Meta is going after creators who rip off other users' content as part of a broader effort to fix Facebook's feed. In its latest update, the company laid out new steps it's taking to penalize accounts that lift work from others.

In a blog post for creators, Meta says that accounts that "repeatedly" and "improperly" reuse other accounts' text posts, photos or videos will have their pages demonetized "for a period of time." Meta willa also throttle all of their posts, not just the ones with the offending content. The company notes that the change is meant to target "repeated reposting of content from other creators without permission or meaningful enhancements" and not content like reaction videos.

Meta has previously taken similar steps to reward original content on Instagram, where the company has actively replaced reposted Reels with the original clip. The company now says it's looking into a similar move on Facebook by adding a link to the original video when it detects a duplicate.

Meta

The latest crackdown comes as Meta says it's trying to reduce the amount of spammy and other undesirable posts in Facebook's feed. Earlier this year, the company said it would demonetize creators who share posts with spammy captions and go after creators that manipulate engagement on the platform. In its newest update, Meta shared that since the start of the year it penalized more than 500,000 accounts that engaged in such tactics, "applying measures ranging from demoting their comments and reducing the distribution of their content to preventing these accounts from monetizing." The company has also removed more than 10 million profiles it says impersonated "large content producers."

Additionally, Meta is rolling out new in-app insights it says can help realtors understand issues affecting their reach or monetization status. The new dashboard will highlight potential problems, like unoriginal content or spammy captions, as well as issues affecting monetization.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-says-its-cracking-down-on-facebook-creators-who-steal-content-203713569.html?src=rss

©

© Meta

Two years in, Threads is starting to look more and more like the most viable challenger to X. It passed 350 million monthly users earlier this year and Mark Zuckerberg has predicted it could be Meta's next billion-user app.

But Threads still isn't sending much traffic to other websites, which could make the platform less appealing for creators, publishers and others whose businesses depend on non-Meta owned websites. According to Similarweb, a marketing intelligence firm, outbound referral traffic from Threads climbed to 28.4 million visits in June. That's a notable jump from 15.1 million visits a year ago, but still relatively tiny considering Threads is currently averaging more than 115 million users a day on its app, according to Similarweb.

Regular Threads users have long suspected that Meta deprioritizes posts with links. For most of the last two years of Threads' existence the common wisdom was that users shouldn't share links, or should only share them as replies to a primary post. Instagram chief Adam Mosseri, who also oversees Threads, hasn't exactly encouraged linking either. He said last year that Threads doesn't intentionally downrank links but that "we don’t place much value on" them because "people don’t like and comment on links much."

Meta's reluctance wasn't just about users' preferences, though. The company was also concerned about how spammers and other bad actors might abuse links on the text-based platform. More recently though, Meta has changed course, and has been taking steps to surface more "good" links in recommended posts.

"We’ve been working on making sure links are ranked properly," Mosseri said in June. "Links have been working much better for more than a month now." The company has also bolstered links on the platform by allowing users to add more links to their Threads profiles and providing link-specific analytics to its "insights" feature. "We want Threads to be a place that helps you grow your reach – even outside of Threads," Meta said in a May update.

But despite these changes, Threads is still sending very little traffic to websites. Data shared by Similarweb shows that during May and June of last year — when Threads had more than 150 million monthly users — it sent just 24.8 million referrals to outside websites. During May and June of this year, that number more than doubled, rising to 51.8 million.

Those numbers still suggest, though, that the majority of Threads' users are rarely, if ever, clicking on links they see on Threads. Lia Haberman, a social media marketing consultant and author of the ICYMI newsletter, said she's not surprised. "People just got trained not to look for them, not to include them, not to think about them," she tells Engadget. "You can't just flip a switch and all of a sudden expect people to embrace links."

Publishers, a group that likely posts more links on Threads than anyone else, don't seem to be seeing significant traffic from Threads either. Data provided by Chartbeat, a company that provides analytics data to publishers, shows that publisher page views from Threads have nearly doubled since the start of the year, rising from 8.8 million in January to 15.1 million in June.

Interestingly, according to both Similarweb and Chartbeat's data for 2025, referrals from Threads peaked in March. That month, Threads sent 28.8 million outbound referrals to websites, according to Similarweb, while Chartbeat publishers saw 25 million page views from the platform.

But while the latest stats show that traffic from Threads has grown significantly over the last year, it still represents a tiny proportion of the publishers' traffic overall. According to Chartbeat, over the last year and a half Threads has consistently accounted for less than one tenth of a percent of sites' referral traffic. By comparison, Facebook referrals have hovered around 2 - 3 percent over the same period, while Google Discover has accounted for about 13 - 14 percent of referrals. Even among other "small" sources of referrals, like chatGPT, Reddit and Perplexity, Threads is only ahead of Perplexity in terms of the number of referrals it sends.

Threads referrals even pale in comparison to Twitter's, which was never known as a major traffic driver even before Elon Musk's takeover of the company. In January of 2018, Twitter accounted for 3 percent of publishers' page views, according to Chartbeat data reported by the Press Gazette. By April of 2023, after Musk's takeover but before he rebranded the site to X, that number had fallen to 1.2 percent.

Chartbeat's data isn't a complete picture — stats provided to Engadget were based on an analysis of 3,000 sites that have opted in to anonymized data sharing — but the slight increase in referral traffic roughly lines up with another major change Meta made this year. In January, following Mark Zuckerberg's move to end fact checking and walk back content moderation rules, Threads also ended its moratorium on recommending political content to all users.

Following this change, some publishers of political news, including Newsweek, Politico and Forbes saw a spike in referrals from Threads, Digiday reported. But those gains don't seem to be universal, and it's not clear why some publishers may be benefitting more than others. "Threads is trailing significantly in traffic, subscription conversions, and overall conversion rate," compared with Bluesky and X, the Boston Globe's VP of Platforms Mark Karolian recently shared on Threads.

While Threads' growth so far hasn't been hampered by its inability to drive users off-platform, it could become an increasingly important issue for Meta if it really wants to bring more creators onto the platform. The company is also getting ready to flip the switch on ads on the platform. A user base that ignores links could complicate Meta's pitch to advertisers, who are already taking a cautious approach to Threads. Meta declined to comment. 

Haberman says that Threads' ambivalence toward links might be symptomatic of a larger identity crisis the platform is still facing. It has a large user base, but it's not always clear who Threads is really for. It isn't known as a destination to follow breaking news, like Twitter once was, or as a place with highly-engaged subcultures, she notes. "Threads needs to have a purpose," she says. "And right now, it seems very much like a suggestion box at work where people are just filing complaints and trauma dumping."

Whether smaller platforms like Threads can reliably drive traffic to websites is an increasingly urgent question. At a time when online search feels like it's getting worse, AI is rapidly replacing many searches and cannibalizing websites' search traffic. Publishers, as The Wall Street Journal recently reported, are being hit especially hard by these shifts.

Threads is extremely unlikely to fill those gaps on its own, even if referral traffic vastly improves. And publishers in particular have plenty of reasons not to become too reliant on a Meta-owned platform. At the same time, there's clearly an opportunity for Threads to play a bigger role in a post-search world. That would not only benefit the creators, publishers and small business owners Meta has long courted, it could help Threads establish an identity of its own.

Have a tip for Karissa? You can reach her by email, on X, Bluesky, Threads, or send a message to @karissabe.51 to chat confidentially on Signal.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/threads-users-still-barely-click-links-170139103.html?src=rss

©

© SOPA Images via Getty Images

More than six months after TikTok was briefly banned, we still don't know exactly what its fate in the US will be. But we do have new insight into the legal wrangling that has allowed Apple, Google and other platforms to continue to support the app.

If you remember, TikTok was only "banned" for a matter of hours shortly before President Donald Trump took office in January and delayed enforcement of the law. The app's service was promptly restored January 19, 2025, but the app didn't return to Apple and Google's app stores until February 13. Reporting at the time suggested the companies had lingering concerns about potential liability for running afoul of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Back in February, Axios and others reported that the Justice Department had given "assurances" to tech platforms that they wouldn't be penalized for violating the law. Now, we know exactly what Attorney General Pam Bondi told the companied as letters sent to Apple, Google, Amazon, Oracle and other firms have been made public. The letters were disclosed in a Freedom of Information Act Request made by Tony Tan, a software engineer and Google shareholder suing the search giant for not complying with the TikTok ban.

In a letter dated January 30, 2025, Bondi tells Apple and Google that "the President has determined that an abrupt shutdown of the TikTok platform would interfere with the execution of the President's constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States." It goes on to state that Apple and Google "may continue to provide services to TikTok … without incurring any legal liability."

A followup later dated April 5, 2025 (the day after Trump gave TikTok another 75-day reprieve), Bondi told the companies that "the Department of Justice is also irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had against" them "for the conduct proscribed in the Act during the Covered Period and Extended Covered Period, with respect to TikTok and the larger family of ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok, Inc. applications covered under the Act."

The letters can be read in full below.

---

The law has now been paused three times since Trump took office. Earlier this week, he said that details about TikTok's new ownership could be made public in "about two weeks."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/here-are-the-letters-that-let-apple-and-google-ignore-the-tiktok-ban-220630588.html?src=rss

©

© SOPA Images via Getty Images

As Meta's platforms fill up with more AI-generated content, the company still has a lot of work to do when it comes to enforcing its policies around manipulated media. The Oversight Board is once again criticizing the social media company over its handling of such posts, writing in its latest decision that its inability to enforce its rules consistently is "incoherent and unjustifiable."

If that sounds familiar, it's because this is the second time since last year the Oversight Board has used the word "incoherent" to describe Meta's approach to manipulated media. The board had previously urged Meta to update its rules after a misleadingly edited video of Joe Biden went viral on Facebook. In response, Meta said it would expand its use of labels to identify AI-generated content and that it would apply more prominent labels in "high risk" situations. These labels, like the one below, note when a post was created or edited using AI.

Screenshot (Meta)

This approach is still falling short though, the board said. "The Board is concerned that, despite the increasing prevalence of manipulated content across formats, Meta’s enforcement of its manipulated media policy is inconsistent," it said in its latest decision. "Meta’s failure to automatically apply a label to all instances of the same manipulated media is incoherent and unjustifiable."

The statement came in a decision related to a post that claimed to feature audio of two politicians in Iraqi Kurdistan. The supposed "recorded conversation" included a discussion about rigging an upcoming election and other "sinister plans" for the region. The post was reported to Meta for misinformation, but the company closed the case "without human review," the board said. Meta later labeled some instances of the audio clip but not the one originally reported.

The case, according to the board, is not an outlier. Meta apparently told the board that it can't automatically identify and apply labels to audio and video posts, only to "static images." This means multiple instances of the same audio or video clip may not get the same treatment, which the board notes could cause further confusion. The Oversight Board also criticized Meta for often relying on third-parties to identify AI-manipulated video and audio, as it did in this case.

"Given that Meta is one of the leading technology and AI companies in the world, with its resources and the wide usage of Meta’s platforms, the Board reiterates that Meta should prioritize investing in technology to identify and label manipulated video and audio at scale," the board wrote. "It is not clear to the Board why a company of this technical expertise and resources outsources identifying likely manipulated media in high-risk situations to media outlets or Trusted Partners."

In its recommendations to Meta, the board said the company should adopt a "clear process" for consistently labeling "identical or similar content" in situations when it adds a "high risk" label to a post. The board also recommended that these labels should appear in a language that matches the rest of their settings on Facebook, Instagram and Threads. 

Meta didn't respond to a request for comment. The company has 60 days to respond to the board's recommendations.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/the-oversight-board-calls-metas-uneven-ai-moderation-incoherent-and-unjustifiable-100056893.html?src=rss

©

© SOPA Images via Getty Images