This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Meta could be facing even more regulatory scrutiny, with a group of U.S. senators submitting a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to question why Meta failed to prioritize the safety of teen users based on its own research, which showed that younger users should have had more privacy protections in place way before Meta actually enacted such.
Senators Brian Schatz, Katie Britt, Amy Klobuchar, James Lankford, and Christopher Coons have called on Zuckerberg to offer an explanation for his company’s actions, which they suggest may have put young people at risk, in favor of business growth.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Meta could be facing even more regulatory scrutiny, with a group of U.S. senators submitting a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to question why Meta failed to prioritize the safety of teen users based on its own research, which showed that younger users should have had more privacy protections in place way before Meta actually enacted such.
Senators Brian Schatz, Katie Britt, Amy Klobuchar, James Lankford, and Christopher Coons have called on Zuckerberg to offer an explanation for his company’s actions, which they suggest may have put young people at risk, in favor of business growth.
The claims are based on testimony submitted as part of a multidistrict litigation against several social media platforms over their efforts to drive growth, even at the cost of user safety. More than 1,800 plaintiffs are taking part in the action, which alleges that Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube “relentlessly pursued a strategy of growth at all costs, recklessly ignoring the impact of their products on children’s mental and physical health.”
Among the various reports and insights revealed within this was the suggestion that Meta has aggressively pursued young users, even though its internal research indicated that social media could be addictive and dangerous to kids. Former Meta employees claim that concerns had been raised internally on this front as far back as 2017, and solutions had been submitted to improve its systems, but Meta largely ignored these early on, due to concerns that implementing them could impede growth.
Meta has denied these accusations, and has pointed to its long track record of implementing protection measures for teens. And while Meta did implement more stringent privacy protections for all teen accounts in 2024, the senators have called on Meta to explain why it took so long to enact these protections, given that Meta reportedly knew about these risks many years back.
“Following recent unsealed evidence regarding Meta’s online safety practices towards children, we write to urge Meta’s commitment to prioritizing user safety over engagement. To that end, we request additional information about the company’s online safety practices, including expectations for public transparency and clarification of its trust and safety protocols.”
The senators have called on Zuckerberg to “elaborate on Meta’s evaluation of trade-offs between engagement and user safety and wellbeing in its product design, as well as its trust and safety protocols, that impact users under the age of 18.”
The senators have also called on Zuckerberg to share more insight into how Meta reviews and acts on reports of sex trafficking and CSAM on its platforms.
Again, Meta has denied any delayed action in favor of growth goals, and Zuckerberg will likely submit a response that outlines this. But it could lead to another Senate appearance for Zuck, in which he could face tough questions about Meta’s approach, and its track record on safety.
Given that Meta has now implemented various protections, I don’t think that this would have a big impact on the company either way, but it would be another PR challenge for the business, which already has a not-so-great reputation on this front.
But again, Meta says that it has taken action, as guided by research, and that it is implementing more protections to keep youngsters safe.
I guess, the bigger implication here could be for its AI projects, and its VR experiences, with Meta coming under pressure to ensure more protections in these elements, before they become a problem.
Could action like this ensure greater proactive protections, as opposed to reactive assessment after the fact?
Ideally, Meta will be able to address this as part of its response.
