A New Mexico jury determined Tuesday (March 24, 2026) that Meta knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms, a verdict that signals a changing tide against tech companies and the government’s willingness to crack down.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case.

New Mexico jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety, and violated parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That’s less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.

Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion and the company’s stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news.

Juror Linda Payton, 38, said the jury reached a compromise on the estimated number of teenagers affected by Meta’s platforms, while opting for the maximum penalty per violation. With a maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation, she said she thought each child was worth the maximum amount.

The social media conglomerate won’t be forced to change its practices right away. It will be up to a judge — not a jury — to determine whether Meta’s social media platforms created a public nuisance and whether the company should pay for public programs to address the harms. That second phase of the trial will happen in May.

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.

“We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content,” the spokesperson said. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”

Attorneys for Meta said the company discloses risks and makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, while acknowledging that some bad material gets through its safety net.

New Mexico’s case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.

More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it’s contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

“Meta’s house of cards is beginning to fall,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project. “For years, it’s been glaringly obvious that Meta has failed to stop sexual predators from turning online interactions into real world harm.”

Ms. Haworth pointed to whistleblowers like Arturo Béjar, as well as unsealed documents and other evidence, saying it painted a damning picture.

New Mexico’s case relied on an undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s response.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, also said Meta hasn’t fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction. Meta hasn’t agreed that social media addiction exists, but executives at trial acknowledged “problematic use” and say they want people to feel good about the time they spend on Meta’s platforms.

“Evidence shows not only that Meta invests in safety because it’s the right thing to do but because it is good for business,” Meta attorney Kevin Huff told jurors in closing arguments. “Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators.”

Tech companies have been protected from liability for content posted on their social media platforms under Section 230, a 30-year-old provision of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as a First Amendment shield.

New Mexico prosecutors say Meta still should be responsible for its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that is harmful for children.

“We know the output is meant to be engagement and time spent for kids,” prosecution attorney Linda Singer said. “That choice that Meta made has profound negative impacts on kids.”

The New Mexico trial examined a raft of Meta’s internal correspondence and reports related to child safety. Jurors also heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, whistleblowers who left the company, psychiatric experts and tech safety consultants.

The jury also heard testimony from local public school educators who struggled with disruptions linked to social media, including sextortion schemes targeting children.

In reaching a verdict, the jury considered whether social media users were misled by specific statements about platform safety by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta global head of safety Antigone Davis.

Jurors also considered Meta’s failure to enforce its ban on users under 13, the role of its algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and the prevalence of social media content about teen suicide.

ParentsSOS, a coalition of families who have lost children to harm caused by social media, called the verdict a “watershed moment.”

“We parents who have experienced the unimaginable — the death of a child because of social media harms — applaud this rare and momentous milestone in the years-long fight to hold Big Tech accountable for the dangers their products pose to our kids,” the group said in a statement.

Published – March 25, 2026 06:15 am IST

Los Angeles:

DJ Unk, the Atlanta rapper known for his hits ‘Walk It Out’ and ‘2 Step,’ has died at the age of 43.

The news of his death was confirmed by his family members and his former label, Big Oomp Records.

Born Anthony Platt, Unk was a key figure in snap music, a subgenre of crunk that gained popularity in the mid-2000s. His hit “Walk It Out” reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot Rap Songs chart, while “2 Step” peaked at No. 4 in 2006.

His wife, Sherkita Long-Platt, wrote on Facebook, “Please respect me and my family. I just lost my husband and my kids just lost their father. Our life will never be the same. I LOVE YOU ANTHONY FOREVER.”

According to Variety, Big Oomp Records shared a statement that stated, “It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that we announce the passing of a true ATL legend, Anthony Platt better known as ‘DJ Unk. DJ Unk was not just a legendary DJ, rapper and producer, but a true cornerstone of our label and the imprint that he left globally will be cherished forever.”

However, the cause of his death has not been revealed yet.

Unk began his music career at 17 as part of the Southern Style DJs with DJ Jelly and DJ Montay. In 2006, he released his debut album, Beat’n Down Yo Block!, which included the hit ‘Walk It Out’ and its remix featuring Andre 3000 and Jim Jones. 

His second album, 2econd Season (2008), didn’t achieve the same level of success but marked his place in the music industry.

In 2009, Unk suffered a heart attack, which he later attributed to stress, poor eating habits, and nonstop touring.

Unk’s music output slowed in recent years, though he released a full-length album, Fresh Off Dem Papers, in 2017. He was seen at the 2023 BET Awards, where he performed ‘Walk It Out’ alongside Soulja Boy and F.L.Y.

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

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced big changes in how the company addresses misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and Threads. Instead of relying on independent third-party factcheckers, Meta will now emulate Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) in using “community notes”. These crowdsourced contributions allow users to flag content they believe is questionable.

Zuckerberg claimed these changes promote “free expression”. But some experts worry he’s bowing to right-wing political pressure, and will effectively allow a deluge of hate speech and lies to spread on Meta platforms.

Research on the group dynamics of social media suggests those experts have a point.

At first glance, community notes might seem democratic, reflecting values of free speech and collective decisions. Crowdsourced systems such as Wikipedia, Metaculus and PredictIt, though imperfect, often succeed at harnessing the wisdom of crowds — where the collective judgement of many can sometimes outperform even experts.

Research shows that diverse groups that pool independent judgements and estimates can be surprisingly effective at discerning the truth. However, wise crowds seldom have to contend with social media algorithms.

Many people rely on platforms such as Facebook for their news, risking exposure to misinformation and biased sources. Relying on social media users to police information accuracy could further polarise platforms and amplify extreme voices.

Two group-based tendencies — our psychological need to sort ourselves and others into groups — are of particular concern: in-group/out-group bias and acrophily (love of extremes).

INGROUP / OUTGROUP BIAS

Humans are biased in how they evaluate information. People are more likely to trust and remember information from their in-group — those who share their identities — while distrusting information from perceived out-groups. This bias leads to echo chambers, where like-minded people reinforce shared beliefs, regardless of accuracy.

It may feel rational to trust family, friends or colleagues over strangers. But in-group sources often hold similar perspectives and experiences, offering little new information. Out-group members, on the other hand, are more likely to provide diverse viewpoints. This diversity is critical to the wisdom of crowds.

But too much disagreement between groups can prevent community fact-checking from even occurring. Many community notes on X (formerly Twitter), such as those related to COVID vaccines, were likely never shown publicly because users disagreed with one another. The benefit of third-party factchecking was to provide an objective outside source, rather than needing widespread agreement from users across a network.

Worse, such systems are vulnerable to manipulation by well organised groups with political agendas. For instance, Chinese nationalists reportedly mounted a campaign to edit Wikipedia entries related to China-Taiwan relations to be more favourable to China.

POLITICAL POLARISATION AND ACROPHILY

Indeed, politics intensifies these dynamics. In the US, political identity increasingly dominates how people define their social groups.

Political groups are motivated to define “the truth” in ways that advantage them and disadvantage their political opponents. It’s easy to see how organised efforts to spread politically motivated lies and discredit inconvenient truths could corrupt the wisdom of crowds in Meta’s community notes.

Social media accelerates this problem through a phenomenon called acrophily, or a preference for the extreme. Research shows that people tend to engage with posts slightly more extreme than their own views.

These increasingly extreme posts are more likely to be negative than positive. Psychologists have known for decades that bad is more engaging than good. We are hardwired to pay more attention to negative experiences and information than positive ones.

On social media, this means negative posts – about violence, disasters and crises – get more attention, often at the expense of more neutral or positive content.

Those who express these extreme, negative views gain status within their groups, attracting more followers and amplifying their influence. Over time, people come to think of these slightly more extreme negative views as normal, slowly moving their own views toward the poles.

A recent study of 2.7 million posts on Facebook and Twitter found that messages containing words such as “hate”, “attack” and “destroy” were shared and liked at higher rates than almost any other content. This suggests that social media isn’t just amplifying extreme views — it’s fostering a culture of out-group hate that undermines the collaboration and trust needed for a system like community notes to work.

THE PATH FORWARD

The combination of negativity bias, in-group/out-group bias and acrophily supercharges one of the greatest challenges of our time: polarisation. Through polarisation, extreme views become normalised, eroding the potential for shared understanding across group divides.

The best solutions, which I examine in my forthcoming book, The Collective Edge, start with diversifying our information sources. First, people need to engage with — and collaborate across — different groups to break down barriers of mistrust. Second, they must seek information from multiple, reliable news and information outlets, not just social media.

However, social media algorithms often work against these solutions, creating echo chambers and trapping people’s attention. For community notes to work, these algorithms would need to prioritise diverse, reliable sources of information.

While community notes could theoretically harness the wisdom of crowds, their success depends on overcoming these psychological vulnerabilities. Perhaps increased awareness of these biases can help us design better systems — or empower users to use community notes to promote dialogue across divides. Only then can platforms move closer to solving the misinformation problem.

(Author: Colin M. Fisher, Associate Professor of Organisations and Innovation and Author of “The Collective Edge: Unlocking the Secret Power of Groups”, UCL)

(Disclosure Statement: Colin M. Fisher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
 

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

Facebook has acknowledged that it mistakenly identified a widely shared image of Donald Trump as “altered.” Facebook’s algorithms detected the image, which depicts Trump raising his fist in the air following an assassination attempt, and labelled it as possibly deceptive. Platform X users claimed that the photo had been marked as altered on their accounts. Facebook responded by saying that unbiased fact-checkers had examined an identical image and discovered it to be false.

Dani Lever, the director of public affairs at Meta, explained on X that the labelling was incorrect. The Facebook’s internal technical system was intended to detect a different version of the image, not the iconic photo of Trump. Facebook expressed regret for the mistake and any misunderstanding it may have created.

“This was an error. This fact check was initially applied to a doctored photo showing the secret service agents smiling, and in some cases our systems incorrectly applied that fact check to the real photo. This has been fixed, and we apologize for the mistake,” Lever wrote.

This was an error. This fact check was initially applied to a doctored photo showing the secret service agents smiling, and in some cases our systems incorrectly applied that fact check to the real photo. This has been fixed and we apologize for the mistake. https://t.co/y613GuuJpV

— Dani Lever (@Dani_Lever) July 29, 2024

Lever confirmed the mistake when Fox News Digital reached out for a comment.

The altered image Lever referenced featured the Secret Service members surrounding Trump smiling. Many media outlets previously fact-checked the images as “altered,” though it confirmed the accuracy of the original image.

None of the agents in the original image are smiling as they surround Trump, who has blood on his face and his right arm in the air. The image – which was captured by Associated Press photographer Evan Vucci and distributed by the AP – appeared with coverage of the shooting by many legitimate news outlets.

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.