Xataka | A generation totally disconnected from their work: 80% of “genzers” want to change jobs Image | Vitaly Gariev in Unsplash

Instagram wants you to be able to gossip about your ex’s stories without getting caught. Paying, of course

by

Instagram stories they turn ten years old soon and the company is preparing a novelty that could completely change this product. The format, popularized by Snapchat, has some basic “rules”, such as that they disappear after 24 hours and that we can know who has seen our story. Instagram suggests that we can bypass these and other rules if we pay a subscription. Instagram Plus. This is what this new subscription model will be called, as they say in TechCrunch. Meta is testing a paid subscription for Instagram that will allow users to enjoy a series of benefits over normal features. Currently, Instagram has the Meta Verified subscription option (to have the blue tick) aimed at creators, but this new subscription is aimed at normal users who want to have certain benefits. Meta’s goal with this move is to diversify Instagram’s sources of income, which mainly come from advertising. Functions for the stalking. In an email to TechCrunch, Meta has detailed what extra features will come with the subscription. It is striking that the majority of functions fuel, let’s say, unhealthy uses of the platform, just when Meta has been found guilty of having designed its products to generate addiction. The functions of Instagram Plus are as follows: View stories anonymously, without the person who posted them knowing. Know which people have viewed your story more than once. Search within the list of viewers, to find out if a specific person has seen your story without having to search the list Extend the length of stories for an additional 24 hours. Feature a story so it appears at the top of your followers’ stories carousel. Send animated “superlikes” to other stories. Create audience lists beyond “best friends.” Why it is important. Instagram openly recognizing that gossip and obsession with the metrics of your stories are behaviors widespread enough to monetize. But there is something that is also very important: being able to highlight stories so that they are seen more is a change in the rules of the game. These types of functions end up creating a distinction between users that affects not only the functionalities to which they have access, but also the visibility of their content. Why now. This is the next question to ask ourselves. Instagram is, along with Facebook, the social network that generates the most incomeso it’s not that you have a liquidity problem. However, right now Meta’s actions are not going through their best momentlargely due to the mistrust generated by the astronomical spending on infrastructure for AI. With 3 billion active usersInstagram Plus has the potential to boost revenue even more to face what is coming. TObackground. Instagram is following in the footsteps of other social networks that have opted for this type of subscriptions. We saw the case of the most aggressive subscription model with Twitter (now X), which after the acquisition by Elon Musk completely changed the meaning of the blue tick. Today, if you don’t pay you can’t send messages to any user, edit posts, create longer posts or access Grok. At the other extreme we have Snapchat+, which is a subscription that adds benefits without deteriorating the free experience. Among its features are being able to access experimental features first, more storage, and access to premium lenses. They launched it in 2022 and they have done quite well: Today it has 25 million subscribers and has generated 1 billion in revenue. Availability and price. At the moment, Instagram Plus is going to be tested in a limited number of countries. Meta hasn’t said which ones, but we know it has already appeared in Japan, the Philippines and Mexico. Regarding prices, according to some users have postedin Mexico it is 39 pesos per month, which at the current exchange rate is 1.88 euros. It is not clear in which other countries they will test it or when they plan to launch it globally. Image | Sanket Mishra, Pexels

Millions invested in AI graphical improvements so people say it looks like an Instagram beauty filter

by

Nvidia presented DLSS 5 at GTC 2026 as the greatest graphical advance that video games have experienced since the ray tracing. The reaction has been almost unanimous: the gaming community and industry professionals themselves have described it as a “slop AI filter.” The rejection has been so frontal and almost unanimous that Nvidia has had to come out to clarify how the technology works and what control developers really have over these visual improvements. What is DLSS 5. DLSS technology was born in 2019 as an intelligent upscaling system: the GPU renders at lower resolution and the AI ​​reconstructs each frame up to 4K with minimal quality penalty. With each iteration (DLSS 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5) the goal remained the same, but DLSS 5 breaks that logic. According to Nvidia’s own announcementwe are looking at a real-time neural rendering model that analyzes the color and motion vectors of each frame and generates lighting and photorealistic-looking materials on them. The system recognizes the semantics of the scene (skin, hair, fabrics, metals) and applies its own interpretation of how those elements should look under real physical lighting. Jensen Huang defined it with a phrase that well summarizes the ambition of this new iteration: “Twenty-five years after Nvidia invented the shader programmable, we are reinventing computer graphics.” Digital Foundrywhich had access to the technology before the announcement (and which has been heavily criticized for its glowing coverage), called it “the most amazing I’ve seen in my time at Digital Foundry” and pointed to genuinely notable improvements in environments from ‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ or ‘Oblivion Remastered’. The faces, Juan, the faces. The problem is that the official demo video included sequences from ‘Resident Evil Requiem’, ‘Starfield’, ‘Hogwarts Legacy’ and ‘EA Sports FC’, and in all of them the system visibly altered the characters’ faces. The protagonist of ‘Requiem’, Grace Ashcroft, has been the most widespread example: more pronounced cheekbones, fuller lips and uniform skin tone. According to Kotakuthe effect seems to apply a TikTok beauty filter on characters with an artistic intention other than physical attractiveness, as is the case with Ashcroft. Another example is that of the ‘Starfield’ characters, which are not very detailed in themselves, and which gain facial resolution but lose all aesthetic coherence with the original design. In ‘Hogwarts Legacy‘, an old woman with gently modeled wrinkles begins to show off a deeply cracked face completely alien to what was seen in the game. Therefore, the dreaded term ‘AI slop‘ appeared on social networks in a matter of minutes. He Nvidia GeForce on X announcement post was buried by negative replies, which accumulated favs and RTs in much greater quantity than the original post. Also the comments of the Digital Foundry video They were almost unanimously negative. The answer. Given the volume of criticism, Nvidia published a statement on YouTube clarifying how the system works. According to the companydevelopers have complete artistic control over DLSS 5: they can adjust the intensity of the effect, the color grading and mask specific areas where they do not want the AI ​​to act (the company calls it “controllability”). The company also clarified that the technology is not a filter applied on top of the image, but rather takes the color and motion vectors of the game to generate its output, “anchored to the source 3D content.” Bethesda, one of the most active studios in the initial support (Todd Howard had appeared in the presentation video praising the results in ‘Starfield’) posted hours later a more nuanced response on the studio’s official account. There they stated that “our art teams will adjust the lighting and final effect to look the way we consider best for each game. Everything will be under the control of our artists and will be completely optional for players.” Two ways of looking at it. The disparity in reactions reflects two legitimate ways of evaluating the same technology. What a good part of the community and numerous media outlets have criticized is that the modifications make the characters more realistic but different from how they were designed by the game’s art team. For example, concept artist Jeff Talbot said that: “In each shot the artistic direction was removed to add meaningless ‘details’ (…) This is a garbage AI filter.” Poor optimization. a few weeks ago There began to be talk that the proliferation of tools of upscaling and AI has reduced the pressure on studios to optimize their games: when DLSS or FSR can more than compensate for performance issues, the incentives to polish the native engine disappear. There is already someone he says it bluntly: Some studios design their games from the beginning assuming that the upscaling It will fix what’s broken, rather than using it as a further improvement on an already solid foundation. With DLSS 5 that takes a qualitative leap, and the risk is not only aesthetic: it is work-related and creative. And then there’s an additional detail: the GTC demo required two GeForce RTX 5090s running in parallel (one to render the game, another to run the DLSS 5 neural model). Nvidia claims that the final launch, scheduled for fall 2026, will work with a single card, but the magnitude of the hardware raised questions about the actual requirements. If studios start designing with DLSS 5 as a safety net, what version of the game will the player without that GPU receive? Real video games. There is something that Nvidia seems to have not taken into account: people like video games because they look like video games. Imperfection has a human touch that is part of the product’s identity. Grace Ashcroft works as a character in ‘Requiem’ precisely because her appearance reflects exhaustion and vulnerability. DLSS 5’s AI makes it something that has been described as the result of applying Nvidia’s system to a character whose aesthetic is not designed to be photorealistic. The problem isn’t just that the result is aesthetically questionable: it’s that the entire premise is wrong. Nvidia assumes that “more … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.