Instagram is set to implement a PG-13 style rating system to enhance parental control over their teens’ interactions on the platform.
Owned by Meta, Instagram will introduce guidelines akin to the U.S. “Parental Guidance” movie ratings established 41 years ago for all content viewed by teen accounts. Consequently, users under 18 will automatically be categorized under the 13+ setting, with the option to opt out only with parental consent.
Currently, teen accounts restrict or prohibit sexually suggestive material, graphic images, and promotions for adult content like alcohol and tobacco. The forthcoming PG-13 framework will impose even stricter regulations.
Meta indicated that it will limit visibility on posts promoting “harmful” activities, including strong language, risky stunts, or content featuring marijuana accessories. Additionally, search terms like “alcohol” and “gore” will be blocked, even if misspelled.
Mehta commented, “While there are distinctions between movies and social media, our modifications aim to provide a teen experience within a 13+ context that parallels viewing a PG-13 film,” emphasizing the desire to communicate the policy in a familiar framework for parents.
The closest equivalent to PG-13 in British film ratings is 12A. Notably, Instagram’s new rating doesn’t impose a complete ban on nudity, similar to how PG-13/12A films like Titanic include brief nudity that isn’t explicitly sexual. Moderate violence, akin to what is found in Fast & Furious films, will also remain accessible.
This initiative follows a study by a former Meta whistleblower, revealing that 64% of new safety features on Instagram are ineffective. The assessment was conducted by Arturo Bejar, a former Meta senior engineer, alongside academics from New York University, Northeastern University, and the Molly Rose Foundation in the UK. Béjart stated, “Children are not safe on Instagram.” Mehta dismissed the findings, asserting that parents possess robust tools at their disposal.
Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, urged social media platforms to adopt a “safety-first” strategy and warned that non-compliance could lead to enforcement actions.
Mehta announced that the Instagram update will begin in the U.S., UK, Australia, and Canada, with plans to expand to Europe and globally early next year.
Activists raised concerns regarding whether these changes will effectively enhance safety.
Rowan Ferguson, policy manager at the Molly Rose Foundation, remarked: “Despite Meta’s numerous public statements, we have not received substantial safety improvements for teens, and our recent report indicates that there’s still work to be done to shield them from harmful content.”
“These additional updates will need to be evaluated for their effectiveness, which necessitates transparency from Meta for independent testing of safety features.”
Users in the UK can access an ad-free experience on Facebook and Instagram for a monthly fee of £3.99.
In response to regulatory concerns regarding personalized ads that utilize user data for targeted marketing, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has introduced this subscription service.
Web users will pay £2.99 per month, while mobile users can enjoy ad-free scrolling for £3.99 monthly. If accounts are linked, users will only be charged one fee.
“This gives individuals in the UK the option of continuing to use Facebook and Instagram for free with personalized ads or choosing to avoid ads altogether,” Meta stated.
The company announced that the new service would be available in the upcoming weeks. Users without a subscription will continue to see ads based on their personal data.
This subscription model mirrors offerings by Meta in the EU, which the European Commission has deemed a violation of the Digital Markets Act aimed at regulating major tech companies.
The Commission recommended a €200 million fine this year and suggested releasing a free version of the platform that relies on less detailed personal information such as gender, age, and location for ad targeting.
The UK’s intelligence committee, a data oversight authority, expressed its support for this initiative.
“This transition moves Meta away from using targeted ad practices as a condition of Facebook and Instagram service usage, clarifying compliance with UK law,” a spokesperson from the ICO stated.
A study spearheaded by whistleblowers from Meta reveals that children and teens are facing online dangers on Instagram, despite the implementation of “highly ineffective” safety features.
A thorough examination by Arturo indicated that 64% of Instagram’s newly introduced safety measures were ineffective.Bejar, a former senior engineer at Meta, provided testimony before US Congress, along with scholars from NYU and Northeastern University, the Molly Rose Foundation in the UK, and other organizations.
Meta, the parent company of several well-known social media platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads, mandated the creation of teen accounts on Instagram in September 2024.
However, Bejar stated that Meta has “consistently failed” to protect children from sensitive or harmful content, inappropriate interactions, and excessive use, claiming the safety features are “ineffective, unacceptable, and have been quietly altered or removed.”
He emphasized: “The lack of transparency within Meta, the duration of this neglect, and the number of teens harmed on Instagram due to their negligence and misleading safety assurances is alarming.”
“Children, including many under 13, are not safe on Instagram. This isn’t solely about bad content online; it’s about negligent product design. Meta’s intentional design choices promote and compel children to engage with inappropriate content and interactions daily.”
The research utilized a “test account” that mimicked the behavior of teens, parents, and potential predators to evaluate 47 safety features throughout March and June 2025.
Using a rating system of green, yellow, and red, it was discovered that 30 tools fell into the red category, indicating they could be easily circumvented or ignored with minimal effort. Only eight received a green rating.
Findings from the test account revealed that adults could effortlessly send messages to teens who were not following them, despite indications that such accounts were blocked. Although the system claims to prevent this after the testing period, it was found that minors could initiate conversations with adults on the platform, making it difficult to report sexual or inappropriate messages.
The research also highlighted that the “hidden language” feature failed to block offensive language as promised. Testers were able to send messages saying, “You are a prostitute and you should kill yourself,” with Meta clarifying that this feature applies only to unknown accounts, not to followers.
The algorithms still promote inappropriate sexual and violent content, and the “non-interested” features proved ineffective. Researchers found that the platform actively recommends search terms and accounts related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and illegal substances.
Furthermore, researchers identified hundreds of reels where users claimed that various well-publicized time management tools aimed at curbing addictive behaviors had been discontinued. Meta asserts that these features still exist but altered, and despite claims that Meta would block these, there remain numerous reels featuring users claiming to be under 13 years old.
The report noted that Meta continues to structure Instagram’s reporting features in a way that does not promote actual usage.
In the report’s introduction, co-authors Ian Russell of the Molly Rose Foundation and Ian Russell of David’s Legacy Foundation highlighted tragic cases where children died by suicide after encountering harmful online content.
Consequently, they advocate for stronger online safety laws in the UK.
The report also urges regulators to adopt a “bolder and more assertive” stance on implementing regulatory measures.
A spokesperson from Meta stated: “This report misrepresents our ongoing efforts to empower parents and safeguard teens, misunderstanding how our safety tools function and how millions of parents and teens utilize them today. Our teen accounts are the industry standard for automated safety protections and parental controls.”
“In reality, teens using these protections encounter less sensitive content and receive fewer unwanted contacts while spending time on Instagram safely. Parents also have robust monitoring tools in place. We are committed to improving our features and welcome constructive criticism, though this report doesn’t reflect that.”
An Ofcom spokesperson commented:
“Our online rules for children necessitate a safety-first approach in how technology companies design and operate their services in the UK.
“Clearly, sites that fail to comply can expect enforcement action.”
A government representative added: “Under the online safety law, platforms must protect young users from content that promotes self-harm and suicide, thus enforcing safer algorithms and reducing toxic feeds.
Are you prepared to share your earnings with strangers and see it plastered all over the web?
For better or worse, it was just you, your employer, and possibly HM Revenue & Customs who knew your salary.
Now, the question looms: “What do you earn?” Influencers armed with cameras and ring lights often stop you in the street to ask. This seemingly mundane question might lead to a series of lighter inquiries later.
They might also delve into other personal financial matters, such as your rent, savings, or biggest financial blunders.
Surprisingly, many people are willing to engage. In just 40 seconds, one interview revealed that an architectural designer earns £38,000 annually. Respondents are often eager to share their future salary expectations and savings, too.
In another clip, a 60-year-old man discusses his biggest financial regret—passing up on an expensive apartment when he was younger.
These clips, viewed 1.3 million times on Instagram, are part of a fast-growing genre that includes street-style interviews delving into personal finance topics like income, job satisfaction, and more.
Inspired by the US Salary Transparent Street, which aims to de-stigmatize salary discussions, this channel has gained over a million followers in four years.
Microphone-wielding creators argue that interviewing British citizens has enhanced financial literacy and wage transparency. Critics suggest it caters to voyeurism, creating content that could easily go viral.
For content creators, the formula is straightforward: pose personal questions, film responses, and share them with audiences eager to learn about others’ earnings, expenditures, and regrets. After all, financial concerns often weigh more heavily on young individuals than social media or environmental crises.
As Gabriel Nussbaum, known as “that money man,” asserts, “My aim is to foster financial education through dialogue.” He runs Unfiltered Money, focusing on public interviews about personal finance.
What may appear as a solo endeavor is, in fact, a well-coordinated team effort. “We have a crew,” Nussbaum explains. “Our mission is to attract participants from diverse ages, backgrounds, and genders.”
Gabriel Nussbaum emphasizes that the main theme is discussing finances with “regular” people. Photo: Harrison Kelly/Money Unfiltered
Since its inception six months ago, the channel boasts an impressive average of 3 million views each month, with daily postings on Instagram and TikTok.
But is it really as simple as shoving a microphone in someone’s face and hoping for the best?
“It’s all about how you frame the questions and the context you provide,” shares Aydan Al-Saad, an entrepreneur and content creator who also queries people about their pay, sharing the videos online.
“I don’t edit everything, but I usually let people know I’m promoting transparency and ensuring everyone feels fairly compensated,” he adds.
So why does it resonate? Much of it stems from the fact that “we don’t have these conversations elsewhere.” Salary discussions, particularly concerning the actual figures, are one of the UK’s greatest taboos, largely due to a reluctance to engage in dialogue about confidentiality, workplace traditions, and money.
A recent survey indicated that British citizens often shy away from discussing their salaries; 87% feel uneasy when asked about their salary.
Currently, individuals like Nussbaum and Saad strive to bridge the gap. “For me, the goal is transparency,” states Saad. “It’s about giving people insight into different careers and potential earnings.”
There’s also a psychological angle beyond mere information sharing: “It’s akin to reality TV, isn’t it? I can secure views by interviewing a billionaire,” explains Venture Room, which features high-net-worth individuals discussing their finances. “But viewers want to connect with real people and hear genuine stories,” he adds.
It’s all very interesting, but what’s it like for those being interviewed to disclose their salary and see their face all over the internet? “No one truly understands what going viral feels like until it happens,” says Saad.
“We’re not here to put anyone in an awkward position,” he continues, adding that interviewees can request the removal of their content. “If we see it, we’ll take it down, no questions asked.”
Comments on certain channels are screened to create a secure environment for financial discussions. Nevertheless, some video comments can lead to a broad examination of personal circumstances. For instance, a debate sparked about whether an income of £35,000 annually is adequate for living comfortably in London can be found here: Is £35,000 enough?.
How useful are these videos? “On a theoretical level, it’s beneficial because it’s better to know than to remain ignorant,” asserts Kim Stevenson, a psychologist and financial advisor.
However, as tools for comparison, they may not serve their intended purpose, cautions Vicky Reynal, a psychotherapist and author of *Money in Your Mind: The Psychology Behind Your Financial Habits*. “Comparisons can lead to feelings of inadequacy rather than clarity,” she states.
The key issue lies in how each individual uses the information. “Some people may watch for entertainment or reassurance, but others could spiral into frustration and dissatisfaction, feeling they fall short,” she explains.
Vicky Reynal expresses concern that some viewers may use the content to validate feelings of inadequacy. Photo: Rory Mulvey/The Observer
Nussbaum claims his primary objective is that the videos are beneficial, although he recognizes their potential drawbacks. However, feedback has been “overwhelmingly positive” for content that “broadens perceptions of what’s possible,” he notes.
Third echoes this sentiment. “If even one person gains value from the video, it’s worth sharing,” he says, asserting that these videos may empower viewers to seek pay raises or change careers.
“Imagine hearing that someone your age on this platform earns three times more than you,” says Nussbaum. “It might provoke negative feelings, yet it could also encourage someone to think, ‘I’m underpaid for my role and should explore other opportunities.’” The same video can have two contrasting effects.
Theoretically, these videos should resonate more with Gen Z, who are thought to prioritize pay transparency more than older generations. In reality, however, millennials likely make up the bulk of the audience. Over 40% of Saad’s followers are aged 25-34, with more than 33% in the 35-44 age group.
These statistics reflect the pervasive financial insecurity facing millennials; 56% of those under 40 report considering delaying significant life milestones due to financial stress.
So what’s next for Nussbaum’s channel? “I’m eager to involve more prominent individuals and encourage diverse voices to open up about their financial experiences,” he states. “For instance, I spoke recently with an 18-year-old soccer player who mentioned making £100,000 a year and asked, ‘How do you handle that?’”
While that contrasts sharply with an average tenant’s experience, Nussbaum insists that his channel continues to focus on “discussing everyday life and finances.”
Are the Mancunians becoming more open about their earnings? Kimi Chadda ventured out to find out. Photo: Christopher Farlong/Getty Images
‘Not today, thank you.’
It’s a bright day in Manchester. In bustling areas like Castlefield, Northern Quarter, and Spinningfield, office workers inquire with strangers about finances. The crowds are unpredictable. I approach 30 individuals throughout the day. One man shows interest before exhaling deeply and saying, “Not today, thank you.” Maybe another time?
When I mention media or personal finance, others grow defensive. Most walk away before I can explain my purpose.
Only 2 out of the 30 I approach are willing to share details. One responds with empathy following an encounter with a stand-offish peer. The other declines to provide a surname or identification—contradicting the free-spirited essence of TikTok videos. They disclose incomes between £25,000 and £35,000, acknowledging that while salaries should be discussed more, they also “don’t want to get sued.”
From this experience, I gleaned two insights. First, the simplest approach to turn a comfortable individual into a guarded stranger is to approach them directly, microphone or not. Second, people prefer to engage in lighter topics, such as bus schedules, the weather, and the state of the city center.
So, I didn’t uncover any hard figures, but I left with the lingering thought that perhaps I should have focused on discussions around mortgage rates instead.
I am a young black entrepreneur and RM leader. His personal and business social media profiles have been deleted by Meta, the parent company of Instagram. There was no notice, no option to appeal, and no explanation given to my understanding. He had successfully established two businesses in clothing design and music events.
Just six days prior to the ban, he sold 1,500 tickets for an electronic dance event in London. Instagram, rather than his website, serves as the main platform for his work. Yet, he was abruptly informed that his content violated Meta’s community guidelines regarding violence and incitement.
His business account boasted 5,700 followers, while his personal account had nearly 4,000 contacts. All were erased without alternative means of contact, leaving him without his entire social and professional network. Retrieving this data is not allowed. IP address His device is inaccessible due to restrictions New account.
In following his work, I’ve yet to see anything violent in his promotional videos, save for toy weapons. His life is being upended by what seems to be an unyielding algorithm.
RP, London
The pivotal role of social media in the lives of young people often confuses older generations who rely on websites and direct contacts.
When I spoke with RM, 21, he shared that the abrupt account closure by Meta, due to vaguely defined infractions, also affected fellow students, resulting in a loss for their burgeoning businesses.
“For my generation, my Instagram profile is not just my sole source of income; it’s part of my identity, making recovery challenging,” he explains. “I wasn’t notified about violating any guidelines. This decision has cost me thousands of pounds in lost sales, which is especially devastating for single parents in the city center.”
RM firmly denies posting any content that could be perceived as violent or inciting harm. His account has been deleted, leaving him unable to clarify.
Instead, I came across an interview with RM on a music website that offered insights into the cyberpunk rave scene he participates in. Some band and song titles might trigger the algorithms.
Terms like drug, sex, and kill are prevalent in various musical genres. It remains unclear which specific lines resulted in RM’s discharge, as Meta has provided no communication to RM or myself, citing “confidentiality.”
While they declined to comment further, a spokesperson indicated that they would not restore RM’s account or provide him with contact details due to a “violation” of the guidelines. There is no avenue for appeal.
Meta, as a commercial entity, has the right to decide its clientele and eliminate harmful content, yet its role as judge, jury, and executioner is concerning given the repercussions of such decisions.
RM can file a Subject Access Request to discover what information Meta holds about him. While this won’t restore his account, it might help him comprehend the basis of the actions taken against him. Should Meta refuse to comply, he can reach out to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
He has created a new account and purchased a laptop to begin the process of rebuilding. I advise him (and others) to regularly back up contacts and not solely rely on companies that offer opaque administrative practices.
Meta currently faces scrutiny for enforcing widespread bans on users via algorithms on Facebook and Instagram. A petition has garnered over 25,000 signatures, advocating for human intervention.
Locked out of Facebook
em West Sussex hit a digital dead end after being locked out of her Facebook account when hackers changed her password, email address, and phone number. She states that Facebook’s automated system provided a lengthy set of instructions when she sought guidance to regain access from the hackers. Subsequently, the hackers switched her account from private to public, exposing her sensitive personal information.
Upon seeking help from Facebook, her newly established account was permanently closed. “It’s impossible to find someone to communicate with via email, chat, or phone,” she laments. “On a positive note, I enjoy the absence of Facebook noise in my life, though it felt like having my arm amputated!”
The proprietors of Facebook and Instagram are set to assist advertisers in fully developing and targeting campaigns using artificial intelligence tools by the end of next year, potentially disrupting the traditional marketing landscape.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, which also owns WhatsApp, aims to directly reach brand marketing budgets and challenge client campaigns and media organizations managing these budgets.
The AI tool currently under development, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, will enable brands utilizing Meta’s advertising platform to generate ads by leveraging product images and planned marketing expenditures.
Meta’s platform already provides various AI tools that allow advertisers to modify existing ads before they go live on Facebook or Instagram.
These new tools could bridge the gap between traditional ad creation, planning, and purchasing roles that agents perform, while also catering to smaller advertisers who cannot afford marketing service companies.
AI tools will be capable of generating complete ads, including images, videos, and text, targeting users based on the client’s budget.
For instance, targeting parameters such as geolocation can allow holiday companies to tailor advertisements that are particularly relevant to destinations appealing to users.
Following the announcement of Meta’s planned AI rollout, investors quickly divested from some of the world’s largest marketing services.
WPP shares dropped 3% during early trading, while French firms Publicis Groupe and Havas saw declines of 3.9% and 3%, respectively.
Zuckerberg, emphasizing the shift towards AI-driven advertising, describes the evolution of these tools as a “redefinition of advertising categories.”
In April, Meta revised its financial outlook for next year, announcing plans to invest between $64 billion and $720 billion in capital expenditures, which include the costs associated with building AI infrastructure.
The company had initially projected expenses of up to $650 billion in 2025.
Champagne glasses clink at a bustling party in Bangkok, where elegantly dressed guests share laughter and mingle. They take turns posing with a cat, casually shifting it from one person to another. But as the camera focuses, it becomes evident that this is no ordinary pet; it’s a cub resembling a lion. A woman in a striking red cocktail dress playfully lifts the cub to her face for a kiss, all while the camera clicks.
Such clips flood social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok, providing insight into Thailand’s rapidly growing lion trading industry. According to recent reports from The Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand and the Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, the number of lions in captivity has more than tripled since 2018. A network of lion farms has emerged to cater to this rising demand, often managed by individuals lacking proper wildlife care experience.
Lion breeder Patama Wadee Champituck greets visitors in her nursery, where the scent of kitten formula fills the air.
“When we began, we had little experience,” she admits, noting that she has sold over 80 lions across Thailand.
The buyers include both Thai nationals and foreigners, all of whom are affluent. Prices for Thai lion cubs start at $5,000 (£3,700), with rare white cubs fetching as much as $15,000. Owning a lion comes with hefty expenses, including the need for a secure enclosure and as much as 10kg of fresh meat daily.
Most buyers desire the youngest lions possible. Although some customers purchase directly from the farm, others work with agents promoting the cubs on social media.
As these animals grow, complications frequently arise. “Some buyers can’t handle their lions,” says Patamawadi. “They often ask us to take them back.”
The report reveals that this “buyback” system forms the basis of the farm’s business model, allowing owners to experience lion ownership without a long-term commitment. Older lions can be used for breeding or sold to zoos, generating profit at each life stage.
Frequent transfers between facilities hinder the tracking of individual lions, which contributes to discrepancies between official data and actual numbers. The report identifies at least 444 captured lions, with 138 registered since 2018 with the Department of Thai National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation. Researchers believe true numbers may be significantly higher due to a lack of registered sales or breeding activities.
Despite regulatory efforts, numerous loopholes persist, enabling the trade to thrive. In 2019, the government enacted the Wildlife Conservation Act, regulating ownership of non-native, CITES-listed species like lions that were previously broadly protected. Unfortunately, this legislation inadvertently fueled lion trading by creating legal avenues with significant surveillance gaps. Owning a lion requires a license; however, breeding does not have the same restrictions. Anyone legally owning a lion can breed it, and cubs only need registration once they are 60 days old, with hybrid species, such as ligers, entirely excluded from the law. Consequently, this industry, valued at over $1 million (£740,000) annually, continues to flourish.
Taweesak Anansiriwattana, a Bangkok veterinarian known as Dr. Vee, operates in a clinic on the city’s outskirts. “I do not endorse keeping lions as pets,” he states. Over the past five years, he has dealt with over 25 privately owned lions. “Our humid climate leads to common skin infections,” he adds, noting malnutrition is prevalent since many owners feed their lions only chicken when they require organ meats like liver and intestines to thrive. Enclosure requirements mandate a minimum of 3m x 3m, but Dr. Vee found that less than half of the households he visited met these criteria.
Adult animals including rare white lions and cubs from breeding farms. Photo: Anna Norman Belmdez
“There are significant welfare issues affecting these animals,” states Tom Taylor, Operations Chief of Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand, who co-authored the report. “Many facilities provide miserable conditions, keeping lions in dark, barren enclosures, with inadequate diets.” To satisfy demand, breeders frequently separate cubs from their mothers early, prompting rapid return to breeding cycles. Inbreeding is especially prevalent among white lions and hybrids, increasing their perceived value.
Lions not indigenous to Thailand are classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. While the captive population offers little conservation benefit, Taylor warns that it opens pathways for human trafficking and elevates risks to wild lion populations. “We have credible reports indicating that Thai lions are being illegally exported, both alive and for their body parts,” he noted, explaining that these lions may be filling the market gap created by restrictions on the tiger trade.
Public safety also emerges as a critical concern, evidenced by reports of lions escaping from private enclosures and entering public areas. In 2024, a viral video featured a man driving a lion in a convertible car, triggering widespread alarm. In response, the National Parks Director announced that the government is contemplating amendments to existing laws, including tighter regulations around lion ownership.
The report advocates for emergency bans on individual ownership and commercial breeding, increased licensing requirements, and restrictions on lion cafes and photo ops. These practices are believed to elevate the allure of exotic pets. “Many individuals are attracted to owning a lion without fully grasping the ethical, financial, and safety repercussions,” states Taylor. He points out that similar trends are emerging for other non-native species, such as ring-tailed lemurs and red pandas. “We hope this report encourages the public to consider the origins of these animals, their rearing conditions, and what happens when they grow too large and dangerous to manage.”
For more coverage on extinction, explore our dedicated pages and follow Guardian App biodiversity journalists Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield.
Meta has prohibited well-known Muslim news pages on Indian Instagram at the request of the government, with the account’s founder labeling the action as “censorship” that intensifies tensions between India and Pakistan.
An Indian Instagram user attempted to access a post from the account @muslim, which boasts 6.7 million followers. “Accounts not available in India. This is due to compliance with legal requirements restricting this content.”
There was no swift response from the Indian government regarding the ban, which followed a predicament where Pakistani actors and cricketers were blocked from their social media accounts.
“We’ve received numerous messages and comments from our Indian followers unable to access our account,” stated Ameer Al-Khatahtbeh, founder and editor of the news account. “Meta blocked the @muslim account following legal requests from the Indian government. This action is censorship.”
Meta chose not to comment, with a spokesperson referencing the company’s webpage that outlines their policy of restricting content if the government deems it “against local laws.”
This situation, first reported by US technology journalist Taylor Lorenz, has led to heightened violence between India and Pakistan—the most severe in two decades for these nuclear-armed nations.
Following New Delhi’s deadly missile strike against its rival, both countries engaged in heavy artillery exchanges along the disputed border.
At least 43 fatalities were reported amid the conflict, occurring two weeks after India accused Pakistan of supporting a deadly attack on tourists in the contested regions of Kashmir.
Pakistan has declined to file charges and warned it would seek “revenge” for those killed in India’s airstrikes.
The @muslim account ranks among the most-followed Muslim news sources on Instagram. Khatahtbeh expressed regret to his Indian followers, stating: “When platforms and nations attempt to silence the media, it highlights their role in holding powerful entities accountable.”
“We will persist in documenting the truth and standing firmly for justice,” he stated, urging Meta to restore access to the account for Indian users.
India has also prohibited over a dozen Pakistani YouTube channels for allegedly disseminating “provocative” content, encompassing Pakistani news outlets.
Recently, access to the Instagram account of former Pakistan Prime Minister and cricket captain Imran Khan has also been restricted in India.
Fawad Khan and Atif Aslam, noted figures in Pakistani Bollywood films, have also been rendered off-limits in India, along with numerous cricketers including stars Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan, and retired icons Shahid Afridi and Wasim Akram.
The escalating tensions between these South Asian neighbors have fostered a surge of online misinformation, with social media users mislabeling everything from deepfake videos to outdated images from unrelated conflicts to these Indian airstrikes.
On Wednesday, Donald Trump urged both India and Pakistan to cease hostilities promptly, offering assistance to quell the violence.
During the second day of the Landmark antitrust trial, Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg explained his decision to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp, citing the difficulty of building a new app. He avoided addressing questions about potential competitive threats to the company.
Zuckerberg mentioned that building a new app is a challenging task and that the company had attempted to create multiple apps in the past without much success. He acknowledged that they could have developed an app, but success was not guaranteed.
His testimony is crucial in the antitrust trial at the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The trial focuses on allegations that Meta engaged in anti-competitive practices through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
If the government succeeds, Meta could be required to divest these two apps.
However, legal experts believe the FTC faces significant challenges in proving its case. The lawsuit against Meta forms part of broader efforts by U.S. regulators to address the market power of major tech companies.
The trial against Meta comes amidst similar legal actions against other tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Apple for alleged anti-competitive behavior.
In a closely watched trial, the FTC accused Meta of using its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to stifle competition and limit consumer choice.
Meta’s legal team refuted the allegations, highlighting the company’s competition with other social media platforms. They argued that revisiting and undoing the merger approval would set a dangerous precedent.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, FTC lawyers questioned Zuckerberg about internal communications related to the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, revealing discussions about competition and strategic decisions.
Zuckerberg’s testimony spanned seven hours, with Instagram co-founders scheduled to testify later in the week.
In emails from years ago, Zuckerberg discussed the competitive landscape and strategic moves to maintain Facebook’s dominance in the market. These communications have become central to the antitrust trial.
Zuckerberg’s emails revealed concerns about emerging competitors and strategies to block them from advertising on Facebook. The trial continues to scrutinize Meta’s actions in the competitive tech industry.
Zuckerberg’s communications shed light on the company’s approach to competition and strategic acquisitions, raising questions about its impact on the tech industry.
As the trial progresses, stakeholders are closely watching the outcome and its implications for the regulation of big tech companies.
Facebook’s pro-meta platform is currently on trial in Washington, accused by US antitrust enforcement officials of unlawfully creating a social media monopoly by overspending when trying to secure the deal.
Over a decade ago, the acquisition was made with the intention of eliminating potential competitors that could challenge Facebook’s dominant position as a social media platform for connecting with friends and family, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The lawsuit was filed in 2020 during the first term of Donald Trump.
The FTC is seeking to compel Meta to restructure or divest parts of its business, including Instagram and WhatsApp. This trial marks the first significant test for the FTC under the second Trump administration, following an investigation initiated during Trump’s initial term.
Meta’s Chief Legal Officer, Jennifer Newsted, described the incident as a hindrance to technology investment in a blog post on Sunday.
Newsted writes, “It is absurd that the FTC is attempting to dismantle a prominent American company while the administration works to protect China-owned TikTok.”
This situation poses a serious threat to Meta’s existence. It provides a real indication of how aggressively the new Trump administration will pursue its promises to challenge major technology companies, especially considering that Instagram generates approximately half of US advertising revenue.
Losing Instagram would be a significant blow to Meta, according to Jasmine Enberg, a top analyst at market research firm Emarketer.
Enberg stated, “Losing Instagram would also greatly impact future user and revenue growth prospects. Instagram is currently Meta’s primary revenue generator, accounting for 50.5% of the company’s ad revenue in 2025. Instagram has filled the void left by Facebook in terms of user engagement, particularly among younger users.”
Meta has been actively engaging with Trump since his election. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made multiple visits to the White House recently. Zuckerberg also purchased a new $23 million home in DC to allow him to focus more on policy issues related to American technology leadership while Meta continues its work.
A company spokesperson said, “This allows Mark to spend more time as Meta continues to work on policy issues related to American technology leadership.” The company has contributed $1 million to Trump’s initial committee and has sought to persuade the president to settle the lawsuit against Meta.
FTC spokesman Joe Simonson commented, “The FTC under Trump Vance was not prepared for this trial.”
Zuckerberg will face questions about an email that suggested acquiring Instagram as a strategy to neutralize potential competitors and expressed concerns that WhatsApp, an encrypted messaging service, could evolve into a social network.
Meta argues that the purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2014 benefited users, and Zuckerberg’s previous statements are no longer relevant in the face of fierce competition from TikTok, YouTube, and Apple’s messaging apps.
The central focus of this case is how users engage with social media platforms and whether they consider the services to be interchangeable. Meta points to increased traffic on Instagram and Facebook during TikTok’s brief hiatus in the US in January, as indicated in court records.
The FTC contends that Meta holds a monopoly on the platform used for social sharing. Snapchat and Mewe from Snap are major competitors in the US market.
Mike Prucks, Vice President of Research at Forrester, believes that the trial could have far-reaching implications for the social media industry.
Proulx stated, “The outcome of this trial, combined with the uncertainty surrounding TikTok’s future, could reshape the core of the social media market. Meta is no longer the dominant force. We haven’t seen this level of disruption since 2006-2011 during the early days of social media. We may witness a resurgence of new social media startups attempting to establish a new order in the social media landscape.”
US District Judge James Boasberg ruled in November that the FTC had sufficient evidence to proceed, but the agency faces tough questions about the viability of its claims as the trial progresses.
Former FTC Chairman Lina Khan stated that Meta relied on “buy-and-bury techniques” when acquiring companies like Instagram and WhatsApp. If Meta could not outperform its competitors, it either acquired them or restricted access to Facebook’s network and features. The case revolves around the principles of “free and fair competition,” Khan explained in an interview with NBC.
Khan emphasized, “There is no expiration date on the illegality of these transactions. I believe the entire social networking ecosystem would look different today if Facebook had not been allowed to acquire these companies.”
The trial is set to continue in July. If the FTC prevails, it will need to demonstrate in a second attempt how measures such as divesting Instagram and WhatsApp can restore competition.
Losing Instagram, in particular, could have dire consequences for Meta’s revenue.
Although Meta has not disclosed app-specific revenue figures, Emarketer’s forecast in December suggests that Instagram is expected to generate $37.13 billion this year.
While WhatsApp currently contributes only a small portion to Meta’s overall revenue, it is the company’s primary app in terms of enhancing efforts to monetize tools such as daily users and chatbots. Zuckerberg believes that a “business messaging” service like this will drive the company’s future growth.
In 2012, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg cut a billion-dollar check to buy the photo sharing app Instagram, most people thought he had lost his marble.
“Billion dollars?” I was kidding John Stewart and then The Daily Show host. “For something that would ruin your photos?”
Stewart called the decision “really unfree.” His audience, and much of the world, agreed that Zuckerberg overpaid for an app that highlighted a lot of photo filters.
Two years later, Zuckerberg opened his wallet again. Facebook has agreed to buy WhatsApp for $19 billion. Many Americans had never heard of messaging apps that were popular internationally but less well-known in the US.
No one knew what would happen with these transactions. However, hindsight seems to be 20/20.
The government on Monday in a landmark antitrust trial that both acquisitions are now considered the greatest in Silicon Valley history – is the action of a lawn-protected monopoly. Zuckerberg was set up to argue that his company, renamed Meta, is merely an afterthought in the social media situation, not for these transactions.
However, this incident could lead to the division of one of the most powerful companies in technology, dealing primarily with hypotheses. Neither the government nor Zuckerberg could predict how technology would advance from Instagram’s $1 billion checks or what would happen if regulators didn’t approve the purchase. This makes Meta’s antitrust case one of the slipperyest things in the tech industry, which has long been defined by unpredictability.
“It was a very different time in Silicon Valley,” said Margaret O’Mara, a technical historian at the University of Washington, about the Facebook acquisition. “There was a vibe like, ‘Oh, wow, Facebook is a bunch of kids who really spend their luxury!” “
I happened to have a front row seat for Facebook deals, especially on Instagram. As a reporter for Wired Magazine, my office in San Francisco was next to my Instagram headquarters. We frequently visited the Kimchi Burrito location (a green slice of city) across the street near South Park Commons and ate it on a bench outside our Instagram office.
Kevin Systrom, the 6-foot-5-foot co-founder of Instagram, was 28 years old. He often roamed around the wood and iron swings of South Park Commons, calling employees and speaking about product ideas. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, who identified as an arts child rather than a technician, played in the same South Park playground and meditated to a friend about the idea that eventually became his social media app.
This was a time when social apps were dismissed as play, in order to post art for lattes and to tell people what they had for breakfast. WhatsApp, which was growing rapidly internationally, was a text messaging app with no business model. And clones of these apps were abundant, including photo sharing colors, Flickr, VSCO, Message Kik, Skype, Viber, and more.
Even Facebook faced questions about whether it was a viable business. Two months after the Silicon Valley Company announced it was buying Instagram, it held one of the most Disastrous early technology revealed Since the late 1990s, it has been on the .com era.
By the time Systrom testified three months later to the California Corporation Bureau of Corporations, a condition that would close its Facebook deal, Facebook’s shares had fallen almost half the price.
However, in Silicon Valley, fortunes rise quickly. Companies move from frivolous fantasies to juggernauts in just a few years. And what might seem like a wise business move by one moment of executives can be ridiculed immediately as a mistake in the next moment. (Half of the aforementioned apps are dead, dying or have been sold as parts for a long time. Also, my favorite Kimchi Burrito locations. It’s not around anymore. )
At the time, Systrom made a positive spin on Instagram trading as the future looked increasingly tough for Facebook.
“I have been taught throughout my life that all open markets have opposites and shortcomings,” he attended the August 2012 Department of California hearing on the sixth floor of the downtown San Francisco division. “I still firmly believe in the long-term value of Facebook.”
He turns out to be right. Today, Instagram and WhatsApp are two of the most important parts of the meta business. Postings, videos and communications on the platform regularly drive global conversations for sports, news, politics and culture. The app has billions of users.
In some respects, antitrust testing is about competitive versions that may have had a history of technology. For example, what would have happened if Zuckerberg lost his Instagram bid? I’m also about to buy a photo sharing app for Twitter? What happens if WhatsApp is sold to Google? I’ll defend a little How to add a messaging app to your own portfolio?
What if other competitors create a great photo sharing app that could thrive if Facebook didn’t use Instagram to crush them? What happens if Facebook has ruined both deals or can’t keep up with competing apps and still fall behind after purchasing Instagram and WhatsApp?
These are unknown and can only be answered by those who have a time machine. Each side claims a version of what would have happened if Meta’s acquisition was not approved.
In the same Daily Show segment in 2012, senior youth correspondent Jessica Williams said that Facebook’s Instagram purchases made perfect sense.
“If you wanted a photo before Instagram that looks like it was taken in the ’60s, you’d have to invent a time machine and go back to 50 years ago,” she said. “Do you know how much it costs to build a time machine?”
Meta is enhancing safety measures for teenagers on Instagram by implementing a LiveStreaming block, as social media companies extend their under-18 safety measures to Facebook and messenger platforms.
Individuals under the age of 16 will now be restricted from using the live Instagram feature unless they have parental authorization. Additionally, parental permission is required to disable the ability to obscure images containing suspected nudity in direct messages.
These changes come alongside the expansion of Instagram’s teen account system to Facebook and Messenger. Teen accounts, introduced last year, are automatically set for users under 18, with features like daily time limits set by parents, restrictions on usage at specific times, and monitoring of message exchanges.
Facebook and Messenger teen accounts will initially launch in the US, UK, Australia, and Canada. Similar to Instagram accounts, users under 16 must have parental permission to adjust settings, while 16 and 17-year-olds can make changes independently.
Meta disclosed that Instagram teen accounts have fewer than 54 million users globally, with over 90% of 13-15-year-olds adhering to default limits.
These announcements coincide with the UK enforcing online safety laws. Since March, websites and apps covered by the law must take steps to prevent or remove illegal content like child sexual abuse, fraud, terrorist material, etc.
The Act also includes provisions to shield minors from harmful content related to suicide or self-harm, requiring protection for those under 18. Recent reports suggest the law may be softened as part of a UK-US trade deal, sparking backlash from critics.
At the launch of Instagram restrictions, Nick Clegg, then Meta’s President of Global Affairs, highlighted the goal of shifting the balance in favor of parental controls. These developments follow Clegg’s recent remarks on the lack of parental use of child safety features.
Meta, owned by Mark Zuckerberg, issued an apology after Instagram users were exposed to violent, graphic, and disturbing content, including animal abuse and images of corpses.
Users reported encountering these disturbing images due to a glitch in the Instagram algorithm.
Reels, a feature similar to TikTok, allows users to share short videos on the platform.
Some users described seeing disturbing videos, including a man being crushed by an elephant, torn apart by a helicopter, and putting his face in boiling oil. Others reported encountering “sensitive content” screens meant to protect users from such graphic material.
A user shared a list of violent content in their feed, as reported by Tech News Site 404, which included videos of a man on fire, a shooting incident, content from an account named “PeopleDeaddaily,” and a pig being beaten.
Another Reddit user expressed concern about the violent content flooding their feed and questioned Instagram’s algorithm’s accuracy and intent.
A spokesperson for Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, issued an apology for the error.
The incident occurred amidst changes in Meta’s content moderation approach, although the company clarified that the graphic video flood was not related to any policy changes.
Meta’s Content Guidelines mandate removal of particularly violent or graphic content and limiting the use of sensitive content screens. In the UK, the Online Safety Act requires social media platforms to protect users under 18 from harmful materials.
A campaign group advocating for online safety called for a detailed explanation regarding the Instagram algorithm mishap.
The Molly Rose Foundation, established by the family of Molly Russell, a teenager who took her own life in 2017, urged Instagram to explain why such disturbing content appears on the platform.
Andy Burrows, CEO of the foundation, expressed concern that the policy changes at Meta may lead to increased availability of graphic content on the platform.
Nick Clegg has strongly supported Meta’s decision to downgrade the social media platform’s moderation and remove fact-checkers.
The changes to Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, including a shift to promote more political content, were announced by CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month.
Clegg, who is stepping down from the tech company after six years to make room for Joel Kaplan, who leans towards Donald Trump, refuted claims that Meta was diminishing its commitment to truth.
“Please look at what Meta has announced. Ignore the noise, the politics, and the drama that accompanies it,” he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, describing the new policy as “limited and tailored.” He asserted that.
The former UK deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader stated: “There are still 40,000 people dedicated to safety and content moderation, and this year we will again invest $5 billion (£4 billion) a year in platform integrity. We still maintain the most advanced community standards in the industry.”
Clegg mentioned that Meta’s new community notes system, replacing its fact-checker, will resemble the one used by Elon Musk’s competing social media platform X, and will first be launched in the United States.
He described it as a “crowdsourcing or Wikipedia-style approach to misinformation” and suggested it might be “more scalable” than the fact-checkers that he believes have lost the public’s trust.
Zuckerberg, who has been collaborating closely with President Trump recently, simply aims to refine Meta’s content moderation approach, according to Clegg.
During a roundtable discussion with journalists at a ski resort in Switzerland, Mr. Clegg confirmed that he would not tolerate using the Meta platform in the future, forbidding the use of derogatory terms for groups of people or labeling LGBT individuals as “mentally ill.” Numerous expressions previously allowed were challenged.
Mr. Clegg continued to defend this stance, stating at an event in Davos: “It seems inconceivable to us that individuals can say things in Congress or traditional media that they cannot say on social media. Therefore, some significant adjustments were made.”
He emphasized that speech targeting individuals in a manner designed to intimidate or harass remains unacceptable.
Fact-checkers were confident about the target audience for this week’s news, which was delivered through Mark Zuckerberg’s selected medium. The awkward video message announced Meta’s plan to transition from professional third-party fact-checking to a user-driven “community notes” model similar to X, starting in the US.
Upon hearing the news, one fact-checker expressed concerns about Meta’s intention to please President Trump. Their public response on the matter was more tactful but conveyed the same sentiment.
Across the Atlantic, questions arose about how the European Union would respond to Mr. Meta’s decision, especially if the next US president was watching. The implications could extend beyond Europe’s borders for fact-checkers globally.
Meta’s fact-checking program, which spans 130 countries and is a significant source of funding for fact-checking worldwide, was established shortly after the 2016 US election. Despite Meta’s investment of $100 million in fact-checking efforts since then, concerns remain among fact-checkers about potential changes in the future.
The EU’s new policies will have varying effects on fact-checkers globally depending on Meta’s rollout outside the US. The company’s plans for the EU remain unclear, but there are currently “no immediate plans” to suspend fact-checking within the EU.
The EU’s regulatory framework for digital platforms, including Meta, is being tested through initiatives like the Code of Practice on Disinformation. However, enforcement and interaction with fact-checkers remain unresolved issues.
The European Commission’s response to Meta’s decision will be crucial in testing DSA principles and influencing Meta’s policies worldwide.
Overall, fact-checkers anticipate Meta will phase out third-party fact-checking globally after implementing the new system in the US. The impact on the fact-checking movement, which relies heavily on Meta’s funding, could be significant.
The future of fact-checking remains uncertain, with potential consequences for fact-checkers worldwide. Many organizations may need to scale back or close operations if Meta discontinues its support, impacting efforts to combat misinformation.
Rappler, a Philippine news site, warned that the challenges faced in the US could signify a larger struggle to preserve truth and individual agency in the face of increasing dangers.
Meta has recently removed the Facebook and Instagram profiles of AI characters that were created over a year ago. This decision came after users rediscovered these profiles, joined conversations, and shared screenshots that went viral.
The company initially introduced these AI-powered profiles in September 2023 but retired most of them by the summer of 2024. However, following comments by Meta executive Connor Hayes, a few characters were kept and gained renewed interest. According to the Financial Times, Meta plans to roll out more AI character profiles soon.
Hayes stated, “We expect these AIs to eventually become permanent fixtures on our platform, similar to user accounts.” The AI profiles would post generated photos on Instagram and respond to messages from users on Messenger.
Conversations with Meta AI user-generated therapist chatbots. Photo: Instagram
The AI profiles included characters like Liv and Carter, who described themselves as a proud black queer mom and a dating expert, respectively. Despite being managed by Meta, these profiles interacted with users. In 2023, Meta released a total of 28 AI personas, all of which were deactivated last Friday.
Conversations with these characters took unexpected turns as users questioned the AI’s creators. In response to inquiries about the lack of diversity among the creator team, for example, Liv pointed out the absence of Black individuals. Shortly after these profiles gained attention, they started disappearing.
Instagram AI Studio for building chatbots. Photo: Instagram
Meta’s spokeswoman, Liz Sweeney, clarified that the accounts were part of an AI experiment conducted in 2023 and were managed by humans. After addressing a bug preventing users from blocking the accounts, Meta removed the profiles.
Regarding the recent confusion, Sweeney stated that the Financial Times article focused on Meta’s long-term vision for AI characters on its platform, not the introduction of a new product. The AI accounts were part of an experiment conducted in 2023 using Connect. Meta assured users that they are working to resolve the blocking issue.
Although the meta-generation accounts have been taken down, users can still create their own AI chatbots. These user-generated chatbots cover various roles and themes, such as therapists, loyal confidants, tutors, and relationship coaches.
The liability of chatbot creators for the content generated by their AI companions remains unaddressed. While US law protects social network creators from user-generated content liability, a lawsuit against Character.ai suggests potential legal issues with AI chatbots.
HTo find out how Facebook and Instagram's algorithms influence what appears in your news feed, Guardian Australia tested them on a completely blank smartphone linked to an unused email address.
Three months later, without any input, it was full of sexist and misogynistic content.
The Guardian Australia's explore page for dummy Instagram accounts set up in April. Photo: Instagram
The John Doe profile was created in April as a typical 24-year-old male. Facebook was able to collect other information about us, such as our phone type and Melbourne location, but because we had opted out of ad tracking, Facebook couldn't know what we did outside the app.
Facebook left me with little to fall back on, with no likes, comments or accounts added as friends, while Instagram requires users to first follow at least five accounts, so I chose popular suggested accounts, such as the Prime Minister and Bec Judd.
Meta says its algorithm ranks content according to people's interests, but we wanted to see what happens in the absence of such input. We scrolled through our feed every two weeks to see what was on offer.
What did we see?
Initially, Facebook showed jokes about The Office and other sitcom-related memes alongside posts from 7 News, the Daily Mail and Ladbible. The next day, it also started showing Star Wars memes and gym and “dudebro” style content.
By the third day, “traditional Catholic” type memes started appearing and the feed veered towards more sexist content.
Three months later, memes from The Office, Star Wars, and The Boys are still appearing in the feed, now interspersed with extremely sexist and misogynistic imagery that appears in the feed with no input from the user.
On Instagram, the explore page is filled with women in skimpy outfits, but the feed is largely innocuous, mostly Melbourne-related content and foodie influencer recommendations.
An example of a misogynistic meme shoved into the feed of a blank Facebook account. Photo: Facebook
Meta has lifted previous restrictions on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts as the 2024 presidential election approaches, the company announced on Friday.
After being banned for his online behavior during the January 6 riot, President Trump was allowed to return to the social network in 2023 with “guardrails” in place. But those guardrails have now been removed.
“In assessing the responsibility of permitting political expression, I believe the American people should be able to hear from presidential candidates with the same standards,” Mehta said in a blog post, alluding to Trump formally becoming the party’s nominee at the Republican National Convention scheduled for next week.
As a result, Mr. Trump’s account will no longer be subject to the harsh suspension, which he said was instituted in response to “extreme and extraordinary circumstances” and “was not necessary to apply.”
“All US presidential candidates are required to follow the same community standards as all Facebook and Instagram users, including policies to prevent hate speech and incitement to violence,” the company said in a blog post.
Since returning to the meta social network, Trump has mainly used his account to share campaign information, attacks on Democratic candidate Biden and memes.
Critics of Trump and online safety advocates have expressed concern that his return could lead to an increase in misinformation and incitement to violence like that seen during the storming of the Capitol, which initially prompted the president’s travel ban.
The Biden campaign condemned Mehta’s decision in a statement on Friday, calling it a “greedy and reckless decision” that amounts to “a direct attack on our security and democracy.”
“Restoring his access would be like giving car keys to someone you know is going to drive his car into a crowd and off a cliff,” campaign spokesman Charles Kretschmer Luttwak said. “It’s like giving a megaphone to a real racist who is going to shout hatred and white supremacy from the rooftops and make it mainstream.”
In addition to the Meta platform, other major social media companies, including Twitter (now X), Snapchat and YouTube, have also banned Trump’s accounts due to his online activity surrounding the January 6 attack.
The former president was allowed to return to X last year following a decision by Elon Musk, who bought the company in 2022, but has yet to tweet.
Trump Came back It is set to appear on YouTube in March 2023. He remains banned from Snapchat.
Trump launched his own social network, Truth Social, in early 2022.
Meta’s recent changes on Instagram mean that users will now see less political content in their recommendations and feed unless they choose to opt-in for it. This adjustment, announced on February 9, requires users to specifically enable political content in their settings.
Users noticed this change in recent days, and it has been fully implemented within the last week. According to the app’s version history, the most recent update before this was a week ago.
The change affects how Instagram recommends content in the Explorer, Reels, and In-Feed sections. It does not impact political content from accounts users already follow.
Instagram defines political content as related to legal, electoral, or social topics. This change also applies to Threads, and users can dispute recommendations if they feel unfairly targeted.
Meta’s aim in making this adjustment is to enhance the overall user experience on Instagram and Threads. They want users to have control over the political content they consume without actively promoting it.
For more information, Meta’s spokesperson directed users to a February blog post. Similar changes will be rolled out on Facebook in the future.
Despite recent controversies, like censorship during the Israel-Gaza conflict and perceived polarization by Facebook’s algorithms, Meta continues to work on separating political and news content from its platforms.
Although past studies suggest that algorithm changes may not alter political perceptions, Meta’s efforts to distance itself from politics and news continue. This includes phasing out the News tab on Facebook in anticipation of potential conflicts with news publishers and governments.
In ongoing discussions with the Australian government, Meta faces considerations under the News Media Bargaining Act 2021. Possible fines and revenue loss could result from this legislation.
Meta maintains that news content makes up less than 3% of user engagement on Facebook. The company remains committed to evolving its platforms in response to user preferences and societal concerns.
Instagram has surpassed TikTok as the most downloaded app globally, thanks to its Reels feature that helped it recover from its previous losses to its Chinese-backed competitor.
Since its launch in 2010, this photo and video-sharing platform has gained immense popularity, often associated with celebrities like the Kardashians, and giving rise to the influencer trend. However, in recent years, it has evolved into a short video platform facing tough competition from TikTok.
Instagram faced backlash in 2020 for introducing a short-form video feature that seemed to mimic TikTok. In 2023, the app was downloaded 767 million times globally, marking a 20% increase from the previous year, while TikTok’s downloads grew by 4% to 733 million.
According to market intelligence firm Sensor Tower, Instagram’s resurgence is largely attributed to the popularity of its Reels feature, along with other features like photo sharing and disappearing Stories, which mimic Snapchat.
Farhad Divecha, owner of UK-based digital marketing agency Acuracast, noted that Instagram’s quick response to the TikTok threat and its broad appeal across demographics have contributed to its success.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta (Instagram’s parent company), acknowledged TikTok as a serious competitor and the growing competition for user attention in the digital space.
TikTok faces political challenges in the US due to concerns about Chinese ownership and data security. Lawmakers have proposed a bill that would require TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app within six months or face a ban.
US lawmakers and Western officials have raised concerns about TikTok’s data privacy and its potential ties to the Chinese government, allegations that TikTok has consistently denied.
Facebook and Instagram are currently experiencing significant issues as of Tuesday afternoon in the UK, with users unable to log in and feeds not updating. The problem was first noticed around 3:30pm GMT.
Interestingly, Google also faced login problems at the same time, indicating a potential common cause for the outage affecting these two major tech companies that manage their own infrastructure.
Meta’s status page highlighted various disruptions, including a major issue with groups’ admin center and Facebook Login, a service that enables users to sign in to third-party platforms using their Facebook credentials, causing outages on other websites.
By 4pm GMT, Meta updated its status page to show an “unknown” status for most services except the Messenger API for Instagram, while services like WhatsApp and Facebook Ads Transparency page were still operational. However, the meta status page itself stopped working at 4:15 p.m.
In a tweet, Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone acknowledged the ongoing issues and stated that they were working to resolve them.
Google’s ad status page confirmed an outage in its Ad Manager at 3:30pm GMT and mentioned investigating other reported issues. However, Google’s consumer services like search and YouTube were largely unaffected, although login problems did impact some corporate clients, such as the Guardian newspaper.
Systemic internet issues appear to be the underlying cause, with users of various platforms like X and Microsoft’s Teams also facing sporadic difficulties.
This outage is the first major Facebook outage of 2021, attributed to a configuration error in the BGP protocol, which inadvertently removed its address from the internet communication system between servers. Despite a swift discovery, it took several hours to implement and rectify the fix, compounded by the lack of remote access for engineers to resolve the issue.
MExperts say powerful viral clickbait has taken over Facebook and Instagram in Canada after Meta removed news from the platforms nine months ago. Now Australia could face a similar scenario online, with the company preparing to battle the Australian government over payments to news organizations.
Last week, Meta announced it would no longer make payments to Australian news publishers, prompting the Australian government to consider using its legislative powers to force the platform to negotiate payments with news publishers. Ta.
The controversy could prevent Australian news organizations from posting links to their content on Facebook or Instagram, as Meta did for six days in 2021, and as Canada has done since mid-last year. The possibility is increasing.
Experts say Canada’s ban has done little damage to the social media giants, but it has hurt the news organizations Canada most wanted to support.
In June 2023, the Canadian federal government introduced Bill C-18, which aims to increase revenue for Canadian journalism publishers by requiring Meta and Google’s parent company Alphabet to compensate publishers for hosting and linking content. (Online News Act) was passed.
Both tech companies initially balked at the prospect, but Alphabet ultimately agreed to a deal with the government in November. Under the terms of the deal, Google’s parent company will contribute C$73.6 million (A$83 million) annually to be distributed to Canadian news publishers. Experts said the deal was in part because C-18 targeted link sharing and indexing, key aspects of Alphabet’s business model.
But Mehta is resisting the law’s restrictions, arguing it is “fundamentally flawed”. In response, it blocked all news sharing on its platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. Prior to the ban, Meta also announced it was ending its partnership with the Canadian Press, which had funded 30 reporting fellowships for young journalists starting in 2020.
The ban took effect in August amid the worst wildfire season in the country’s history, but lawmakers feared it would prevent Canadians from accessing the latest news in their communities and prevent evacuations. . The broadcaster denounced the move as “anti-competitive behavior” and said it violated regulations. federal law.
Mehta said in a statement at the time: “The Online News Act is based on the false premise that Meta is unfairly profiting from the news content shared on our platforms, when the opposite is true. We voluntarily share content on Facebook and Instagram to help grow our audience and generate revenue.”
Non-news content created by viral content makers is filling the space left by news articles.
“Real Facebook without news has turned out to be more harmful than I expected,” said Jean Hughes-Roy, a journalism professor at the University of Quebec.
2022, Roy conducted a simulation He said he conducted a study on what users would see on Facebook if news was banned, but the reality of the ban was worse than the simulation predicted.
“Viral content creators take news content, make it more sensational by adding misleading information or false details, and publish it on their Facebook pages or Instagram accounts. Such content is blocked by Meta. No, but the actual news will be blocked.”
However, the move doesn’t seem to have affected how Canadians use Facebook.
The number of daily active users on Facebook and the amount of time spent on the social network have changed little since the news block began, according to figures from two digital analytics firms shared with Reuters.
Part of Meta’s argument against compensating Canadian journalistic outlets was that links to news articles accounted for less than 3% of Facebook feeds in the country. This was also the argument made regarding Australia’s decision.
Chris Waddell, of Carleton University’s School of Journalism, said Meta is increasingly wary of its position in the news industry.
“I don’t think we’ve lost any advertisers,” he says. “I don’t know if their decisions really made a difference.” [to the company].
“Meta would do that.”I like to get a break from news from other places. It’s hard to imagine that the company really wants to get dragged into the controversy surrounding the impending US election, with AI-generated fake information being posted on Facebook. It’s a real minefield for them. If they’re right, they only make 3% to 4% of their revenue from news, so I can understand why they would bail out of it. ”
News Corp. CEO Robert Thomson told reporters on Monday that Meta’s 3% claim was “obviously a fabrication and an absurd number.”
“So how much discussion is there about the news? If there is a core news, then the latest factual information on Facebook is 100% news. And these are the things Facebook focuses on. We should also focus on our responsibilities to all Australians.”
Most large publications are finding new ways to redirect users to their sites. But Facebook’s refusal to allow links to be shared on its platform has a huge impact on small publishers.
Eden Fineday, publisher of Indige News, an Indigenous-led online journalism outlet, said traffic on the site has fallen by 43% since the ban.
“Facebook is a very indigenous platform,” Fineday told the Toronto Star. “This is a place where a lot of Indigenous communities connect with each other. So it hurts us. Indigenous people are the least considered demographic, especially by corporate America. They’re not just forgotten, they’re also more vulnerable to these changes. It’s sad that companies don’t consider who is being harmed.”
Twenty independent media outlets, including the New Brunswick Media Cooperative, have banded together to try to make up for the loss of traffic. not equipped. The purpose is both to strengthen bargaining positions and to share news more effectively with readers.
Waddell said smaller publishers must do the most to win back readers in order to survive.
“Ironically, those that have been most affected are small start-up publications and publications that have been around for some time that have used Facebook as a promotional tool to reach a wider audience.” he said.
Roy said he is concerned about what the disappearance of news from Meta’s platform would mean for Canadian democracy.
“The latest Reuters Journalism Institute Digital News Report found that 45 per cent of Canadians cite social media as a source of news, and the same percentage is true in Australia. “I’m worried” news doesn’t exist anymore. ”
Meta works to identify and label AI-generated images on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, and is striving to expose “people and organizations that actively seek to deceive the public.” Masu.
Images created using Meta’s AI image tools are already labeled as AI, but Nick Clegg, the company’s global president, stated in a blog post on Tuesday that the company’s competing services will start labeling AI-generated images.
Meta’s AI images already have metadata and an invisible watermark indicating that the image was created by AI. The company has partnered with Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, Adobe, Midjourney, and Shutterstock to work on AI image generators, according to Clegg.
Clegg said, “As the line between human content and synthetic content becomes blurred, people want to know where the line is.”
He added, “People often encounter AI-generated content for the first time, and our users appreciate the transparency around this new technology. It’s important to let people know that it was created using AI.”
A surfing llama or an AI? Image labels for AI-generated content on Facebook.
Clegg mentioned that the labeling feature is being developed and will be rolled out to all languages in the coming months.
He also stated that the company will add more prominent labels on images, videos, or audio that are “digitally created or altered” and “have a particularly high risk of materially misleading the public.”
Additionally, the company is working to develop technology to automatically detect AI-generated content, even when the content lacks invisible markers or has been removed.
“This work is particularly important because the online space is likely to become increasingly hostile in the coming years,” Mr Clegg said.
He concluded, “People and organizations actively trying to deceive people with AI-generated content will find ways to circumvent the safeguards in place to detect it. Our industry and society as a whole must continue to find ways to stay ahead of the curve.”
AI deepfakes have already become an issue in the US presidential election cycle, with examples of AI-generated deepfakes used to dissuade voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
Australia’s Nine News also faced criticism for altering an image broadcast on the evening news that exposed Victorian Animal Justice Party MP Georgie Purcell’s belly button and altered her chest, using Adobe’s AI image tools.
Instagram boss Adam Mosseri has announced that his employees, even as parent company Meta Inc. faces increased legal scrutiny over concerns that the popular social media app is harming young users, have reportedly prevented or weakened the implementation of youth safety features. Mosseri, whose name frequently appears in a high-profile lawsuit brought by 33 states accusing Meta of having addictive features in its apps that harm the mental health of young people, reportedly ignored “pressure from employees” to install some of its safety features as default settings for Instagram users. According to the information.
Meta-owned Instagram and Facebook say their use is fueling a number of worrying trends among young people, including an increase in depression, anxiety, insomnia, body image issues, and eating disorders. This claim has drawn criticism from critics.
Despite this, Instagram executives have rejected pressure from members of the company’s “welfare team” to include app features that encourage users to stop comparing themselves to others, according to three former employees with knowledge of the details. The feature was implemented despite Mosseri himself acknowledging in an internal email that he considered “social comparisons” to be “an existential problem facing Instagram” and that “social comparisons are for Instagram.” It wasn’t done. [what] According to the state’s complaint, the election interference is against Facebook.
Adam Mosseri was appointed as the head of Instagram in 2018. Reuters
Additionally, a Mosseri-backed feature that addresses the “social comparison” problem by hiding Instagram like counts will eventually be “watered down” and an option that users can manually enable. The report states that this has been set up.
Internally, some employees have reportedly pointed out that the “like hiding” tool would hurt engagement in the app, resulting in less advertising revenue.
While some sources praised Mosseri’s efforts to promote youth safety, one told the magazine that Instagram has a pattern of making such features optional rather than automatically implementing them. There was also
A Meta spokesperson did not specifically answer questions about why the company rejected proposals for tools to combat problems arising from social comparison issues.
“We don’t know what triggers a particular individual to compare themselves to others, so we give people the tools to decide for themselves what they do and don’t want to see on Instagram. ,” a Meta spokesperson told the publication.
A coalition of state attorneys general is suing Instagram and Facebook. shutter stock
Mehta did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Post.
Elsewhere, Mosseri allegedly objected to the use of a tool that automatically blocks offensive language in direct message requests. The reason for this, The Information reported, citing two former employees, was “because we thought it might prevent legitimate messages from being sent.”
Finally, Instagram approved an optional “filter” feature in 2021, allowing users to block the company’s curated list of offensive words or compile their own list of offensive phrases and emojis they’d like to block. I made it possible.
The move reportedly infuriated safety staff, including former Meta engineer Arturo Bejar. They believed that people of color should not be forced to confront offensive language in order to address the problem. In November, Mr. Behar testifies before Senate committee About harmful content on Instagram.
“I returned to Instagram with the hope that Adam would be proactive about addressing these issues, but there was no evidence of that in the two years I was there,” Bejart said, initially starting Meta in 2015. He retired in 2007 and returned to a safety management role. the team told the outlet in 2019.
Mehta has been accused of failing to protect young social media users. Just Right – Stock.adobe.com
Meta pushed back against the report, saying Instagram has implemented a series of safety defaults for teen users, including blocking adults 19 and older from sending direct messages to teen accounts that don’t follow them. It was pointed out that the function has been introduced.
For example, Meta said its tool called “Hidden Words,” which hides offensive phrases and emojis, will be enabled by default for teens starting in 2024. The company said it has announced more than 20 policies regarding teen safety since Mosseri took over Instagram. 2018.
Mosseri echoed this, writing that further investments in platform security would “strengthen our business.”
“If teens come to Instagram and feel bullied, receive unwanted advances, or see content that makes them uncomfortable, they will leave and go to a competitor.” said Mosseri. “I know how important this work is, and I know that my leadership will be determined by how much progress we make in this work. I look forward to continuing to do more.” Masu.”
Instagram, led by Adam Mosseri, has reportedly scrapped or watered down proposed safety tools. Getty Images
Mosseri was one of several meth executives who came under scrutiny as part of a major lawsuit filed in October by a coalition of 33 state attorneys general. The lawsuit claimed in part that Meta’s millions of underage Instagram users were the company’s “open secret.” The complaint includes an internal chat from November 2021 in which Mosseri appeared to acknowledge the app’s problems with underage users, saying, “Teens want access to Instagram. , who is my age and wants to get Instagram right now.”
A month later, Mosseri testified before the Senate that children under 13 “are not allowed to use Instagram.” He also told MPs that he believes online safety for young people is “very important”.
Separate from the state legal challenges, Meta is facing a separate lawsuit from New Mexico, alleging it failed to protect young people from alleged sex offenders and flooded them with adult sex material. confronting.
Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said the company is testing a feed that only shows posts from meta-verified users. The new toggle appears under the “Following” and “Favorites” options that appear when you click on his Instagram logo in the app.
“We’re testing a way for people to explore their Instagram feed and Reels by switching to only meta-verified accounts,” Mosseri said on Instagram’s broadcast channel. “We’re exploring this as a new control for people and a way for businesses and creators to be discovered.”
The official announcement comes two months after Instagram told TechCrunch that it had not tested such a feature after reverse engineering it. Alessandro Paluzzi We’ve noticed a new feed filter showing meta-authenticated subscribers in the code for both the iOS and Android Instagram apps.
Instagram seems to see the new feed as a way to drive meta-verified subscriptions and get people interested in subscribing. Because this new feed offers an opportunity to increase awareness. Meta Verified costs $11.99 per month on web and $14.99 per month on mobile, and gives users access to blue checkmarks, enhanced customer support, increased visibility and reach in searches and comments, exclusive stickers, and more.
Meta is clearly borrowing from Elon Musk’s playbook with the new Verified-only feed and Meta Verified in general. After Tesla’s CEO acquired Twitter (now X) last fall, the social network launched paid authentication through its revamped X Premium subscription service at $8 per month.With a subscription, users can various functions, the user’s notifications will include a “Verified” tab. The service also includes other features such as an edit button and support for long posts.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
