OT: Anybody Sign Up With Threads Yet?

[mildone_rivals]

Just read up on it. Sure Twitter is collecting information but Meta is collecting even more. There’s a reason Threads hasn’t been able to launch in Europe

Again, you say, based on what you read, that one is collecting more than the other. Have you read the two organizations privacy policies? Can you summarize the differences for us that back up your assertion?

Or is your source of information something other than those policies? In which case, where is your source getting their information?

 

[MulletCork]

Again, you say, based on what you read, that one is collecting more than the other. Have you read the two organizations privacy policies? Can you summarize the differences for us that back up your assertion?

Or is your source of information something other than those policies? In which case, where is your source getting their information?

Just go look it up man. There are many articles on the subject literally itemizing what each site collects, while comparing and contrasting.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Just go look it up man. There are many articles on the subject literally itemizing what each site collects, while comparing and contrasting.

The following article, the first result from a web search, “which social media organization collects the most user data”, says Google is the worst, with a F, Twitter is rated C- and FB is rated C. Which contradicts your assertion.

https://www.security.org/resources/data-tech-companies-have/

The article says it was updated in February of 2023, so it’s relatively recent. However, I have no particular reason to trust that the article’s information is accurate.

Then again, since you haven’t posted the source of your information, I have no reason to trust what you’re claiming is accurate either.

Companies change their privacy policies all the time, and they’re often written in ways that make it difficult to understand exactly what’s being collected and even harder to know how it’s packaged and sold. And it’s all self-reported, we don’t have a good way to verify the accuracy or veracity of what the companies publish.

I’m unconvinced that Twitter or FB/Instagram/Threads are significantly different in terms of user data privacy and protection. And it’s always changing anyway, making what was true one month unreliably accurate the next.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Seems Threads is building steam. Competition is good for consumers, right?

Although, it’s hard to say exactly who the consumer is in the case of social media. Is it the advertisers? The data aggregators? Pretty sure it’s not the users - the users are the product.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/16/i...fifth-the-weekly-active-user-base-of-twitter/

 

[RUBlackout7]

Threads is a less of a cesspool…..wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the more mainstream stuff moves over.

 

[okieKnight908]

For anyone being affected by the rate-limiting or who can’t see tweets due to not having a Twitter login, you can use nitter.net to bypass all of that.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Threads is a less of a cesspool…..wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the more mainstream stuff moves over.

Is it geared towards boomers such as yourself or a younger audience?

 

[RUBlackout7]

Is it geared towards boomers such as yourself or a younger audience?

Swing and a miss minimum wage boy

 

[RUschool]

Threads is a new income stream for Meta and any additional users would be a deduction from Twitter. Twitter is in a bunch of trouble since they aren’t even making money with the current number of users.

 

[bac2therac]

It has? How so?

I've seen no difference at all.

Not suppressing stories or speech and not pushing people im not interested following in my feeds

Sorry but its worth not having Molly Jong Fast and Mueller She Wrote on my suggested feed

 

[mildone_rivals]

Not suppressing stories or speech and not pushing people im not interested following in my feeds

Sorry but its worth not having Molly Jong Fast and Mueller She Wrote on my suggested feed

You’re clueless about how Twitter and other popular social media apps work. It’s a safe bet Twitter suppressed many thousands of tweets today. Likely more than 100,000. And I know for a fact that lots of accounts were removed since yesterday. And this happens every day.

Nothing at all has changed in my Twitter feed at all. Maybe you’re using it wrong.

 

[koleszar]

Threads seems to be dying on the vine. It's now lost 70% of it's users since its peak on July 7th. After its initial push I thought it had a shot, but it's now become New Coke.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Not suppressing stories or speech and not pushing people im not interested following in my feeds

Sorry but its worth not having Molly Jong Fast and Mueller She Wrote on my suggested feed

I think they meant to send you to Troll-y JONG fest. Probably a glitch with the early software.

 

[bac2therac]

Threads seems to be dying on the vine. It's now lost 70% of it's users since its peak on July 7th. After its initial push I thought it had a shot, but it's now become New Coke.

Anyone paying attention knew Threads was going nowhere in its current incarnation

Its as if the anti Elon wokes have trouble coping

 

[DJ Spanky]

I did not know that Threads was blocked in Europe.

Meta confirms it is blocking EU-based users from accessing Threads via VPN

The Threads app extensively tracks users, per Meta’s privacy policy and the app’s iOS listing — which discloses the app may collect a range of personal data, including highly sensitive information such as health and financial data, precise location, browsing history, contacts and search history.

This approach creates legal and regulatory challenges for Meta in the EU.

Under EU data protection law, Meta requires a valid legal basis to process such personal data legally for ad targeting — an area where the company is facing increasing uncertainty following a recent Court of Justice ruling.

That’s not all either: The bloc’s shiny new ex-ante antitrust regime, the Digital Markets Act, also places limits on how applicable gatekeeping giants can combine data for ads. And Meta has reportedly cited uncertainty over how the DMA will apply to its business’ use of data as being behind the delay to Threads launching in the EU.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Zuckerbucks and Muskmoney are only in this for profit, even if Musk's efferts seem to be hurting his money making .. Zuck might lose a little at times, but always makes the bucks
But Musk's version of fee speech is what he wants it to be and if you want to be misinformed, twitter is the place to be.
Twitter is a place you can yell fire in a crowded theater without a fire and be praised for how loud you can yell.

You have no idea what "Zuckerbucks" refers to, do you?

As for Musk's "version" of free speech.. it meshes nicely with little things like the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. And if you don't see a problem with your desire to limit free speech, you'll be lucky if you and your progeny never have to deal with your wishes becoming the law of the land.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Threads seems to be dying on the vine. It's now lost 70% of it's users since its peak on July 7th. After its initial push I thought it had a shot, but it's now become New Coke.

Yes, this is why I mentioned "Zuckerbucks".. which is the hundreds of millions and millions Zuck spent to "get out the vote" in key districts for 2020. They had Twitter and all the social media muzzling conservative speech. Then Musk buys Twitter and makes it a free speech zone and Zuck decides to launch a competitor.. I think.. for purely political reasons. I say that because Zuckerburg was not shy in buying up any industry leader he thought would make him a buck.. like Insta... so I do not think that Threads was a business decision... more PR and influence buying among politicians. Now, nothing I said means what Zuck did was wrong or evil.. but he chose to pick a side for his own reasons and it is fair to point that out.

 

[Postman_1]

Not a social media fan so not signing up. They also censor a bunch of stuff so wouldn’t do it I even if I was a fan of social media.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

What’s your source for specifically what data is being harvested?

Just about every digital device or app you’re using is harvesting user data. You think Twitter or Tesla aren’t? You think Musk is better than Zuckerberg in that regard?

If that‘s a worry for you, better ditch your TVs, cell phones, cars, smart-watches, refrigerators, etc. and move to a remote island with no internet service.

Here's an anecdote that might mean something.

I have been watching more YouTube videos recently.. mainly to learn some new software... AI, video, etc. Anyway.. I get a one-question youtube "survey" about my experience with the ads they served. I figure.. okay.. I'll answer.. this free service they have is pretty fair. I actually let some ads run also on channels I frequent.

So I answered something like "ads are okay.. not too intrusive".

Now today I am seeing many more ad interruptions... seems to me.

Hmmm... do you think they took my response and adjusted the rate at which they feed me ads? Did someone who answered that there are way too many ads get adjusted to see fewer?

Then, of course, You always hear stories about the listening devices.. the various smart speakers like Google Home and Alexa. You can sometimes catch them actively listening in the older devices with lights on them. And I once did a test where I started discussing "monkey wrenches". Sure enough, in the coming weeks google sent me ads about plumbing supplies and tools.

 

[RUschool]

Yes, this is why I mentioned "Zuckerbucks".. which is the hundreds of millions and millions Zuck spent to "get out the vote" in key districts for 2020. They had Twitter and all the social media muzzling conservative speech. Then Musk buys Twitter and makes it a free speech zone and Zuck decides to launch a competitor.. I think.. for purely political reasons. I say that because Zuckerburg was not shy in buying up any industry leader he thought would make him a buck.. like Insta... so I do not think that Threads was a business decision... more PR and influence buying among politicians. Now, nothing I said means what Zuck did was wrong or evil.. but he chose to pick a side for his own reasons and it is fair to point that out.

Musk did not start Tesla and Musk provided finance a year later after its creation. Seven years later, the three founders agreed to include Musk as one of the founder. He later took over the company and kicked out the other founders.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Musk did not start Tesla and Musk provided finance a year later after its creation. Seven years later, the three founders agreed to include Musk as one of the founder. He later took over the company and kicked out the other founders.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[RUschool]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Because you criticized Zuckerberg for buying industries, that‘s what Musk does also. Zuckerberg didn’t start Threads for political reasons.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Because you criticized Zuckerberg for buying industries, that‘s what Musk does also. Zuckerberg didn’t start Threads for political reasons.

I criticized Zuck for buying his targets or I mentioned it to explain that he did NOT buy Twitter and may not be interested in Twitter-like message system for typical business reasons like his other business purchases?

Don't you see what you are doing here? You are not even discussing "Threads" at all.. just trying to defend Zuckerburg and attack Musk. Why? You know why. There is no other reason to take what I said and turn it into an attack on Zuckerburg for buying companies so you could attack Musk.

The topic is "Threads" seems to be failing at this point and my point is that, while it would be great if Zuck's "Threads" thing did great for him and replaced Twitter as the leader for worldwide broadcasting of comments that Meta could control for its political allies... it does not seem like Zuck did this for BUSINESS reasons. So I am NOT attacking Zuck for buying companies.. I am pointing out that he did not BUY a company here and that MIGHT indicate that "Threads" was not a purely "business" decision.

So your comment about Musk buying companies has no value. it does not counter an argument I made at all and it means zero when discussing "Threads".

And before you point out that Musk's purchase of Twitter was not a business decision.. I don't care.. I agree. I am NOT criticizing anyone here.. I am attempting to say that Zuckerburg's primary reason for building "Threads" may not revolve around its ability to out-compete "Twitter". That would be a huge PLUS.. but may be beside the point. This whole thing could just be about political clout with progressive politicians for him.

So, really, I am defending Zuckerburg and saying "Threads" failing may not mean that Zuckerburg failed buy building threads. he may get enough of what he wanted out of it.. just like Musk may get enough of what he wanted out of buying Twitter.

 

[RUschool]

I criticized Zuck for buying his targets or I mentioned it to explain that he did NOT buy Twitter and may not be interested in Twitter-like message system for typical business reasons like his other business purchases?

Don't you see what you are doing here? You are not even discussing "Threads" at all.. just trying to defend Zuckerburg and attack Musk. Why? You know why. There is no other reason to take what I said and turn it into an attack on Zuckerburg for buying companies so you could attack Musk.

The topic is "Threads" seems to be failing at this point and my point is that, while it would be great if Zuck's "Threads" thing did great for him and replaced Twitter as the leader for worldwide broadcasting of comments that Meta could control for its political allies... it does not seem like Zuck did this for BUSINESS reasons. So I am NOT attacking Zuck for buying companies.. I am pointing out that he did not BUY a company here and that MIGHT indicate that "Threads" was not a purely "business" decision.

So your comment about Musk buying companies has no value. it does not counter an argument I made at all and it means zero when discussing "Threads".

And before you point out that Musk's purchase of Twitter was not a business decision.. I don't care.. I agree. I am NOT criticizing anyone here.. I am attempting to say that Zuckerburg's primary reason for building "Threads" may not revolve around its ability to out-compete "Twitter". That would be a huge PLUS.. but may be beside the point. This whole thing could just be able political clout with progressive politicians for him.

So, really, I am defending Zuckerburg and saying "Threads" failing may not mean that Zuckerburg failed buy building threads. he may get enough of what he wanted out of it.. just like Musk may get enough of what he wanted out of buying Twitter.

You come up with the crazy idea that Zuckenberg is doing it for political reasons. I think you hate Zuckenberg for political reasons. All the far right are defending Musk when he made a terrible decision for buying Twitter. Let it play out, I don’t care who wins but I don’t think Musk is going to make money with Twitter if he’s not making it with the current users.

One of his investor, ARK, just wrote off 47% of their Twitter investment.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

You come up with the crazy idea that Zuckenberg is doing it for political reasons. I think you hate Zuckenberg for political reasons. All the far right are defending Musk when he made a terrible decision for buying Twitter. Let it play out, I don’t care who wins but I don’t think Musk is going to make money with Twitter if he’s not making it with the current users.

One of his investor, ARK, just wrote off 47% of their Twitter investment.

Yeah.. that is why you responded as you did. because you decided that I hate Zuckerburg for political reasons instead of me mentioning "Zuckerbucks" as an indication that Zuck could be doing Threads for political reasons. "hate" never entered the equation. A desire to figure out why Zuck would build Threads in the first place and why its seeming early failure may not actually be a failure... that was my motivation.

As for Musk and his investors.. Twitter was losing money badly and no one figured out how to make a profit from it. That is why it was never absorbed by Facebook or any of the usual suspects and that also makes Zuck's creation of a competitor rather odd. He could have spent that same investment to develop a competitor for some app that makes money.

Musk probably thought he could save free speech online AND stop the bleeding. make it more efficient. And he probably has done that or will soon.

I wonder if Threads will ever become big enough to lose more money that Twitter.

 

[mildone_rivals]

People making this political for the weekend. Getting their hate on.

It's pretty funny that some people in this thread are taking sides between two billionaires, neither of whom know or care that they even exist. Very cultish behavior. I'll pass, thanks, but y'all have fun.

I don't know much about either person or their politics. And I don't GAF. Caring about that nonsense would be just another sad example of unhealthily obsessive political worship.

 

[MADHAT1]

Twitter has lost value, from around $44 mil that Musk bought it for down to around $15 mil now.
Threads started off with a bang, now just a beep on radar.
No one can say who will come out on top with the amount of funding backing both sites.
Though Zuck has over $100 billion , it's about half of what the Musk has and
that might be relevant when it comes to the funds each get from their owner in this fight for social media supremacy.

Another thing in this match-up of social media sites is that twitter claims misinformation posted on their site is protected by the first amendment, while threads feels freedom of speech doesn't cover spreading misinformation on their site because the courts have allows social media sites to post rules and regulations about what can be posted on those sites.
a quick google found this:
>The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities.<

So no one should claim those that want social media discussions free of having lies spread on them are infringing on a liar's first amendment rights

Twitter is allowed to let the liars run amok because they have the right to do so when it comes to self policing their site , just like Threads is allowed to censor the liars so their misinformation can not harm anyone because lying is frowned on by the mods there.

Twitter probably will always be more popular then threads, those that frequent twitter mainly don't mind being lied to because Fox cable has brainwashed them into accepting the misinformation Fox supplies them and coming back for more of the same because the truth upset them
Twitter will remain a gig force in the social media would because it allows the lies many feel more comfortable seeing put in front of them than looking at the truth being posted.

Threads is for those that hope for honest discussions and want the site to keep it honest.
There are far less that go on social media sites that want truth being pushed on social media so that's why Threads will have far less users than twitter, but it will survive and thrive in an atmosphere that stresses honesty .
It just won't be as popular as Zuck thought it would be when he started planning the launch

 

[tom1944]

You have no idea what "Zuckerbucks" refers to, do you?

As for Musk's "version" of free speech.. it meshes nicely with little things like the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. And if you don't see a problem with your desire to limit free speech, you'll be lucky if you and your progeny never have to deal with your wishes becoming the law of the land.

Neither threads or twitter have anything to do with the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights. They are private companies and are free to censor whatever they want. And both of them have censored based on what they don’t like.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Here's an anecdote that might mean something.

I have been watching more YouTube videos recently.. mainly to learn some new software... AI, video, etc. Anyway.. I get a one-question youtube "survey" about my experience with the ads they served. I figure.. okay.. I'll answer.. this free service they have is pretty fair. I actually let some ads run also on channels I frequent.

So I answered something like "ads are okay.. not too intrusive".

Now today I am seeing many more ad interruptions... seems to me.

Hmmm... do you think they took my response and adjusted the rate at which they feed me ads? Did someone who answered that there are way too many ads get adjusted to see fewer?

Then, of course, You always hear stories about the listening devices.. the various smart speakers like Google Home and Alexa. You can sometimes catch them actively listening in the older devices with lights on them. And I once did a test where I started discussing "monkey wrenches". Sure enough, in the coming weeks google sent me ads about plumbing supplies and tools.

It's troubling just how much highly detailed information is available online these days. It goes WAY beyond simple stuff like contact information, bank accounts, or SSNs. Think current location information, historical location information, accurate psychological profile data, etc. It's very creepy and troubling.

In this age of mass-training of generative AI, we're going to be seeing some nasty outcomes as a result of all that information being packaged and sold to the unscrupulous. It ain't the social media companies people need to worry about so much as various global organized crime organizations. And of course, one of the biggest concerns is intelligence agencies in certain unfriendly nations.

Gonna be an interesting next few years, I'm afraid.

 

[MADHAT1]

Neither threads or twitter have anything to do with the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights. They are private companies and are free to censor whatever they want. And both of them have censored based on what they don’t like.

some seem not to get that and use the first admendment to cover what they want it to cover , not caring or wanting to know what restrictions are placed on it.

 

[bac2therac]

Twitter has lost value, from around $44 mil that Musk bought it for down to around $15 mil now.
Threads started off with a bang, now just a beep on radar.
No one can say who will come out on top with the amount of funding backing both sites.
Though Zuck has over $100 billion , it's about half of what the Musk has and
that might be relevant when it comes to the funds each get from their owner in this fight for social media supremacy.

Another thing in this match-up of social media sites is that twitter claims misinformation posted on their site is protected by the first amendment, while threads feels freedom of speech doesn't cover spreading misinformation on their site because the courts have allows social media sites to post rules and regulations about what can be posted on those sites.
a quick google found this:
>The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities.<

So no one should claim those that want social media discussions free of having lies spread on them are infringing on a liar's first amendment rights

Twitter is allowed to let the liars run amok because they have the right to do so when it comes to self policing their site , just like Threads is allowed to censor the liars so their misinformation can not harm anyone because lying is frowned on by the mods there.

Twitter probably will always be more popular then threads, those that frequent twitter mainly don't mind being lied to because Fox cable has brainwashed them into accepting the misinformation Fox supplies them and coming back for more of the same because the truth upset them
Twitter will remain a gig force in the social media would because it allows the lies many feel more comfortable seeing put in front of them than looking at the truth being posted.

Threads is for those that hope for honest discussions and want the site to keep it honest.
There are far less that go on social media sites that want truth being pushed on social media so that's why Threads will have far less users than twitter, but it will survive and thrive in an atmosphere that stresses honesty .
It just won't be as popular as Zuck thought it would be when he started planning the launch

If the government is getting involved yes its a problem

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

It's troubling just how much highly detailed information is available online these days. It goes WAY beyond simple stuff like contact information, bank accounts, or SSNs. Think current location information, historical location information, accurate psychological profile data, etc. It's very creepy and troubling.

In this age of mass-training of generative AI, we're going to be seeing some nasty outcomes as a result of all that information being packaged and sold to the unscrupulous. It ain't the social media companies people need to worry about so much as various global organized crime organizations. And of course, one of the biggest concerns is intelligence agencies in certain unfriendly nations.

Gonna be an interesting next few years, I'm afraid.

There is a GREAT youtuber named Matt Wolfe. Every Friday he does a roundup of AI news that is fascinating. Here's today's. In it, one topic shows an AI to help write email called Superhuman.

To your point, the very idea that he trained it with his email... um.. wow. may be time to have many different email accounts for different purposes if you want an Ai to help with email. I don't think you want it reading about family issues or your finances.. not unless it runs completely locally and cannot use the internet.
I have installed a graphics one of those.. Stable Diffusion.. just to see what it could do. It runs locally... but, I think, it also can access the web because you can give it links to images for it to reference.

And just like there is a lot of turmoil over free speech and social media.. there will be HUGE battles over whether various AIs are trained fairly or have propaganda built-in (hint: the propaganda is already baked in because what it got trained on has it built-in).

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Neither threads or twitter have anything to do with the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights. They are private companies and are free to censor whatever they want. And both of them have censored based on what they don’t like.

But Musk reversed censoring actions in support of Free Speech. He spent $44B to do that for a company Madhat now says is worth $15B (yeah,. twice he said M for $15M.. that was strange.. once is a flub.. but twice?).

I think Musk should have been able to back out once it was revealed how the numbers were knowingly fudged.. or at least got a more appropriate price. I suppose he feared what the courts would do in that Cali district.

 

[MADHAT1]

If the government is getting involved yes its a problem

agree
Look at DeSantis going after Disney because that corporation changed it's stance from being neutral to doing what the majority of its employees wanted.
Once the will of the people ruled the day, the government of Florida decided those people's wishes didn't count and the GOP controlled Florida political agenda was the only thing that counts and they made laws that took away some of the rights the Disney Corporation had.
Now that that state of Florida government put Mickey in its place it's going after Bud because it didn't like the way it advertised and lost cusyomers over trying to includ people not considered the type conservatives feel should exist.
It's not the customers lost, but who was being promoted to be a light rep that has Florida wanting to punish Bud.
So I'm glad to see we can agree on something .

I just hope someday you'll feel spreading lies is wrong and social media sites have the right to self police themselves or be able to let misinformation run amok.
Both twitter & threads should be held accountable if what's allowed to be posted on them causes harm.

 

[tom1944]

But Musk reversed censoring actions in support of Free Speech. He spent $44B to do that for a company Madhat now says is worth $15B (yeah,. twice he said M for $15M.. that was strange.. once is a flub.. but twice?).

I think Musk should have been able to back out once it was revealed how the numbers were knowingly fudged.. or at least got a more appropriate price. I suppose he feared what the courts would do in that Cali district.

He has censored things he does not like

 

[DJ Spanky]

Then, of course, You always hear stories about the listening devices.. the various smart speakers like Google Home and Alexa. You can sometimes catch them actively listening in the older devices with lights on them. And I once did a test where I started discussing "monkey wrenches". Sure enough, in the coming weeks google sent me ads about plumbing supplies and tools.

A friend and I tested that out a few years back: it was amazing how ads were suddenly tuned to specific things we had purposely mentioned.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Twitter has lost value, from around $44 mil that Musk bought it for down to around $15 mil now.
Threads started off with a bang, now just a beep on radar.
No one can say who will come out on top with the amount of funding backing both sites.

Dude, don't you know that Truth Social is the one that's gonna come out on top!!!

 

[DJ Spanky]

It's troubling just how much highly detailed information is available online these days. It goes WAY beyond simple stuff like contact information, bank accounts, or SSNs. Think current location information, historical location information, accurate psychological profile data, etc. It's very creepy and troubling.

Back in the very early 2000's I interviewed with a company in Bergen County that was using cookies to capture and track data. And what they could do back then was truly scary. Once the social media platforms started popping up, I knew there was no way in hell I'd sign up for any of them because they'd have their tentacles in everything I do online.

 

[koleszar]

It's troubling just how much highly detailed information is available online these days. It goes WAY beyond simple stuff like contact information, bank accounts, or SSNs. Think current location information, historical location information, accurate psychological profile data, etc. It's very creepy and troubling.

In this age of mass-training of generative AI, we're going to be seeing some nasty outcomes as a result of all that information being packaged and sold to the unscrupulous. It ain't the social media companies people need to worry about so much as various global organized crime organizations. And of course, one of the biggest concerns is intelligence agencies in certain unfriendly nations.

Gonna be an interesting next few years, I'm afraid.

We're all fvcking doomed. Those little robot dogs are going to kill us all once they get AI.

 

[mildone_rivals]

We're all fvcking doomed. Those little robot dogs are going to kill us all once they get AI.

But I thought dogs are man's best friend?

I don't think we're doomed, and don't think we'll have a Terminator scenario where machines will kill us. But we're still in for some short-term pain for sure, due to the ease with which we're socially engineered into acting against our own best interests.

Ultimately, I'm pretty sure that AI itself (generative, predictive, whatever), in the hands of bad actors, will become so obviously manipulative of us that it will raise people's awareness about it to the point where we organically develop and apply stronger powers of skepticism.

I could see historians of the future looking back at the next 25-50 years as the age of reawakened critical reason. Or the age of skeptical thought.

When that happens, humans will be able to live safely with AI. Until it happens, things will get worse.