San Francisco:

Meta said Friday it was lifting restrictions on US presidential candidate Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, ending measures put in place after his supporters violently stormed the US Capitol in 2021.

It said that “former President Trump, as the nominee of the Republican Party, will no longer be subject to the heightened suspension penalties.”

Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts were suspended indefinitely a day after his supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and it was determined he had praised people engaged in violence on social media.

His accounts were reinstated in February 2023 but with a threat of penalties for future breaches — an additional restriction that Meta lifted on Friday.

“In assessing our responsibility to allow political expression, we believe that the American people should be able to hear from the nominees for President on the same basis,” Meta wrote in a blog post.

It added that US presidential candidates “remain subject to the same Community Standards as all Facebook and Instagram users, including those policies designed to prevent hate speech and incitement to violence.”

Trump, the first former president to be convicted of a crime, was also banned from Twitter and YouTube.

While those restrictions were later lifted last year, Trump now mainly communicates on his own social media platform, Truth Social.

His Facebook profile, which has 34 million users, includes messages originally published on Truth Social as well as invitations to rallies and videos from his campaign.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Meta said that it took down over 11.6 million pieces of bad content across 13 policies for Facebook and more than 5.4 million pieces of objectionable content across 12 policies for Instagram in India in April.

In April, Facebook received 17,124 reports through the Indian grievance mechanism and said that it provided tools for users to resolve their issues in 9,977 cases.

These include pre-established channels to report content for specific violations, self-remediation flows where they can download their data, avenues to address account hacked issues, etc, Meta said in its monthly report in compliance with the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

“Of the other 7,147 reports where specialised review was needed, we analysed content as per our policies and took action on 4,303 complaints in total. The remaining 2,844 grievances were reviewed but may not have been actioned,” Meta added.

On Instagram, the company received 12,924 reports through the Indian grievance mechanism.

“Of these, we provided tools for users to resolve their issues in 5,941 cases,” it said.

Of the other 6,983 reports where specialised review was needed, Meta analysed content and took action on 3,206 complaints in total.

The remaining 3,777 reports were reviewed but may not have been actioned.

Under the new IT Rules 2021, big digital and social media platforms, with more than 5 million users, have to publish monthly compliance reports.

“We measure the number of pieces of content (such as posts, photos, videos or comments) we take action for going against our standards. Taking action could include removing a piece of content from Facebook or Instagram or covering photos or videos that may be disturbing to some audiences with a warning,” said Meta.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Tokyo:

Four scam victims in Japan sued Facebook on Thursday after being hoodwinked by fraudulent online investment ads that used images of celebrities without their consent, their lawyer said.

Online hoaxes posted on Facebook and other social media channels in Japan led to 27.8 billion yen ($178 million) in losses last year, according to the National Police Agency.

The four filed the case with Kobe District Court demanding Facebook Japan, owned by US group Meta, pay 23 million yen ($148,000) in damages, according to their lawyer.

The plaintiffs say they fell victim to adverts posted on Facebook offering high investment returns and which used images of wealthy celebrities like Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa.

Maezawa, the founder of Japan’s largest online clothing retailer, became famous internationally after paying to go to the Moon on a future mission operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

His image is commonly used without his permission by online fraudsters, with one typical advert using the caption: “Started with 10,000 yen. Gained 1.3 million yen in four days.” 

Maezawa has previously urged the Japanese government to take action and has said he is working with lawyers in the United States to bringing a lawsuit of his own against Meta. 

Contacted by AFP about the Japanese lawsuit, Meta was not immediately available for comment.

The adverts in this case used only photos but other countries have seen more elaborate scams using “deepfake” videos of celebrities urging people to invest in fraudulent schemes.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The story so far: In a comprehensive slew of measures to ensure “contestable and fair markets in the digital sector” in line with the provisions of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Commission on March 25 initiated ‘non-compliance investigations’ against Apple, Meta and Google’s parent Alphabet. It will also investigate Amazon’s ranking practices on its marketplace.

The Commission reportedly intends to conclude the investigation in 12 months.  

Where is the context of these non-compliance investigations?  

The non-compliance investigations concern Alphabet’s alleged rules on steering or directing its customers to its in-house services over those of its competitors in Google Play, and self-preferencing on Google Search. Apple will be investigated for allegedly similar practices in its App Store, as well as the way it positions its Safari browser. Lastly, Meta will be investigated for its “pay or consent model” — a subscription service that lets a user get rid of personalised advertising.  

The investigations fall in with the primary objective of the DMA to better regulate ‘gatekeepers’ and ensure fairer competitive practices in the digital market space. The idea is to mitigate paradigms that may create a “bottleneck” in the digital economy and fairness in competition and consumer access. For clarity, the Act designates companies with dominance in any of the ‘core platform services,’ such as app stores, online search engines, social networking services, web browsers and operating systems, among other things, as ‘gatekeepers’.  

The Digital Markets Act came into force on November 1, 2022. Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, and Microsoft were designated as ‘gatekeepers’ in September 2023. They were expected to fully comply with obligations under the DMA by March 7 this year. 

The Commission assessed the mandatory compliance reports submitted by these companies setting out compliance measures, and gathered feedback from stakeholders, including in the context of workshops, before launching the investigation.

“We have been in discussions with gatekeepers for months to help them adapt, and we can already see changes happening in the market,” Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of competition policy, said in a press statement, adding, “But we are not convinced that the solutions by Alphabet, Apple and Meta respect their obligations for a fairer and more open digital space for European citizens and businesses”.

How are the steering rules non-compliant?  

DMA provisions stipulate that app developers be allowed to steer consumers to offers (and services) outside the gatekeeper’s app store, free of charge. This would eliminate exclusivity and dependence on a particular mode of payment, or enable access to an online game with an outside gaming account, among other such services.  

The Commission aired its concerns about Alphabet and Apple not being fully compliant “as they impose various restrictions and limitations.” It stated, “These constrain, among other things, developers’ ability to freely communicate and promote offers and directly conclude contracts, including by various charges.”  

Apple has maintained that the tight integration associated with its App Store is essential to provide a “uniquely secure and seamless user experience.” In their initial comments in January 2020, the iPhone maker said that the DMA is “too blunt a tool.”  

“It equates size with harm, and then imposes a one-list-fits-all set of regulatory obligations without providing an opportunity for the platform to explain, and the regulator to assess, whether – on balance – there are broader benefits to consumers or businesses,” Apple said. 

In a blog published this January, Spotify, however, had the following to say: “For years, even in our own app, Apple had these rules where we couldn’t tell you about offers, how much something costs, or even where to buy it.” It added that with the DMA, it would be able to share details about Spotify promotions, deals and better-value payment options with consumers in the EU.  

Additionally, Spotify said this would come without the “burden” of the mandatory 30% tax imposed by Apple on in-app purchases. 

Back home, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on March 15 ordered a detailed probe against Google for alleged discriminatory practices on its Play Store pricing policy after having discovered a prima facie violation of competition law. The petitioners had argued that Google’s updated payment policies for their proprietary app store was “impacting several stakeholders, including app developers, payments processors and users alike.”  

What about Alphabet engaging in self-preferencing?  

The Commission wants to determine whether Google search results are discriminatory; in other words, whether the search giant engages in self-preferencing for its verticals (such as Google Shopping, Google Flights, and Google Hotels) over rival services. It has stated that Alphabet’s measures to comply with the DMA may not have ensured that third-party services featuring on Google’s search results page are treated in a “fair and non-discriminatory manner” in comparison to their own services.

Alphabet has found itself responding to similar allegations in the past as well. In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) accused Google of “unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anti-competitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets” and directed it “to remedy the competitive harms.” According to the DoJ, the conduct harmed consumers by reducing the quality of their search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data, protection and user of consumer data), lowering choices, and impeding innovation. The case is ongoing.

Amazon too is facing heat for similarly tailoring the listings on its marketplace.  

What are the concerns about user choice obligations?  

Ecosystem captivity is the main concern. The Commission is looking to assess if Apple enables users to easily uninstall any pre-installed or presently default software applications on iOS, change default settings, and if it prompts users with choice screens that allow them to effectively and easily select alternatives to the default service, such as a browser or search engine on their iPhones. 

The investigation emanates from the Commission’s concern that Apple’s measures, including the design of the web browser choice screen, may be preventing users from “truly exercising their choice of services with the Apple ecosystem.” In other words, concerns over ecosystem captivity.  

As providers of both app storefronts and browsers, Google and Apple’s ‘walled garden’ ecosystems have also been hit with lawsuits across the Atlantic. 

What are the concerns about Meta’s “pay or consent model”? 

To align with the DMA provisions, Meta in December last year introduced a subscription model that offered people in countries of the EU, European Economic Area (EEA), and Switzerland the choice to use Facebook and Instagram without any ads. Alternatively, they could continue using these services for free while seeing ads relevant to them; in other words, consenting to personalised advertising.    

Meta had argued that the subscription for no ads was the “best compliance solution.” According to them, this was a solution to comply with a “unique combination of connected and sometimes overlapping EU regulatory obligations with differing compliance deadlines.” It added that the option offered its users a “clear choice.”

The model, however, did not convince the Commission. It held that the model’s “binary choice” may not provide “a real alternative in case users do not consent, thereby not attaining the objective of preventing the accumulation of personal data by gatekeepers.”    

How will non-compliant companies be penalised? 

The companies face the prospect of being fined up to 10% of their global turnover or 20% in case of repeated infringement(s). Additionally, should the investigation come across any “systematic infringement,” the companies may be asked to sell a business or parts of it. A ban from acquiring additional services related to the systemic non-compliance could also be possible.

What were the reactions to the European Commission investigation? 

The announcement of the investigation has evidently not enthused participants or stakeholders in the ecosystem. Concerns continue to exist if overlapping prerogatives across the aisle can be addressed.  

Daniel Friedlander, Senior Vice President and Head of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe), stated, “Last week’s DMA workshops highlighted many areas of uncertainty linked to DMA implementation, where different sectors and groups of access seekers expressed diametrically opposed requests that won’t be easily solved.” According to him, with many risks and opportunities still being reviewed, launching an investigation appears “premature.”  

An Amazon spokesperson told Reuters that the company was compliant with the DMA and has engaged constructively with the Commission on their plans since the designation of two of their services. “We continue to work hard every day to meet all of our customers’ high standards within Europe’s changing regulatory environment,” the spokesperson said.   

The oversight board, monitoring content on Meta’s platforms, is calling on the company to relax its restrictions on the Arabic word “shaheed” meaning “martyr” in English. After serious review, the board concluded that Meta’s blanket ban on this word was overly broad and led to the unnecessary suppression of speech among millions of users of certain communities and regions.

The board recommended that Meta should only remove posts containing “shaheed” if they are connected to clear signs of violence or if they violate other Meta rules independently, reports Reuters.

Under the current policy, Meta removes instances of “shaheed” when referring to people who are deemed dangerous. However, the oversight board argued that this approach is overly broad and restricts freedom of expression and civic discourse. Co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt said that the word has linguistic complexity and diverse meanings beyond just “martyr” in English. The board recognized that while “shaheed” might sometimes glorify violent acts, it is also used in neutral contexts such as reporting, academic discussions, and human rights debates. 

The board stated that Meta’s existing policies against inciting violence and support for designated terrorists and terror outfits are sufficient to address the risks associated with terrorist activity on its platforms. They urged Meta to reconsider its approach to moderation to prevent the removal of content that does not endorse terrorism or violence.

In response to these recommendations from the board, Meta is considering changes to its policy regarding the use of the word on its platforms. The board suggests that Meta should only remove content containing the term if the posts are associated with clear signs of violence, such as imagery of weapons, statements advocating violence, or references to attacks. Removal should also occur if the post violates other platform rules, such as glorifying terrorism. 

This follows years of criticism directed at Meta’s management of content related to the Middle East. The criticism intensified during the Israel-Hamas hostilities in October, with rights groups accusing Meta of suppressing pro-Palestinian content on its platforms. The Meta oversight board said that recommendations made to the company regarding the word “shaheed” remained valid even during crises like the Gaza conflict.

Meta has confirmed that it will review the feedback and provide a response within 60 days, as per USA Today. 

In a recent statement, former President Donald Trump voiced his concerns on Monday, acknowledging his belief that the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok poses a national security threat. However, Trump asserted that a ban on TikTok could inadvertently strengthen the position of Facebook, a platform he referred to as an “enemy of the people.”

“I do believe that,” Donald Trump, 77, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in response to a question about him previously deeming TikTok a national security threat.

“I do believe it, and we very much have to go into privacy and make sure that we are protecting the American people’s privacy and data rights,” the presumptive Republican nominee added. “But, you know, we also have that problem with others; you have that problem with Facebook and lots of other companies too.”

Donald Trump emphasised the difficulty of the decision to ban TikTok, noting that the absence of the widely-used app might inadvertently benefit Facebook. The former president’s comments underscore the complex considerations surrounding national security and competition among major social media platforms.

“Frankly, there are a lot of people on TikTok who love it. There are a lot of young kids on TikTok who will go crazy without it,” he said. “There are a lot of users; that is, you know a lot of good, and there’s a lot of bad with TikTok, but the thing I don’t like is that without TikTok, you can make Facebook bigger, and I consider Facebook to be an enemy of the people, along with a lot of the media.

“If you ban TikTok, Facebook, and others, but mostly Facebook, you will be a big beneficiary,” he added, arguing Facebook has been “very bad for the country,” especially in terms of elections.

Short, viral videos by TikTok, which is owned by Chinese internet giant ByteDance, took the world by storm, but concerns arose about user privacy. Some governments, including India, were worried that the Chinese ownership of the app (by ByteDance) could allow the Chinese government to access user data. Fearing this potential risk, India banned TikTok and over 100 other Chinese apps in June 2020 for national security reasons.

Sydney:

Meta Platforms said it will stop paying Australian news publishers for content that appears on Facebook, setting up a fresh battle with Canberra which had led the world with a law that forces internet giants to strike licencing deals.

News publishers and governments like Australia have argued that Facebook and Google unfairly benefit in terms of advertising revenue when links to news articles appear on their platforms. Meta has been scaling back its promotion of news and political content to drive traffic and says news links are now a fraction of users’ feeds.

Meta will discontinue a tab on Facebook which promotes news in Australia and the United States, it said in a statement, adding that it cancelled the news tab last year in the UK, France and Germany.

As a result, “we will not enter into new commercial deals for traditional news content in these countries and will not offer new Facebook products specifically for news publishers,” the statement added.

The decision pits Meta against the Australian government and its 2021 law.

“The idea that one company can profit from others’ investment, not just investment in capital but investment in people, investment in journalism, is unfair,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters.

“That’s not the Australian way,” he added.

The government is seeking advice from the Treasury Department and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about its next steps.

Rod Sims, the former ACCC chair who oversaw the design of the law, called Meta’s reversal selfish and he was concerned about the impact on society as the decision undermined the quality of journalism which appears on social media.

“This is Meta thumbing its nose at the Australian parliament,” he said.

Under the 2021 law, the country’s government must decide whether it will appoint a mediator to set Meta’s fees and potentially fine Meta if it fails to cooperate. Most of Meta’s deals with Australian media ran for three years and are set to expire in 2024.

Meta is, however, not obligated to pay news publishers if it blocks users from reposting news articles as it did briefly in 2021. It has done the same in Canada since 2023 when the country passed similar laws. Meta said on Friday that publishers could continue posting news content on Facebook.

Tama Leaver, an internet studies professor at Curtin University, said Meta will be reluctant to escalate the dispute by stopping its users from posting news links in Australia and will more likely challenge the government in court if it intervenes.

“Meta is going ‘what are you going to do?’ and the Australian government has a real decision to make,” he said.

Australia’s biggest media outlets lambasted the decision, calling it an attack on the industry.

“Meta is using its immense market power to refuse to negotiate, and the government is right to explore every option for how the Media Bargaining Code’s powers can be used,” said News Corp Australasia Executive Chairman Michael Miller.

Nine Entertainment CEO Mike Sneesby said the decision failed to acknowledge the value that the media firm, which owns the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review mastheads and a free-to-air television channel, created for Meta.

While no deal values have been disclosed, Australian media outlets have reported Facebook’s deals are worth A$70 million ($45 million) a year to the industry.

Google’s Australian media licencing deals mostly ran for five years, expiring in 2026. A spokesperson said the company has already started negotiations for deal renewals.

Many governments around the world remain keen on protecting their local news industries from being elbowed out of the online advertising market. Indonesia said last month it also plans to make large tech firms pay for news content.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Sydney:

Facebook parent Meta announced Friday it would no longer pay Australian media companies for news, prompting a government warning that the firm was in “dereliction” of past promises.

Extending a global retreat from news content, Meta said it would scrap the Facebook News tab in Australia and would not renew deals with news publishers worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

“People don’t come to Facebook for news and political content,” the firm said, explaining the move.

The decision had been on the cards, but will come as a hammer blow for Australian news outlets already struggling to stay afloat.

Meta had previously announced it would not renew content deals with news publishers in the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

The social media giant had been pushed into paying for news by governments hoping to level the media playing field and support struggling news firms.

Media companies around the world have seen a decline in revenues for years, with advertisers flocking to popular digital platforms like Google and Facebook to reach consumers.

Three years ago, Meta’s promise to pay news outlets prompted the Australian government to water down legislation governing online platforms and their relationships with the news media.

On Friday, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland expressed anger at Meta’s announcement and suggested the government may take retaliatory measures.

“Meta’s decision to no longer pay for news content in a number of jurisdictions represents a dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media,” Rowland said.

“The decision removes a significant source of revenue for Australian news media businesses. Australian news publishers deserve fair compensation for the content they provide.”

Rowland said the government would “work through all available options” to address the issue, in consultation with the country’s communications regulator.

The government was “committed to promoting a strong, sustainable and diverse media sector given its vital importance to our democracy and social cohesion”, she said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The Meta logo is seen at the Vivatech show in Paris on June 14, 2023.
| Photo Credit: AP

A group of 33 States including California and New York are suing Meta Platforms Inc. for harming young people’s mental health and contributing the youth mental health crisis by knowingly designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in California also claims that Meta routinely collects data on children under 13 without their parents’ consent, in violation of federal law.

“Kids and teenagers are suffering from record levels of poor mental health and social media companies like Meta are to blame,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “Meta has profited from children’s pain by intentionally designing its platforms with manipulative features that make children addicted to their platforms while lowering their self-esteem.”

The broad-ranging suit is the result of an investigation led by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont. It follows damning newspaper reports, first by The Wall Street Journal in 2021, based on the Meta’s own research that found that the company knew about the harms Instagram can cause teenagers — especially teen girls — when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse.

Following the first reports, a consortium of news organisations, including The Associated Press, published their own findings based on leaked documents from whistleblower Frances Haugen, who has testified before Congress and a British parliamentary committee about what she found.

The use of social media among teens is nearly universal in the U.S. and many other parts of the world. Up to 95% of youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S. report using a social media platform, with more than a third saying they use social media “almost constantly”, according to the Pew Research Center.

To comply with federal regulation, social media companies ban kids under 13 from signing up to their platforms — but children have been shown to easily get around the bans, both with and without their parents’ consent, and many younger kids have social media accounts.

Other measures social platforms have taken to address concerns about children’s mental health are also easily circumvented. For instance, TikTok recently introduced a default 60-minute time limit for users under 18. But once the limit is reached, minors can simply enter a passcode to keep watching.

In May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on tech companies, parents and caregivers to take “immediate action to protect kids now” from the harms of social media.

Facebook parent Meta on Wednesday rolled out a temporary feature to limit “harmful and potentially harmful” content on the Israel-Hamas war. The change is part of the company’s efforts to protect people “in the region” from such “unwanted” comments, Meta said in an updated statement on Wednesday (October 18). For now, friends and verified followers of people who create posts in the specified region will be able to comment on the new and public Facebook posts. The war started after the Hamas attack on October 7.

Also Read | “Thank You Meta”: Israel After Mark Zuckerberg Calls Hamas Attacks “Pure Evil”

Meta also said that any content “containing praise” for Hamas will not be allowed on Facebook or Instagram, as the group falls under its Dangerous Organization designation.

“Our policies are designed to keep people safe on our apps while giving everyone a voice,” Meta said in the update.

“We apply these policies equally around the world and there is no truth to the suggestion that we are deliberately suppressing voice,” it added.

Other temporary changes implemented by Meta for content related to Israel-Hamas war:

• Default setting for who can comment on newly created public Facebook posts of people in the region changed to Friends and/or established followers only. Meta said users globally can choose to use this setting and opt in or out at any time.
• Bulk deletion of comments made easier and display of first one or two comments under posts in Feed disabled
• Facebook has also rolled out the ‘Lock Your Profile’ tool in the region. These users can lock their profile in one step, enhancing profile privacy by restricting access to non-friends.

Meta has also been monitoring content from across the globe on the situation in the region. It has formed a group of experts, including fluent Hebrew and Arabic speakers, to oversee this effort.

The company said since October 7, when the conflict broke out, more than 795,000 pieces of content have been removed or flagged for violating Meta policies. Meta has also made changes to content pertaining to potential hostages.

Israel has launched a massive offensive in retaliation to a devastating Hamas incursion into Israel on October 7 during which 1,400 people were killed and hostages were taken.

Israel and Egypt have upheld a blockade of Gaza since Hamas took control of the territory in 2007, tightly controlling the movement goods and people.