Instagram’s Ongoing Commitment to Youth Safety: Will the New “PG-13” Guidelines Make a Difference?

For months, Instagram has faced challenges in persuading parents, advocates, and officials that it is a safe environment for children, despite increasing evidence indicating otherwise. Now, the platform is rolling out another safety feature intended to protect teens. Yet, given its track record, parents remain skeptical.

Beginning this week, all users under 18 will automatically be categorized for ages 13+ and their feeds will be restricted to content suitable for the U.S. PG-13 movie rating.

However, Instagram’s previous unfulfilled commitments make this latest content restriction feel like mere window dressing—an illusion of action without genuine effectiveness.

The company has accrued substantial profits while advocacy groups have long cautioned against exposing minors to inappropriate content and individuals. $100 billion annually is what it reports in profits. Meta’s own estimates suggest that about 100,000 children using Facebook and Instagram face online sexual harassment daily. This is concerning, especially considering that as of July 2020, internal communications revealed that the measures to prevent child grooming on the platform were, at best, “between zero and negligible.” The lawsuit in New Mexico claims that Meta’s social networks, including Instagram, have essentially become a haven for child predators. (Meta refutes these core allegations, claiming the lawsuit is ‘unfair’.)

Last year, the firm finally enacted mandatory Instagram accounts for teenagers. However, a recent study led by a whistleblower revealed that 64% of the new safety features designed for teens were ineffective.

Research indicates that 47% of young teen users on Instagram encounter unsafe content, and 37% of users aged 13 to 15 receive at least one unsafe piece of content or unwanted message weekly. This includes “approximately 1 in 7 users viewing self-harm content, unwanted sexual content, discriminatory content, or substance-related content every week.”

“These failures showcase a corporate culture at Meta that prioritizes engagement and profit over safety,” stated Andy Burrows, CEO of the UK’s Molly Rose Foundation, which advocates for stronger online safety legislation, as part of the investigative team. BBC reported. A spokesperson for Meta countered that the study “misrepresents our commitment to empowering parents and protecting youth, and mischaracterizes the functionality of our safety tools and their use by millions of parents and youth.”

Concurrently, measures introduced last year followed a significant moment for Meta’s public perception. In January 2024, the leaders of the world’s major social media firms were summoned to the U.S. Senate to discuss their security policies. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg issued an apology to parents whose children allegedly endured harm from social media.

Despite Instagram’s lengthy struggle to address these concerns, it appears to continually place children at risk, only to issue apologies afterward. On Monday, Reuters reported that it has been found in company-specific research that teens who frequently felt negative about their bodies on Instagram encountered three times more “eating disorder-related content” than their peers. Alarmingly, technology companies and social media platforms have become so entrenched in everyday life that it’s nearly impossible to engage with society without them, particularly for children.

So, what is the resolution? Primarily, we must acknowledge online spaces as extensions of the real world, rather than merely digital counterparts. Social media platforms replicate real-life violence and can cause other tangible harms, putting children at a higher risk.

It’s essential for lawmakers to require these companies to incorporate safety measures into their design processes rather than treating them as an afterthought. Equally vital is for parents to educate their children on online safety, just as they would about physical safety in public.

The technology developed by these profit-driven companies is pervasive. If we cannot rely on them to safeguard our most vulnerable users, it falls upon us to ensure our own protection.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Days After Trump’s Commitment to Underwater Mining, Tensions Mount Between Both Sides

Shortly after President Trump issued an executive order to expedite submarine mining efforts, the US government received its first permission application. This initiative is championed by notable supporters within the metal industry.

On Tuesday, CEO Gerald Baron was present in Washington for a controversial hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources. He likened the beginning of this process to a “starting gun” signaling a race to extract minerals like cobalt and nickel from nodules situated 2.5 miles deep on the ocean floor.

Debate erupted among committee members from both parties regarding the environmental implications of this mining practice. The Trump administration indicated it would contemplate permits for mining activities within US jurisdiction and international waters.

Other nations have accused the US of attempting to bypass international law, arguing that the waters designated for submarine mining should come under the governance of an independent international authority.

To date, no commercial submarine mining has been conducted.

California leader Jared Huffman, a ranking Democrat on the committee, criticized both the Metals Company and Trump for advancing undersea mining in “reckless cowboy fashion.” Democrats raised concerns over the financial viability of mining cobalt and nickel, citing major electric vehicle manufacturers’ shift towards alternative battery materials.

“The financial model of the industry is based on overly optimistic assumptions and does not reflect the realities and volatility of the global mineral market,” remarked Oregon Democrat Maxine E. Dexter.

The Metals Company attempted to reassure the committee, arguing that the potential harm to the seabed would outweigh the limited job creation and that accessing these minerals could reduce dependence on Chinese sources. They stated that a decade of extensive environmental studies supports their position.

Trump’s order follows years of delays by international authorities in establishing a regulatory framework for submarine mining. The authorities, established under United Nations auspices decades ago, are likely to miss another deadline this year for finalizing these regulations.

Baron informed the committee that it took him 14 years to draft the mining code, describing it as a “deliberate strategy” to slow undersea mining.

He further claimed that a polymetallic nodule extracted by his company is now on President Trump’s desk in the Oval Office.

According to the US Geological Survey, it is estimated that nodules within the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Eastern Pacific contain more nickel, cobalt, and manganese than all terrestrial reserves combined. This proposed mining zone spans half the size of the US between Mexico and Hawaii.

Committee Chair Paul Gosar, a Republican from Arizona, insisted that subsea mining is essential for liberating the US from China’s “supply chain control.”

China has recently placed export restrictions on several rare earth elements, raising concerns that American companies may face shortages in producing advanced electronic devices.

The House Committee also considered a study discussing the impact of submarine mining on the seafloor conducted by Thomas Peacock, a mechanical engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, partially funded by metal companies.

Dr. Peacock indicated that there may be countless undiscovered species in the Clarion Clipperton Zone, suggesting that certain areas should be off-limits for mining. However, he noted that the anticipated environmental impacts of nodule mining might not be as severe as speculated.

He specifically minimized the risk of mining causing plumes of sand and debris that could harm seabed life, comparing the fragments to “grains of sand in a fishbowl.”

In attendance with Mr. Baron was the CEO of Impossible Metals, a future deep-sea mining company. Unlike other companies that use vacuum-like extraction technologies along the ocean floor, Impossible Metals claims to have developed machines that can collect nodules selectively without disturbing the seabed.

“Our underwater robots hover to gather mineral-rich nodules from the seabed through AI-guided selective harvesting,” explained Oliver Gunasekara, CEO of Impossible Metals. “We avoid all visible marine life and leave 60% untouched.”

The company has reapplied for permission to conduct operations in US Samoa. Gunasekara noted that their previous applications were rejected during the Biden administration, but with new leadership in both American Samoa and Washington, he is optimistic about gaining approval.

Source: www.nytimes.com