Meta India representatives appeared before India’s National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) after the child rights body summoned the company’s managing director and head over serious allegations involving Instagram advertisements.

The inquiry follows a BBC investigation that alleged paid Instagram advertisements were being used to promote child sexual exploitation and abuse material, with users reportedly directed to Telegram channels where such material was allegedly sold.

The NCPCR took suo motu cognizance of the report and later opened a formal inquiry after reviewing Meta’s response. Separately, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has directed Delhi Police to investigate the allegations and examine whether Meta and other concerned entities complied with mandatory reporting obligations under the POCSO Act.

Both proceedings are currently focused on establishing the facts and determining whether any legal or regulatory obligations were breached.

Meta India Faces Child Rights Probe Over Alleged Instagram Ads Linked To Child Abuse Material

Meta has removed Facebook and Instagram advertisements linked to malicious apps that allegedly targeted Indian banking users. The development highlights growing concerns over online scams, fraudulent applications and cyber threats aimed at stealing sensitive financial information from users.


Meta removes banking scam ads from Facebook, Instagram amid rising cyber fraud

Meta removes ads linked to banking scams

Social media addiction is increasingly being linked to worsening mental health among children and teenagers. But one question remains—are tech giants finally being held accountable? After facing lawsuits from multiple U.S. states over the alleged impact of its platforms on young users, Meta has agreed to a massive settlement worth billions of dollars.&nbsp;The settlement could become a template for thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies.&nbsp;Twenty-nine states accused Meta of collecting children's personal data without parental consent and using that data to train generative artificial intelligence.&nbsp;So, what changes will teenagers face? First, users under 18 will be limited to a cumulative two hours of Instagram and Facebook use each day. The limit can be switched off only with parental permission.&nbsp;Teenagers will not be able to use the apps between midnight and 6 a.m. Notifications will also be muted by default during school hours, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.&nbsp;Meta will also introduce reminders after every 15 minutes of continuous screen time, as well as alerts when usage reaches 60 and 90 minutes.&nbsp;Teenagers will also lose access to the number of likes and reactions on posts. That's significant because social media can amplify peer pressure and contribute to anxiety and depression.&nbsp;Meta has also banned extreme makeup filters for teenagers. Parents will receive periodic updates about their child's usage. And Meta has agreed to strengthen its age-verification measures.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-curbs-instagram-for-kids-india-s-meta-users-still-victims-1787852098983/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-curbs-instagram-for-kids-india-s-meta-users-still-victims-1787852098983/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;As part of the settlement, Meta will pay 12.7 billion U.S. dollars over the next decade. California is set to receive the biggest share — around 2.2 billion dollars.&nbsp;But there is a catch. Part of Meta's payment will depend on rivals such as YouTube and TikTok implementing similar measures — including a one-hour daily limit, night mode and age-assurance measures for teenagers.&nbsp;But can money make a difference to families who say they have lost their children to social media addiction?&nbsp;This is not Meta's first major legal setback over social media addiction.&nbsp;Earlier, a New Mexico state court ordered Meta to pay 567 million U.S. dollars into a teen mental-health fund and change how its platforms operate for young users.&nbsp;In March, a Los Angeles court also found Meta and Google negligent in designing addictive products and ordered them to pay six million dollars to a 20-year-old woman who became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.&nbsp;<h2>Will Meta extend similar protections to teenagers in India?</h2> And this brings us to a crucial question: Will Meta extend similar protections to teenagers in India? India is Meta's biggest market.&nbsp;According to DataReportal estimates, India has around 481 million Instagram users and 403 million Facebook users.&nbsp;The question comes at a time when India is also grappling with growing social-media use among young people.&nbsp;One report estimates that social-media users in India spend up to one hour and 30 minutes a day on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.&nbsp;A nationwide rural household survey covering more than 600,000 children found that access to smartphones is almost universal among 14-to-16-year-olds.&nbsp;Seventy-six percent of digitally literate children said they had used smartphones to access social media.&nbsp;And 37 percent of 16-year-olds and 27 percent of 14-year-olds reported having their own smartphone.&nbsp;India is not alone. Governments around the world are trying to tackle digital addiction among young people. Nearly 40 percent of global education systems have introduced varying levels of restrictions or bans on cellphone use in schools. Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia have also introduced restrictions on social-media access for children below 16.&nbsp;Meta's settlement in the United States has set a significant precedent. But it also raises an uncomfortable question for India: If stronger protections are possible in one of Meta's biggest markets, why shouldn't Indian children receive the same safeguards?&nbsp;As social-media addiction continues to reshape childhood, the debate is no longer simply about screen time. It is about accountability. And in the wake of Meta's settlement, the question now is: What will India do to protect its children?&nbsp;What do you think? Should India introduce similar social-media restrictions for teenagers?&nbsp;

So, what changes will teenagers face? First, users under 18 will be limited to a cumulative two hours of Instagram and Facebook use each day. The limit can be switched off only with parental permission.

Social media addiction is increasingly being linked to worsening mental health among children and teenagers. But one question remains—are tech giants finally being held accountable? After facing lawsuits from multiple U.S. states over the alleged impact of its platforms on young users, Meta has agreed to a massive settlement worth billions of dollars. The settlement could become a template for thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies. Twenty-nine states accused Meta of collecting children's personal data without parental consent and using that data to train generative artificial intelligence. So, what changes will teenagers face? First, users under 18 will be limited to a cumulative two hours of Instagram and Facebook use each day. The limit can be switched off only with parental permission. Teenagers will not be able to use the apps between midnight and 6 a.m. Notifications will also be muted by default during school hours, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Meta will also introduce reminders after every 15 minutes of continuous screen time, as well as alerts when usage reaches 60 and 90 minutes. Teenagers will also lose access to the number of likes and reactions on posts. That's significant because social media can amplify peer pressure and contribute to anxiety and depression. Meta has also banned extreme makeup filters for teenagers. Parents will receive periodic updates about their child's usage. And Meta has agreed to strengthen its age-verification measures. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-curbs-instagram-for-kids-india-s-meta-users-still-victims-1787852098983/embed As part of the settlement, Meta will pay 12.7 billion U.S. dollars over the next decade. California is set to receive the biggest share — around 2.2 billion dollars. But there is a catch. Part of Meta's payment will depend on rivals such as YouTube and TikTok implementing similar measures — including a one-hour daily limit, night mode and age-assurance measures for teenagers. But can money make a difference to families who say they have lost their children to social media addiction? This is not Meta's first major legal setback over social media addiction. Earlier, a New Mexico state court ordered Meta to pay 567 million U.S. dollars into a teen mental-health fund and change how its platforms operate for young users. In March, a Los Angeles court also found Meta and Google negligent in designing addictive products and ordered them to pay six million dollars to a 20-year-old woman who became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child. Will Meta extend similar protections to teenagers in India? And this brings us to a crucial question: Will Meta extend similar protections to teenagers in India? India is Meta's biggest market. According to DataReportal estimates, India has around 481 million Instagram users and 403 million Facebook users. The question comes at a time when India is also grappling with growing social-media use among young people. One report estimates that social-media users in India spend up to one hour and 30 minutes a day on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. A nationwide rural household survey covering more than 600,000 children found that access to smartphones is almost universal among 14-to-16-year-olds. Seventy-six percent of digitally literate children said they had used smartphones to access social media. And 37 percent of 16-year-olds and 27 percent of 14-year-olds reported having their own smartphone. India is not alone. Governments around the world are trying to tackle digital addiction among young people. Nearly 40 percent of global education systems have introduced varying levels of restrictions or bans on cellphone use in schools. Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia have also introduced restrictions on social-media access for children below 16. Meta's settlement in the United States has set a significant precedent. But it also raises an uncomfortable question for India: If stronger protections are possible in one of Meta's biggest markets, why shouldn't Indian children receive the same safeguards? As social-media addiction continues to reshape childhood, the debate is no longer simply about screen time. It is about accountability. And in the wake of Meta's settlement, the question now is: What will India do to protect its children? What do you think? Should India introduce similar social-media restrictions for teenagers?

So, what changes will teenagers face? First, users under 18 will be limited to a cumulative two hours of Instagram and Facebook use each day. The limit can be switched off only with parental permission.

US curbs Instagram for kids, India's Meta users still victims | Gravitas

After being sued by multiple U.S. states over its products fueling social media addiction, Meta announced a $18 billion settlement. In a big win for accountability, it has also decided to curb Instagram and Facebook use for teenagers. Now, it remains to be seen whether these curbs are extended to other countries like India. 


US curbs Instagram for kids, India's META users still victims

Meta has agreed to pay $18 billion to settle claims brought by multiple U.S. states over allegations that its social media platforms used addictive features that negatively affected young users. The company denied any wrongdoing and said the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability. The agreement marks one of the largest settlements involving a major technology company and comes amid growing scrutiny of social media's impact on mental health and online safety.


Meta agrees to pay $18 billion, denies allegations of pushing addictive features

A landmark trial began in August 2026 in a federal court in Oakland, California, where Meta Platforms is accused of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to hook young users. A bipartisan coalition of 29 U.S. states brought the suit, alleging the tech giant engineered addictive features that exploit adolescent psychology, causing severe youth mental health harms while prioritising corporate profit. Meta strongly rejects the allegations, claiming the lawsuit's mathematical financial demands are completely unsubstantiated.

META accused of designing Facebook & Instagram to hook young users 

Meta is facing a major legal challenge in the U.S. as states accuse the company of putting children at risk through Facebook and Instagram. The allegations include hiding potential harms, improperly collecting and using children’s data, and designing platforms that allegedly keep young users engaged. Families are demanding greater accountability as the case could influence how Meta operates its social media platforms.


California AG: Meta knew Instagram could harm teenagers 

Meta on trial: States accuse Facebook & Instagram of harming children

Robin Williams' children, Zak, Zelda, and Cody, have reactivated their late father's Instagram account after 12 years of silence, aiming to push back against what they call "rampant AI abuse" of his voice and likeness. In a joint statement marking what would have been his 75th year, the siblings said they want the page to be a "safe, trusted place" for authentic photos and memories, standing in contrast to the wave of AI-generated deepfakes that have gone viral in recent years.


Robin Williams' kids revive his Instagram to fight 'rampant AI abuse' of his legacy

Meta is facing one of its biggest legal challenges yet as a coalition of 29 US states accuses the technology giant of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to keep children hooked, while downplaying the risks associated with its platforms. The closely watched trial began in a federal court in Oakland, California, on Tuesday (Aug 18). Four states, including California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, are leading the case, alleging that Meta’s products contributed to anxiety, depression and other mental health problems among young users.The states also accuse Meta of violating federal law by collecting and using children’s personal information improperly.Opening the case for California, deputy attorney general Megan O’Neill alleged that Meta’s business model was to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public.”“It worked especially well for kids,” O’Neill told the eight-member jury.Meta rejected the allegations. The company’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, acknowledged that some young people struggle with social media but argued that research does not establish a clear connection between adolescent social media use and poor wellbeing.“They don’t believe they’re going to do well if people don’t like their service,” Schmidt said, referring to Meta’s leadership.The case could have significant consequences for Facebook and Instagram. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide Meta’s liability, while jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict.If Meta is found liable, the judge could impose civil penalties and order changes to the platforms. The states have proposed measures including removing likes and infinite scrolling, introducing time limits for younger users and strengthening restrictions on children under 13.Former Meta safety engineer Arturo Bejar, who has previously criticised the company’s child-safety measures, was the first witness called by the states.The trial is expected to last six weeks, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri among those expected to testify. &nbsp;

Meta faces a landmark US trial as 29 states accuse Facebook and Instagram of deliberately ‘hooking’ children, harming their wellbeing and exploiting their data for profit.

Meta is facing one of its biggest legal challenges yet as a coalition of 29 US states accuses the technology giant of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to keep children hooked, while downplaying the risks associated with its platforms. The closely watched trial began in a federal court in Oakland, California, on Tuesday (Aug 18). Four states, including California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, are leading the case, alleging that Meta’s products contributed to anxiety, depression and other mental health problems among young users. The states also accuse Meta of violating federal law by collecting and using children’s personal information improperly. Opening the case for California, deputy attorney general Megan O’Neill alleged that Meta’s business model was to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public.” “It worked especially well for kids,” O’Neill told the eight-member jury. Meta rejected the allegations. The company’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, acknowledged that some young people struggle with social media but argued that research does not establish a clear connection between adolescent social media use and poor wellbeing. “They don’t believe they’re going to do well if people don’t like their service,” Schmidt said, referring to Meta’s leadership. The case could have significant consequences for Facebook and Instagram. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide Meta’s liability, while jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict. If Meta is found liable, the judge could impose civil penalties and order changes to the platforms. The states have proposed measures including removing likes and infinite scrolling, introducing time limits for younger users and strengthening restrictions on children under 13. Former Meta safety engineer Arturo Bejar, who has previously criticised the company’s child-safety measures, was the first witness called by the states. The trial is expected to last six weeks, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri among those expected to testify.

Meta faces a landmark US trial as 29 states accuse Facebook and Instagram of deliberately ‘hooking’ children, harming their wellbeing and exploiting their data for profit.

Did Meta ‘hook’ children to Facebook, Instagram for profit? 29 US states take tech giant to trial

A New Mexico court has ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental health fund, ruling that Facebook and Instagram contributed to harming young users and created a public nuisance.

The court also directed Meta to implement stronger youth safety measures, including limits on teen usage, stricter controls on adult interactions with minors, notification restrictions, and safeguards against inappropriate AI chatbot interactions.

The landmark ruling could influence similar lawsuits across the United States, where dozens of states and more than 1,300 school districts are pursuing legal action against social media companies over alleged harm to children.

Meta Hit With $567 Million Penalty Over Teen Mental Health | Facebook & Instagram Under Fire

India has introduced stricter rules for social media platforms to combat AI-generated deepfakes and unlawful synthetic content. Under the amended IT Rules, platforms must remove illegal AI-generated content within three hours of receiving a valid notice from the government or a court. The new framework also mandates clear labeling of AI-generated content, metadata for traceability, and faster grievance redressal for complaints involving impersonation, nudity, and child sexual abuse material.

India Tightens Deepfake Rules: Social Media Platforms Must Remove Illegal AI Content Within 3 Hours

A powerful panel of the Indian Parliament asked some uncomfortable questions to representatives of some of the world's biggest social media companies. The context was the recent protests against exam paper leaks led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), the removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's video, alleged algorithmic manipulation, and broader concerns about platform accountability. Representatives of Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, as well as those from Google, YouTube, X and Snapchat attended the meeting. Here is what happened:<h2>The Parliament committee was on regulating social and digital platforms</h2>The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology was chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey. Its meeting was also attended by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) Secretary S Krishnan, Information and Broadcasting Secretary Sanjay Jaju, and other senior officials. The subject of the meeting held on Monday (Aug 3) was "Social and Digital Platforms and Their Regulation".<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/meta-under-fire-as-panel-seeks-answers-over-pm-modi-video-takedown-1785825943604/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/meta-under-fire-as-panel-seeks-answers-over-pm-modi-video-takedown-1785825943604/embed</a><h2>The removal of PM Modi's video came up for discussion</h2>The Prime Minister released a reel-style video on the night of 23 July addressing India's youth amid protests in Delhi and other cities over alleged examination paper leaks, including NEET-UG. The CJP-led agitation was demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who eventually resigned. Modi's video was briefly restricted or removed on Facebook for around five hours, from approximately 12.30 am to 5.00 am. Meta attributed the incident to a technical error and restored the video. MeitY had earlier described the explanation as "inadequate".At the Parliament committee hearing, members pressed Meta to fix responsibility beyond a company-level apology, according to media reports. The company was asked as to who authorised the removal of the PM's video and how such an error could occur with official content from the Prime Minister's office.The underlying question was whether this represented a serious systems failure, a flaw in Meta's moderation processes, or a deliberate act that resulted in the Prime Minister's official communication being taken down.Meta representatives expressed regret and indicated their readiness to apologise. Dubey sought a personal apology from Meta Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg. If the CEO does not apologise, Meta's safe harbour protection under Section 79 of India's Information Technology Act, 2000 should be withdrawn, Dubey reportedly recommended. The panel also sought a written reply from Meta within 10 days.<h2>Did tech giants amplify the viewership of CJP protest content?</h2>Dubey noted that the CJP had exceptionally high social media viewership. According to some media reports cited, its content generated up to 27 billion views across platforms. The figure exceeded the combined reach of content from major political parties. An anti-reservation forum also reportedly generated around 7 billion views.These figures were presented as possible evidence that the algorithms of social media platforms may be favouring newcomers, highly engaging content, or particular types of political material. Panel members sought an explanation of how such content achieved such extraordinary reach and whether platform recommendation systems played a role. The broader issue was the role of social media platforms during the protests, including the spread of deepfakes, morphed images and misleading content targeting the prime minister and Union ministers.Police cases have already been registered, and investigations are underway, in connection with some such content, including a case against Meta India's head in Hyderabad over allegedly objectionable posts.Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/why-did-meta-remove-pm-modi-s-facebook-video-on-paper-leaks-tech-giant-blames-technical-error-1785220710914"> Why did Meta remove PM Modi's Facebook video on paper leaks? Tech company blames 'technical error'</a><h2>Is there algorithmic bias in the recommendation systems of social media?</h2>The panel members questioned the platforms, particularly Meta, over alleged algorithmic bias.Among the issues raised were why objectionable material, including pornography, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), deepfake scams and content targeting women, often remained available while an official communication from the prime minister was removed.The tech giants were asked how their recommendation, ranking and amplification systems function, who oversees them, what safeguards exist against bias, and how content moderation decisions are reviewed.They also faced questions on whether political or ideological bias exists in their content moderation systems and what responsibilities platforms bear in matters affecting public order, elections and national security.Specifically, members questioned the capability of platform algorithms and artificial intelligence systems to detect deepfakes involving the Prime Minister and other public figures before they spread widely.MeitY has already summoned Meta's global team to discuss algorithmic processes, potential bias and the company's responsibilities relating to public order and compliance with Indian law.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-pm-fb-post-issue-meta-assures-rigorous-safeguards-for-posts-by-prominent-accounts-1785343588801">After PM FB post issue, Meta assures rigorous safeguards for posts by prominent accounts</a><h2>Foreign ownership of platforms and control over content</h2>Another issue discussed was the foreign ownership of major technology platforms and the extent to which content moderation decisions affecting Indian users are made outside India. There has been growing criticism that these companies do not adequately comply with Indian law despite earning substantial revenues from the country. Their handling of unlawful content, including cyber fraud, online harassment of women and other illegal material, was criticised as inadequate.Members also raised concerns that, in some instances, platforms had failed to respond promptly to official communications from Indian authorities, including the Ministry of Home Affairs and MeitY.<h2>Are social media platforms merely intermediaries?</h2>A key legal issue discussed was whether these platforms can continue to claim protection under the safe harbour provisions of Indian law. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, intermediaries receive limited immunity from liability for user-generated content, provided they comply with prescribed legal obligations and due diligence requirements.Some panel members argued that if platforms actively recommend, amplify, suppress or otherwise influence the visibility of content through algorithms, they cannot simply describe themselves as neutral intermediaries. Others maintained that the existing legal framework must be applied carefully to preserve free expression while ensuring accountability.Opposition members on the panel stressed that criticism of the government should not automatically be treated as anti-national and that democratic space for dissent must remain protected.However, the committee was largely unanimous on the need for stricter enforcement against unlawful content, greater transparency in content moderation and stronger accountability from social media platforms.&nbsp;

An Indian parliamentary panel questioned Meta, Google, X, YouTube and Snapchat over a number of issues regarding their alleged bias. Issues discussed include PM Modi's video removal, algorithmic bias, content moderation and social media accountability.



A powerful panel of the Indian Parliament asked some uncomfortable questions to representatives of some of the world's biggest social media companies. The context was the recent protests against exam paper leaks led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), the removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's video, alleged algorithmic manipulation, and broader concerns about platform accountability. Representatives of Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, as well as those from Google, YouTube, X and Snapchat attended the meeting. Here is what happened: The Parliament committee was on regulating social and digital platforms The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology was chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey. Its meeting was also attended by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) Secretary S Krishnan, Information and Broadcasting Secretary Sanjay Jaju, and other senior officials. The subject of the meeting held on Monday (Aug 3) was "Social and Digital Platforms and Their Regulation". https://www.wionews.com/videos/meta-under-fire-as-panel-seeks-answers-over-pm-modi-video-takedown-1785825943604/embed The removal of PM Modi's video came up for discussion The Prime Minister released a reel-style video on the night of 23 July addressing India's youth amid protests in Delhi and other cities over alleged examination paper leaks, including NEET-UG. The CJP-led agitation was demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who eventually resigned. Modi's video was briefly restricted or removed on Facebook for around five hours, from approximately 12.30 am to 5.00 am. Meta attributed the incident to a technical error and restored the video. MeitY had earlier described the explanation as "inadequate". At the Parliament committee hearing, members pressed Meta to fix responsibility beyond a company-level apology, according to media reports. The company was asked as to who authorised the removal of the PM's video and how such an error could occur with official content from the Prime Minister's office. The underlying question was whether this represented a serious systems failure, a flaw in Meta's moderation processes, or a deliberate act that resulted in the Prime Minister's official communication being taken down. Meta representatives expressed regret and indicated their readiness to apologise. Dubey sought a personal apology from Meta Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg. If the CEO does not apologise, Meta's safe harbour protection under Section 79 of India's Information Technology Act, 2000 should be withdrawn, Dubey reportedly recommended. The panel also sought a written reply from Meta within 10 days. Did tech giants amplify the viewership of CJP protest content? Dubey noted that the CJP had exceptionally high social media viewership. According to some media reports cited, its content generated up to 27 billion views across platforms. The figure exceeded the combined reach of content from major political parties. An anti-reservation forum also reportedly generated around 7 billion views. These figures were presented as possible evidence that the algorithms of social media platforms may be favouring newcomers, highly engaging content, or particular types of political material. Panel members sought an explanation of how such content achieved such extraordinary reach and whether platform recommendation systems played a role. The broader issue was the role of social media platforms during the protests, including the spread of deepfakes, morphed images and misleading content targeting the prime minister and Union ministers. Police cases have already been registered, and investigations are underway, in connection with some such content, including a case against Meta India's head in Hyderabad over allegedly objectionable posts. Also read: Why did Meta remove PM Modi's Facebook video on paper leaks? Tech company blames 'technical error' Is there algorithmic bias in the recommendation systems of social media? The panel members questioned the platforms, particularly Meta, over alleged algorithmic bias. Among the issues raised were why objectionable material, including pornography, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), deepfake scams and content targeting women, often remained available while an official communication from the prime minister was removed. The tech giants were asked how their recommendation, ranking and amplification systems function, who oversees them, what safeguards exist against bias, and how content moderation decisions are reviewed. They also faced questions on whether political or ideological bias exists in their content moderation systems and what responsibilities platforms bear in matters affecting public order, elections and national security. Specifically, members questioned the capability of platform algorithms and artificial intelligence systems to detect deepfakes involving the Prime Minister and other public figures before they spread widely. MeitY has already summoned Meta's global team to discuss algorithmic processes, potential bias and the company's responsibilities relating to public order and compliance with Indian law. Also read: After PM FB post issue, Meta assures rigorous safeguards for posts by prominent accounts Foreign ownership of platforms and control over content Another issue discussed was the foreign ownership of major technology platforms and the extent to which content moderation decisions affecting Indian users are made outside India. There has been growing criticism that these companies do not adequately comply with Indian law despite earning substantial revenues from the country. Their handling of unlawful content, including cyber fraud, online harassment of women and other illegal material, was criticised as inadequate. Members also raised concerns that, in some instances, platforms had failed to respond promptly to official communications from Indian authorities, including the Ministry of Home Affairs and MeitY. Are social media platforms merely intermediaries? A key legal issue discussed was whether these platforms can continue to claim protection under the safe harbour provisions of Indian law. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, intermediaries receive limited immunity from liability for user-generated content, provided they comply with prescribed legal obligations and due diligence requirements. Some panel members argued that if platforms actively recommend, amplify, suppress or otherwise influence the visibility of content through algorithms, they cannot simply describe themselves as neutral intermediaries. Others maintained that the existing legal framework must be applied carefully to preserve free expression while ensuring accountability. Opposition members on the panel stressed that criticism of the government should not automatically be treated as anti-national and that democratic space for dissent must remain protected. However, the committee was largely unanimous on the need for stricter enforcement against unlawful content, greater transparency in content moderation and stronger accountability from social media platforms.

An Indian parliamentary panel questioned Meta, Google, X, YouTube and Snapchat over a number of issues regarding their alleged bias. Issues discussed include PM Modi's video removal, algorithmic bias, content moderation and social media accountability.&nbsp;

What did the Indian Parliament panel ask Meta, Google, X and Snapchat? PM Modi's video removal, CJP protest, algorithm manipulation

Snap has become the latest major social media platform to settle a high-profile child safety lawsuit, joining TikTok and YouTube. The settlement leaves Meta as the only remaining defendant in a growing legal battle over the alleged impact of addictive platform features on children and teenagers. The lawsuit claims social media companies knowingly designed products that harmed young users' mental health. Legal experts believe these cases could force major tech companies to strengthen child safety protections, improve parental controls, and redesign key platform features.

Snap settles Child Safety Lawsuit | Meta left alone as legal pressure mounts

A US court has begun a trial against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, over allegations that it deliberately designed addictive features targeting teenagers. Jury selection began in Nashville, Tennessee, on Monday (Jul 20), in a lawsuit brought by the Tennessee Attorney General under the state's consumer protection law.<h2>'Instagram, the addiction machine'</h2>Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti accused Meta of knowingly designing Instagram as an "addiction machine" that drives compulsive use among teenagers. The lawsuit alleged that Meta failed to disclose its own internal research on the platform's harms to young users and misled the public about its safety. According to the complaint, Meta continued deploying features it allegedly knew were harmful, while downplaying the associated risks.Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg previously testified that the company's algorithms are not intentionally designed to make young users addicted and that Meta has invested in safety features for teenagers.The trial is expected to last six to seven weeks. If Meta is found liable, the court could impose civil penalties of up to US$1,000 for each violation of Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act. it could also order changes to Instagram's design and practices.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/broken-ai-useless-products-mark-zuckerberg-is-steering-meta-towards-a-disaster-1780207649003">'Broken AI, useless products': Mark Zuckerberg might be steering Meta towards a disaster</a><h2>Meta is facing several cases across the US</h2>The Tennessee case overlaps with a growing number of lawsuits against Meta alleging that its platforms were deliberately designed to maximise engagement at the expense of young users' mental health.In May this year, Meta settled a lawsuit brought by Breathitt County Schools in Kentucky for US$9 million. The school district had alleged that addictive design features on Instagram and Facebook harmed students and had sought US$60 million in damages. Meta denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement.<a href="https://embed.wionews.com/videos/meta-hit-with-1-4-trillion-penalty-claim-by-us-states-1783449721227/embed">https://embed.wionews.com/videos/meta-hit-with-1-4-trillion-penalty-claim-by-us-states-1783449721227/embed</a><h2>Social media addiction: The case of Kaley Glenn-Mills</h2>In March 2026, a Los Angeles jury in the K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al case found Meta and Google liable for negligently designing addictive features on Instagram and YouTube that harmed the plaintiff, Kaley Glenn-Mills. The verdict is viewed as one of the first successful individual social media addiction cases to go before a jury.The lawsuit centred on platform features including infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, autoplay and other engagement-driven design elements. The plaintiff's lawyers argued that these features contributed to compulsive use, leading to anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and other mental health problems.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/instagram-will-now-let-anyone-generate-deepfake-of-your-face-unless-you-opt-out-right-now-1783477170729">Instagram will now let anyone generate deepfake of your face, unless you opt out right now</a>&nbsp;According to court testimony, Glenn-Mills began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine. Her lawyers argued that years of compulsive social media use contributed to severe mental health difficulties, including depression, self-harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders and repeated psychiatric hospitalisations during her adolescence.&nbsp;The jury awarded US$6 million in total damages — US$3 million in compensatory damages and US$3 million in punitive damages. It apportioned 70 per cent of the liability , or US$4.2 million, to Meta and 30 per cent, or US$1.8 million, to Google.Meta said it "respectfully disagrees" with the verdict. The company argued that teenage mental health is "profoundly complex" and cannot be attributed to a single app. It added: "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."Also in March, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay US$375 million in civil penalties after finding that it violated the state's consumer protection law by misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and concealing what it knew about child sexual exploitation risks on Facebook and Instagram. &nbsp;The case was brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. The jury awarded the maximum statutory penalty of US$5,000 per violation, amounting to US$375 million.Both the California verdict in K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al. and the New Mexico judgment have been appealed by Meta.<h2>Social media, Big Tech and consumers: Several cases going on</h2>Meta, Google and other Big Tech companies are facing thousands of lawsuits consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation, as well as separate actions brought by more than 40 US state attorneys general, school districts and individual plaintiffs.The main allegation is that social media platforms were designed to foster compulsive use among children and teenagers and failed to adequately warn users about the associated risks.

Meta faces trial in Tennessee over claims Instagram was designed to addict teenagers. This case adds to growing US lawsuits over addictive algorithms, teen mental health and platform safety. Here is why it matters

A US court has begun a trial against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, over allegations that it deliberately designed addictive features targeting teenagers. Jury selection began in Nashville, Tennessee, on Monday (Jul 20), in a lawsuit brought by the Tennessee Attorney General under the state's consumer protection law. 'Instagram, the addiction machine' Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti accused Meta of knowingly designing Instagram as an "addiction machine" that drives compulsive use among teenagers. The lawsuit alleged that Meta failed to disclose its own internal research on the platform's harms to young users and misled the public about its safety. According to the complaint, Meta continued deploying features it allegedly knew were harmful, while downplaying the associated risks. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg previously testified that the company's algorithms are not intentionally designed to make young users addicted and that Meta has invested in safety features for teenagers. The trial is expected to last six to seven weeks. If Meta is found liable, the court could impose civil penalties of up to US$1,000 for each violation of Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act. it could also order changes to Instagram's design and practices. Also read: 'Broken AI, useless products': Mark Zuckerberg might be steering Meta towards a disaster Meta is facing several cases across the US The Tennessee case overlaps with a growing number of lawsuits against Meta alleging that its platforms were deliberately designed to maximise engagement at the expense of young users' mental health. In May this year, Meta settled a lawsuit brought by Breathitt County Schools in Kentucky for US$9 million. The school district had alleged that addictive design features on Instagram and Facebook harmed students and had sought US$60 million in damages. Meta denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement. https://embed.wionews.com/videos/meta-hit-with-1-4-trillion-penalty-claim-by-us-states-1783449721227/embed Social media addiction: The case of Kaley Glenn-Mills In March 2026, a Los Angeles jury in the K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al case found Meta and Google liable for negligently designing addictive features on Instagram and YouTube that harmed the plaintiff, Kaley Glenn-Mills. The verdict is viewed as one of the first successful individual social media addiction cases to go before a jury. The lawsuit centred on platform features including infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, autoplay and other engagement-driven design elements. The plaintiff's lawyers argued that these features contributed to compulsive use, leading to anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and other mental health problems. Also read: Instagram will now let anyone generate deepfake of your face, unless you opt out right now According to court testimony, Glenn-Mills began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine. Her lawyers argued that years of compulsive social media use contributed to severe mental health difficulties, including depression, self-harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders and repeated psychiatric hospitalisations during her adolescence. The jury awarded US$6 million in total damages — US$3 million in compensatory damages and US$3 million in punitive damages. It apportioned 70 per cent of the liability , or US$4.2 million, to Meta and 30 per cent, or US$1.8 million, to Google. Meta said it "respectfully disagrees" with the verdict. The company argued that teenage mental health is "profoundly complex" and cannot be attributed to a single app. It added: "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online." Also in March, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay US$375 million in civil penalties after finding that it violated the state's consumer protection law by misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and concealing what it knew about child sexual exploitation risks on Facebook and Instagram. The case was brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. The jury awarded the maximum statutory penalty of US$5,000 per violation, amounting to US$375 million. Both the California verdict in K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al. and the New Mexico judgment have been appealed by Meta. Social media, Big Tech and consumers: Several cases going on Meta, Google and other Big Tech companies are facing thousands of lawsuits consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation, as well as separate actions brought by more than 40 US state attorneys general, school districts and individual plaintiffs. The main allegation is that social media platforms were designed to foster compulsive use among children and teenagers and failed to adequately warn users about the associated risks.

Meta faces trial in Tennessee over claims Instagram was designed to addict teenagers. This case adds to growing US lawsuits over addictive algorithms, teen mental health and platform safety. Here is why it matters&nbsp;

Addictive algorithms: Meta trial opens in Tennessee as Instagram accused of 'addiction machine’ design

The Indian government has directed Meta to immediately remove advertisements and content on Instagram that allegedly promote or facilitate child sexual abuse material. 

Authorities have issued a notice seeking a detailed explanation from Meta on how such advertisements were allowed to appear on the platform. Meta says it maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward child sexual abuse material and is continuing to strengthen its detection systems using advanced technology.

India orders Meta to remove Instagram ads linked to child sexual abuse material

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has directed Meta to disable the advertisements and content promoting and facilitating access to child sexual exploitative and abuse material (CSEAM) on Instagram, according to government sources. It has also sought an explanation on the issue.

MeitY issues stern notice to Meta over CSEAM ads on Instagram 

Somewhere right now, an Instagram creator who spent years building an audience — posting original content, growing a community, earning a living from brand deals and affiliate income — is staring at a screen that says their account has been disabled for violating Community Standards. They did not violate anything. There is no explanation. There is no human to speak to. There is no appeal process that leads to a real person reviewing the decision. Their archive of content is gone. Their income stream is gone. Their digital identity is gone. And a few scrolls away on the same platform, an AI-generated bot account with a blue tick verification badge is posting synthetic content to thousands of followers without consequence.&nbsp;The Scale Of The Damage&nbsp;This is not an isolated glitch. It is happening at scale, across countries, and it has been accelerating throughout 2025 and 2026. Meta has systematically laid off its human content moderation teams and replaced them with AI enforcement systems that flag, restrict, and permanently disable accounts automatically — with no human review involved in the vast majority of cases. Meta's own Oversight Board confirmed in June 2026 that the company's account bans lack due process and transparency. The board noted that many bans appeared to have been made entirely by automated systems, with users receiving no meaningful explanation and no viable path to appeal. A Change.org petition against Meta's wrongful account bans has gathered nearly 56,000 signatures, with users describing the loss of accounts that represented years of work and, in many cases, their primary source of income.&nbsp;The False Flags That Ruin Real Lives&nbsp;The AI moderation system is not just overzealous — it is systematically wrong in ways that destroy real people's lives. Thousands of users have reported having their accounts disabled after the AI falsely flagged ordinary content — including family photos of children at swimming pools or on holiday — as child sexual exploitation material. The accusations are not just incorrect; they are deeply damaging to the people they target. Users who have never posted anything remotely inappropriate find themselves branded with the most serious violation Meta's system can assign, with no way to contest the accusation and no human moderator reviewing the decision before it is enforced.&nbsp;Creators And Small Businesses Hit Hardest&nbsp;For Instagram creators in India's Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities who built their entire livelihood on the platform — selling products, running coaching businesses, building personal brands — a wrongful ban is not an inconvenience. It is an economic catastrophe. Years of content, followers, brand relationships, and revenue disappear in an instant. The same is true for small businesses that use Instagram as their primary sales and marketing channel. When the AI disables their account, their customer base is cut off overnight with no warning and no recourse. Meanwhile, the platform continues to reward AI-generated bot accounts with verification badges and algorithmic visibility, making the gap between how Meta treats real humans and synthetic accounts impossible to ignore.&nbsp;No Human To Call, No Appeal That Works&nbsp;Meta's Oversight Board explicitly recommended that the company provide users with a meaningful appeals process that allows written explanations, notify users when AI systems are responsible for enforcement decisions, and create a dashboard where users can review their violation history and understand what happened. These recommendations exist because none of these things currently exist. A creator whose account is wrongfully disabled today has no customer support number to call, no email that leads to a human reviewer, and no transparent process for challenging the decision. The appeals button inside the app leads, in most reported cases, to an automated response that upholds the original decision — made by the same AI system that got it wrong in the first place.&nbsp;The Leadership Question&nbsp;Mark Zuckerberg built Instagram into a platform that billions of people depend on — for expression, for community, for income, for identity. He then made the decision to gut the human moderation infrastructure, replace it with AI systems that are demonstrably failing at scale, and continue spending $145 billion on AI infrastructure while the AI already deployed on his platforms is actively destroying the trust and livelihoods of the people who use them. When asked about the return on investment from Meta's AI spending, Zuckerberg called it ‘a very technical question.’ For the creators, small business owners, and ordinary users whose accounts and incomes have been erased by his AI systems, it is not a technical question at all. It is a question of leadership — and whether the person responsible for building these platforms is still the right person to be running them.

Meta's AI is banning real creators while bot accounts thrive. 56,000 people have petitioned against wrongful bans. Its own Oversight Board says the system lacks due process.

Somewhere right now, an Instagram creator who spent years building an audience — posting original content, growing a community, earning a living from brand deals and affiliate income — is staring at a screen that says their account has been disabled for violating Community Standards. They did not violate anything. There is no explanation. There is no human to speak to. There is no appeal process that leads to a real person reviewing the decision. Their archive of content is gone. Their income stream is gone. Their digital identity is gone. And a few scrolls away on the same platform, an AI-generated bot account with a blue tick verification badge is posting synthetic content to thousands of followers without consequence. The Scale Of The Damage This is not an isolated glitch. It is happening at scale, across countries, and it has been accelerating throughout 2025 and 2026. Meta has systematically laid off its human content moderation teams and replaced them with AI enforcement systems that flag, restrict, and permanently disable accounts automatically — with no human review involved in the vast majority of cases. Meta's own Oversight Board confirmed in June 2026 that the company's account bans lack due process and transparency. The board noted that many bans appeared to have been made entirely by automated systems, with users receiving no meaningful explanation and no viable path to appeal. A Change.org petition against Meta's wrongful account bans has gathered nearly 56,000 signatures, with users describing the loss of accounts that represented years of work and, in many cases, their primary source of income. The False Flags That Ruin Real Lives The AI moderation system is not just overzealous — it is systematically wrong in ways that destroy real people's lives. Thousands of users have reported having their accounts disabled after the AI falsely flagged ordinary content — including family photos of children at swimming pools or on holiday — as child sexual exploitation material. The accusations are not just incorrect; they are deeply damaging to the people they target. Users who have never posted anything remotely inappropriate find themselves branded with the most serious violation Meta's system can assign, with no way to contest the accusation and no human moderator reviewing the decision before it is enforced. Creators And Small Businesses Hit Hardest For Instagram creators in India's Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities who built their entire livelihood on the platform — selling products, running coaching businesses, building personal brands — a wrongful ban is not an inconvenience. It is an economic catastrophe. Years of content, followers, brand relationships, and revenue disappear in an instant. The same is true for small businesses that use Instagram as their primary sales and marketing channel. When the AI disables their account, their customer base is cut off overnight with no warning and no recourse. Meanwhile, the platform continues to reward AI-generated bot accounts with verification badges and algorithmic visibility, making the gap between how Meta treats real humans and synthetic accounts impossible to ignore. No Human To Call, No Appeal That Works Meta's Oversight Board explicitly recommended that the company provide users with a meaningful appeals process that allows written explanations, notify users when AI systems are responsible for enforcement decisions, and create a dashboard where users can review their violation history and understand what happened. These recommendations exist because none of these things currently exist. A creator whose account is wrongfully disabled today has no customer support number to call, no email that leads to a human reviewer, and no transparent process for challenging the decision. The appeals button inside the app leads, in most reported cases, to an automated response that upholds the original decision — made by the same AI system that got it wrong in the first place. The Leadership Question Mark Zuckerberg built Instagram into a platform that billions of people depend on — for expression, for community, for income, for identity. He then made the decision to gut the human moderation infrastructure, replace it with AI systems that are demonstrably failing at scale, and continue spending $145 billion on AI infrastructure while the AI already deployed on his platforms is actively destroying the trust and livelihoods of the people who use them. When asked about the return on investment from Meta's AI spending, Zuckerberg called it ‘a very technical question.’ For the creators, small business owners, and ordinary users whose accounts and incomes have been erased by his AI systems, it is not a technical question at all. It is a question of leadership — and whether the person responsible for building these platforms is still the right person to be running them.

Across the world, Instagram creators, small business owners, and ordinary users are watching their accounts — and livelihoods — vanish overnight at the hands of Meta's AI moderation system. The AI bans real people while verified bot accounts thrive. Meta's own Oversight Board says the system lacks due process. Nearly 56,000 people have signed a petition against wrongful bans. And when it all goes wrong, there is no human to call, no appeal that works, and no accountability from the man who built it.

'Resign Zuckerberg': Meta AI has destroyed millions of lives in last 2 months

Green flag. Red flag. Instagram has become the new relationship adviser in the digital age. A single scroll through the platform can tell you who to date, who to avoid, what you can expect from an individual and which habits supposedly make or break a relationship. As the internet continues to dissect romance into a series of green and red flags, the question arises: what exactly are we seeking validation for? Have people forgotten how to build healthy relationships on their own? Who are these four people guiding our decisions? Who decides what is right and what is wrong in a relationship? And, most importantly, does any of it really matter?<h2>The rise of the internet's relationship gurus</h2>More than having faith in and trusting each other, individuals are increasingly relying on the internet's relationship gurus. Influencers, creators, and viral reels have become the go-to source for dating advice. Every other person on social media seems to have transformed the global entertainment platform into a therapeutic zone, sharing tips and tricks on how to keep a relationship alive after months or even years together. What was once a hub for networking and exchanging thoughts among friends and family is now being transformed into a 60-second advice session.

Instagram

Nowadays, people are increasingly doubting their instincts and relying on outside validation; they just need to seek validation of whether they are doing good or bad in their relationship. And where they spot a gesture considered a red flag in a short video clip, it just pounces back on them and their bond with another being. Social media is leaving little room for nuance, encouraging people to judge their partners through a checklist of internet-approved behaviours. As a result, personal experiences and individual senses of thinking are increasingly being overshadowed, and the opinions of strangers online are captivating much attention.<h2>Do love stories need to be labelled as green or red flags?</h2>Why are people today so eager to place their relationships under the lens of someone else's judgment? Why are people making Instagram the ultimate referee in matters of love and companionship? Reels are meant to be entertaining and showcase good deeds to other people, but they are now being treated as guidelines for building healthy relationships. It is often accompanied by a checklist of so-called green and red flags.

So, traits like Open and honest communication, respecting boundaries, emotional availability, Active listening and 100% transparency are considered Green flags, while Red flags are traits like taking hours to reply to messages, still connected with your ex on social media, refusing to post a partner online, not sharing passwords, not planning dates or surprises, avoiding long conversations, frequently cancelling plans, etc.

Good and Bad traits

While social media has helped many people identify unhealthy relationship patterns and establish better boundaries, the real conflict begins when individuals start comparing their relationships to these online checklists and expect their partners to meet standards set by strangers on the internet.<h2>The comparison phase</h2>After discovering all these endless traits, many partners begin comparing their relationship to those they see online. It often gets triggered by a romantic surprise, an anniversary post, a lavish gift, or even a simple Instagram story. A missing goodnight message, calling a partner by their real name instead of a nickname, or not posting frequently about the one you love can be interpreted as signs of an unhealthy bond.&nbsp;Many people increasingly turn to Instagram for relationship validation. And that is where unrealistic expectations begin to take shape. In a world where people are constantly juggling work, responsibilities, and personal struggles, making time for a partner is no longer enough. In the age of Instagram, if their efforts are not fitting the internet's idea of a green flag boyfriend or green flag girlfriend, it goes unnoticed.<h2>The burden of expectations</h2>With these, the burden within the relationship becomes heavy and creates a rift between them. Individuals begin questioning their own relationships, like, if the other couple on Instagram is living a healthy life together, why not mine? This gives rise to the pressure, the disappointments and unrealistic demands and takes root in people's minds.

Couple fighting

<h2>Beyond others' verdict</h2>Instead of measuring your own relationship against the others and internet-approved checklists, start believing and trusting your own experiences. Every relationship is unique; every relationship has pros and cons and is shaped by different personalities, circumstances, and expectations. The answer to having a healthy relationship is within yourselves, just start thinking of what works for one couple may not work for another, and that is how it will make it unique and pure.&nbsp;Social media platforms have two sides, and it's up to the individual which side should be picked or which not. The most important thing couples can do is remember that real relationships are far more fragile and complex than a 60-second reel.<h2>Love before the screens</h2>Long before these human-made labels of green flags and red flags, there was a time when people did not need screens or seek validation from strangers to build and sustain their relationships. Love was nurtured through face-to-face conversations, patience, understanding, and compromise rather than online approval and internet-approved checklists.

Love before the screens

In an age where every relationship seems to be under surveillance, maybe the healthiest thing couples can do is stop asking the internet whether their love is good enough and start asking each other.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

Instagram may help some people build healthier relationships, but for some, it can create rifts by turning love into a checklist. Why are people so eager to label their relationships with green and red flags?

Green flag. Red flag. Instagram has become the new relationship adviser in the digital age. A single scroll through the platform can tell you who to date, who to avoid, what you can expect from an individual and which habits supposedly make or break a relationship. As the internet continues to dissect romance into a series of green and red flags, the question arises: what exactly are we seeking validation for? Have people forgotten how to build healthy relationships on their own? Who are these four people guiding our decisions? Who decides what is right and what is wrong in a relationship? And, most importantly, does any of it really matter? The rise of the internet's relationship gurus More than having faith in and trusting each other, individuals are increasingly relying on the internet's relationship gurus. Influencers, creators, and viral reels have become the go-to source for dating advice. Every other person on social media seems to have transformed the global entertainment platform into a therapeutic zone, sharing tips and tricks on how to keep a relationship alive after months or even years together. What was once a hub for networking and exchanging thoughts among friends and family is now being transformed into a 60-second advice session.

Instagram may help some people build healthier relationships, but for some, it can create rifts by turning love into a checklist. Why are people so eager to label their relationships with green and red flags?

Instagram vs love: Why does every relationship need a green flag or red flag label?

Instagram has resolved a security flaw after hackers reportedly exploited a vulnerability linked to Meta’s AI support systems.
Cybersecurity researchers said attackers used the weakness to manipulate support workflows and gain unauthorized access.

Instagram Fixes Security Flaw After Hackers Exploit Meta AI Support Tool

Meta has announced a new range of subscription services for Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp users as the company looks to expand beyond its traditional advertising business. The new consumer-focused “Plus” subscription plans will offer additional features aimed at creators, power users and highly active social media users.The company also confirmed that it is testing new AI-focused subscription packages under a broader initiative called “Meta One”, which will combine the company’s growing range of premium services into a single ecosystem.<h2>What Meta’s new Plus plans offer</h2>According to Meta, the new subscription tiers are designed to provide users with additional personalisation and engagement features across its apps.Users subscribing to Instagram Plus and Facebook Plus will reportedly pay around $3.99 per month, while WhatsApp Plus is expected to cost around $2.99 per month in international markets. India-specific pricing has not yet been announced.The new Instagram Plus and Facebook Plus plans include features such as:Profile customisation tools Super Heart animated reactions Story insights and rewatch tracking Unlimited audience lists for Stories Extra profile pins Custom app icons and fonts Subscribers will also be able to: Extend Stories beyond 24 hours Spotlight a Story once every week Preview Stories without appearing in viewer lists Search viewer lists more easilyMeta says these features are aimed mainly at creators and highly engaged users who want more control over audience interaction and content presentation.<h2>WhatsApp Plus focuses on messaging personalisation</h2>The WhatsApp Plus subscription is designed differently from the company’s social media-focused plans. Instead of creator tools, it focuses more on messaging personalisation and user experience.Features include: Custom themes Premium stickers Additional pinned chats Custom ringtones Expanded list customisationThe company said the plan is intended for users who want more flexibility and customisation inside the messaging platform.<h2>Meta is also expanding its AI subscription business</h2>Alongside the Plus subscriptions, Meta confirmed that it is preparing premium plans for Meta AI users under a new branding system called “Meta One”.The company is currently testing: Meta One Plus at $7.99 per month Meta One Premium at $19.99 per monthAccording to Meta, Premium subscribers will receive: Higher AI compute access More advanced reasoning capabilities Expanded image and video generation tools Additional support for Meta’s AI-powered smart glassesMeta said these AI-focused plans will initially be tested in countries including: Singapore Guatemala Bolivia Meanwhile, creator and business-focused subscription plans are expected to begin testing in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Thailand and Bangladesh.<h2>Why Meta is increasing focus on subscriptions</h2>Meta’s growing subscription strategy reflects a wider shift inside the company as it looks for new revenue streams beyond digital advertising.Industry analysts say the company is attempting to:Monetise highly engaged users Increase creator-focused revenue Expand AI-related business models Reduce dependence on advertising growthThe move comes as growth across Meta’s major apps slows in several mature markets. Meta has also been aggressively expanding its AI ecosystem in recent months. The company recently launched new standalone apps and AI-integrated features, including the Forum app and Instagram’s new Instants feature.<h2>Meta says free versions will continue</h2>Meta clarified that the new Plus plans are separate from its existing Meta Verified subscription service, which focuses mainly on account verification and identity protection. The company also said Meta AI will remain free for casual users, while paid tiers are designed for those requiring more advanced AI features and computing capacity. The launch of Meta’s subscription plans highlights how large technology companies are increasingly experimenting with paid digital services and AI-based products. As competition in AI and social media intensifies, Meta appears to be positioning itself not only as a social networking company, but also as a broader AI and digital services platform.

Meta has announced a new range of subscription services for Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp users as the company looks to expand beyond its traditional advertising business. The new consumer-focused “Plus” subscription plans will offer additional features aimed at creators.

Meta has announced a new range of subscription services for Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp users as the company looks to expand beyond its traditional advertising business. The new consumer-focused “Plus” subscription plans will offer additional features aimed at creators, power users and highly active social media users. The company also confirmed that it is testing new AI-focused subscription packages under a broader initiative called “Meta One”, which will combine the company’s growing range of premium services into a single ecosystem. What Meta’s new Plus plans offer According to Meta, the new subscription tiers are designed to provide users with additional personalisation and engagement features across its apps. Users subscribing to Instagram Plus and Facebook Plus will reportedly pay around $3.99 per month, while WhatsApp Plus is expected to cost around $2.99 per month in international markets. India-specific pricing has not yet been announced. The new Instagram Plus and Facebook Plus plans include features such as: Profile customisation tools Super Heart animated reactions Story insights and rewatch tracking Unlimited audience lists for Stories Extra profile pins Custom app icons and fonts Subscribers will also be able to: Extend Stories beyond 24 hours Spotlight a Story once every week Preview Stories without appearing in viewer lists Search viewer lists more easily Meta says these features are aimed mainly at creators and highly engaged users who want more control over audience interaction and content presentation. WhatsApp Plus focuses on messaging personalisation The WhatsApp Plus subscription is designed differently from the company’s social media-focused plans. Instead of creator tools, it focuses more on messaging personalisation and user experience. Features include: Custom themes Premium stickers Additional pinned chats Custom ringtones Expanded list customisation The company said the plan is intended for users who want more flexibility and customisation inside the messaging platform. Meta is also expanding its AI subscription business Alongside the Plus subscriptions, Meta confirmed that it is preparing premium plans for Meta AI users under a new branding system called “Meta One”. The company is currently testing: Meta One Plus at $7.99 per month Meta One Premium at $19.99 per month According to Meta, Premium subscribers will receive: Higher AI compute access More advanced reasoning capabilities Expanded image and video generation tools Additional support for Meta’s AI-powered smart glasses Meta said these AI-focused plans will initially be tested in countries including: Singapore Guatemala Bolivia Meanwhile, creator and business-focused subscription plans are expected to begin testing in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Thailand and Bangladesh. Why Meta is increasing focus on subscriptions Meta’s growing subscription strategy reflects a wider shift inside the company as it looks for new revenue streams beyond digital advertising. Industry analysts say the company is attempting to: Monetise highly engaged users Increase creator-focused revenue Expand AI-related business models Reduce dependence on advertising growth The move comes as growth across Meta’s major apps slows in several mature markets. Meta has also been aggressively expanding its AI ecosystem in recent months. The company recently launched new standalone apps and AI-integrated features, including the Forum app and Instagram’s new Instants feature. Meta says free versions will continue Meta clarified that the new Plus plans are separate from its existing Meta Verified subscription service, which focuses mainly on account verification and identity protection. The company also said Meta AI will remain free for casual users, while paid tiers are designed for those requiring more advanced AI features and computing capacity. The launch of Meta’s subscription plans highlights how large technology companies are increasingly experimenting with paid digital services and AI-based products. As competition in AI and social media intensifies, Meta appears to be positioning itself not only as a social networking company, but also as a broader AI and digital services platform.

Meta has announced a new range of subscription services for Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp users as the company looks to expand beyond its traditional advertising business. The new consumer-focused “Plus” subscription plans will offer additional features aimed at creators.

Meta launches ‘Plus’ subscriptions for Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp alongside new AI plans

&nbsp;In the bustling digital streets of India, where Instagram serves as a lifeline for creators, small businesses, influencers, and everyday users sharing everything from street food reels to political opinions, a silent storm has been brewing. Thousands of Indian accounts have reportedly been wiped out in recent months by Meta’s aggressive AI moderation systems, often without warning, clear explanation, or a genuine human review.&nbsp;It started subtly. Users would wake up to the dreaded notification: “Your account has been disabled for violating our Community Guidelines.” No specifics. No evidence provided. Appeals? Futile. The same AI that flagged the account would often review the appeal and double down on its decision.&nbsp;The Scale of the Crisis&nbsp;Reports and user outcries on X (formerly Twitter) paint a picture of widespread frustration. Indian users, from small business owners running e-commerce stores to content creators with lakhs of followers, found their digital livelihoods destroyed overnight. One user described losing a 95k-follower account generating significant ad revenue, with Meta’s AI offering no recourse. Similar stories flooded in: accounts banned for “impersonating themselves,” suspicious activity that looked perfectly normal to humans, or vague “spam” detections.&nbsp;Meta has been ramping up AI-driven enforcement in 2026, citing pressures around child safety, spam, and platform integrity. Aggressive purges targeted potential violations, including Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) flags, sometimes hitting innocent accounts in the crossfire. India, with its massive user base, seems particularly affected amid stricter local rules on AI-generated content and online safety.&nbsp;Why Indian Accounts?&nbsp;Several factors appear to be colliding:&nbsp;• Overzealous AI Models: Trained on global datasets, these systems sometimes misinterpret cultural nuances, rapid growth patterns common among Indian creators (who often build audiences quickly), or legitimate marketing tactics as suspicious.&nbsp;￼• Mass Reporting &amp; Bias Claims: Political content, especially pro-India voices, has long drawn complaints of shadowbans or outright suspensions on Meta platforms. Users allege that coordinated reporting from certain groups triggers the AI hammer.&nbsp;• Technical Glitches &amp; Reduced Human Oversight: Meta reportedly cut back on human moderators in favour of AI efficiency. The result? Circular logic where the machine judges its own mistakes. Thousands globally, including in India, have been caught in this net.&nbsp;One viral post highlighted the absurdity: accounts with years of genuine activity suddenly labeled as threats. Small businesses reported losing thousands of dollars in revenue, with no clear path to recovery.&nbsp;A Human Cost&nbsp;Behind the statistics are real stories. A fitness influencer in Gurugram sees years of content and client relationships vanish. A student creator in Mumbai loses their portfolio overnight. Families running home-based businesses watch their primary sales channel disappear. Appeals go unanswered or are rejected instantly by the very system that banned them.&nbsp;Critics argue this isn’t just poor moderation, it’s AI out of control, prioritizing scale and liability avoidance over fairness. In a country where Instagram powers millions of micro-economies, the impact ripples far beyond individual frustration.&nbsp;Calls for Accountability&nbsp;Indian users are increasingly turning to X to voice their grievances, demanding Meta provide transparency, better appeal processes, and human oversight for disputed cases. Some call for government intervention, given Meta’s heavy reliance on the Indian market.&nbsp;As one frustrated user put it: Meta built its empire on Indian users and data, yet treats them as disposable when the AI decides so.Whether this is a temporary over-correction in Meta’s safety push or a deeper systemic failure remains to be seen. But for now, countless Indians are left staring at blank profiles, wondering how a machine gained so much unchecked power over their digital lives and livelihoods.&nbsp;The story isn’t over. As more voices emerge, pressure is building for Meta to rein in its rogue AI before it alienates one of its biggest markets entirely.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Today my Instagram account was banned without any community guideline violation or specific reason. Instagram is randomly banning accounts. <a href="https://x.com/instagram?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@instagram</a> <a href="https://x.com/Meta?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Meta</a> . Pls help to restore my account <a href="https://t.co/uVC9blBVgC">pic.twitter.com/uVC9blBVgC</a>&mdash; Vikram Aadtiya (@VikramAadtiyaYT) <a href="https://x.com/VikramAadtiyaYT/status/2052010164199502167?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 6, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">They have banned our Instagram Account which had 1M followers. <a href="https://t.co/ZllQQiD8s7">pic.twitter.com/ZllQQiD8s7</a>&mdash; Global Reports (@global_reportss) <a href="https://x.com/global_reportss/status/2059653963189043296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 27, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Hey <a href="https://x.com/Meta?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Meta</a> <a href="https://x.com/instagram?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@instagram</a> my Instagram account was suspended without any explanation. I’ve already submitted the video selfie verification but there’s still no update or way to contact real support. Please review my case and restore access to my account. <a href="https://t.co/nFJsTAZV54">pic.twitter.com/nFJsTAZV54</a>&mdash; Heisenberg (@rovvmut_) <a href="https://x.com/rovvmut_/status/2058789578715361306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 25, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our businesses, our private accounts, we are banned, as a family, from Instagram. Basically. I wanted to log in my little side-account on Instagram today where I posted homey/girly/renovation things from our house last year. It is gone 🙂 no reason given. “Freedom of existing”. <a href="https://t.co/Sa2Q5UCyQh">pic.twitter.com/Sa2Q5UCyQh</a>&mdash; Julia F. (@julia_follin) <a href="https://x.com/julia_follin/status/2057432132926976484?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This one hurts to write. I&#39;ve spent years building my Instagram presence; creating content, showing up consistently, adding real value every single day. Here&#39;s what&#39;s been taken down: @ beinginvested — 28K+ followers, 3,000,000+ reach in the last 60 days. Suspended. Again. @… <a href="https://t.co/JS5SrNrujE">pic.twitter.com/JS5SrNrujE</a>&mdash; ivish (@beingivish) <a href="https://x.com/beingivish/status/2059498863304884256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 27, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">First Google, now Instagram. Meta has permanently banned this artist without any explanation or reason. He tried to appeal a second time and was banned. Meta support is 100% AI-controlled, the same as Google. There are no human agents for support at all. Google and Instagram… <a href="https://t.co/phRZOsKFkN">https://t.co/phRZOsKFkN</a>&mdash; AyakaMods (@AyakaMods) <a href="https://x.com/AyakaMods/status/2059272467697246454?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Meta's shift to its flawed AI moderation system has sparked a crisis, leaving thousands with unjust account bans and broken appeals as automated systems replace human workers.

In the bustling digital streets of India, where Instagram serves as a lifeline for creators, small businesses, influencers, and everyday users sharing everything from street food reels to political opinions, a silent storm has been brewing. Thousands of Indian accounts have reportedly been wiped out in recent months by Meta’s aggressive AI moderation systems, often without warning, clear explanation, or a genuine human review. It started subtly. Users would wake up to the dreaded notification: “Your account has been disabled for violating our Community Guidelines.” No specifics. No evidence provided. Appeals? Futile. The same AI that flagged the account would often review the appeal and double down on its decision. The Scale of the Crisis Reports and user outcries on X (formerly Twitter) paint a picture of widespread frustration. Indian users, from small business owners running e-commerce stores to content creators with lakhs of followers, found their digital livelihoods destroyed overnight. One user described losing a 95k-follower account generating significant ad revenue, with Meta’s AI offering no recourse. Similar stories flooded in: accounts banned for “impersonating themselves,” suspicious activity that looked perfectly normal to humans, or vague “spam” detections. Meta has been ramping up AI-driven enforcement in 2026, citing pressures around child safety, spam, and platform integrity. Aggressive purges targeted potential violations, including Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) flags, sometimes hitting innocent accounts in the crossfire. India, with its massive user base, seems particularly affected amid stricter local rules on AI-generated content and online safety. Why Indian Accounts? Several factors appear to be colliding: • Overzealous AI Models: Trained on global datasets, these systems sometimes misinterpret cultural nuances, rapid growth patterns common among Indian creators (who often build audiences quickly), or legitimate marketing tactics as suspicious. ￼ • Mass Reporting & Bias Claims: Political content, especially pro-India voices, has long drawn complaints of shadowbans or outright suspensions on Meta platforms. Users allege that coordinated reporting from certain groups triggers the AI hammer. • Technical Glitches & Reduced Human Oversight: Meta reportedly cut back on human moderators in favour of AI efficiency. The result? Circular logic where the machine judges its own mistakes. Thousands globally, including in India, have been caught in this net. One viral post highlighted the absurdity: accounts with years of genuine activity suddenly labeled as threats. Small businesses reported losing thousands of dollars in revenue, with no clear path to recovery. A Human Cost Behind the statistics are real stories. A fitness influencer in Gurugram sees years of content and client relationships vanish. A student creator in Mumbai loses their portfolio overnight. Families running home-based businesses watch their primary sales channel disappear. Appeals go unanswered or are rejected instantly by the very system that banned them. Critics argue this isn’t just poor moderation, it’s AI out of control, prioritizing scale and liability avoidance over fairness. In a country where Instagram powers millions of micro-economies, the impact ripples far beyond individual frustration. Calls for Accountability Indian users are increasingly turning to X to voice their grievances, demanding Meta provide transparency, better appeal processes, and human oversight for disputed cases. Some call for government intervention, given Meta’s heavy reliance on the Indian market. As one frustrated user put it: Meta built its empire on Indian users and data, yet treats them as disposable when the AI decides so.Whether this is a temporary over-correction in Meta’s safety push or a deeper systemic failure remains to be seen. But for now, countless Indians are left staring at blank profiles, wondering how a machine gained so much unchecked power over their digital lives and livelihoods. The story isn’t over. As more voices emerge, pressure is building for Meta to rein in its rogue AI before it alienates one of its biggest markets entirely.

Meta's shift to its flawed AI moderation system has sparked a crisis, leaving thousands with unjust account bans and broken appeals as automated systems replace human workers.

'Meta's AI is a disaster': Instagram is banning millions of creators and your account could be next

In a blow to privacy, Meta ended end-to-end encryption on Instagram. At present, this is the default option on platforms like Signal, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. Owing to Meta's move, all content of direct messages on Instagram can be accessed by the platform now. 

Instagram Chats May No Longer Be Private After Meta Ends Encryption

Meta has ended end-to-end encryption for direct messages on Instagram from May 8, 2026. This means that messages sent through Instagram DMs are no longer fully private, marking a significant change in how users communicate on the platform.The feature, which was introduced in 2023, ensured that only the sender and receiver could read messages. With its removal, chats may now be accessible under certain conditions, depending on how systems are used to monitor content.&nbsp;<h2>What changes for Instagram users</h2>With end-to-end encryption removed, Instagram users will notice a change in how their messages are handled.Earlier, encrypted chats meant:Messages could not be accessed by third partiesOnly users involved in the chat could read themNow, messages may be:Analysed for safety purposesAccessible through technical systems if requiredMeta had earlier informed users about this update and provided an option to download or back up chats before the change took effect.<h2>Why Meta is making this move</h2>One of the key reasons behind the change is linked to user safety, especially concerns around harmful content.Reports suggest that removing encryption allows platforms to: Detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) Identify grooming behaviour Flag harassment or illegal contentThe move follows increasing global pressure on tech companies to improve safety measures on messaging platforms.<h2>Legal and regulatory pressure</h2>Governments in several regions, including the United States, United Kingdom and European Union, have been pushing for stronger monitoring of online platforms.Regulations such as:The UK’s Online Safety ActProposed EU Chat Control rules are aimed at ensuring companies can detect harmful content, even within private communications. Earlier this year, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million, citing concerns about platform safety and user protection.<h2>Privacy concerns and debate</h2>While the change may help detect harmful activity, it has also raised concerns among privacy advocates.Experts argue that:Removing encryption may reduce user privacyMessages could become more vulnerable to misuseTrust in private communication may be affectedThis creates a balance issue between ensuring safety and protecting personal data.<h2>What happens next</h2>Meta has not confirmed whether similar changes will be applied to other platforms like Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp. For now, the update applies only to Instagram, but it signals a broader shift in how tech companies may handle private messaging in the future. As regulations continue to evolve, platforms may increasingly adjust their systems to meet safety requirements while managing user expectations around privacy.

Meta has ended end-to-end encryption for direct messages on Instagram from May 8, 2026. This means that messages sent through Instagram DMs are no longer fully private, marking a significant change in how users communicate on the platform.

Meta has ended end-to-end encryption for direct messages on Instagram from May 8, 2026. This means that messages sent through Instagram DMs are no longer fully private, marking a significant change in how users communicate on the platform. The feature, which was introduced in 2023, ensured that only the sender and receiver could read messages. With its removal, chats may now be accessible under certain conditions, depending on how systems are used to monitor content. What changes for Instagram users With end-to-end encryption removed, Instagram users will notice a change in how their messages are handled. Earlier, encrypted chats meant: Messages could not be accessed by third parties Only users involved in the chat could read them Now, messages may be: Analysed for safety purposes Accessible through technical systems if required Meta had earlier informed users about this update and provided an option to download or back up chats before the change took effect. Why Meta is making this move One of the key reasons behind the change is linked to user safety, especially concerns around harmful content. Reports suggest that removing encryption allows platforms to: Detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) Identify grooming behaviour Flag harassment or illegal content The move follows increasing global pressure on tech companies to improve safety measures on messaging platforms. Legal and regulatory pressure Governments in several regions, including the United States, United Kingdom and European Union, have been pushing for stronger monitoring of online platforms. Regulations such as: The UK’s Online Safety Act Proposed EU Chat Control rules are aimed at ensuring companies can detect harmful content, even within private communications. Earlier this year, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million, citing concerns about platform safety and user protection. Privacy concerns and debate While the change may help detect harmful activity, it has also raised concerns among privacy advocates. Experts argue that: Removing encryption may reduce user privacy Messages could become more vulnerable to misuse Trust in private communication may be affected This creates a balance issue between ensuring safety and protecting personal data. What happens next Meta has not confirmed whether similar changes will be applied to other platforms like Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp. For now, the update applies only to Instagram, but it signals a broader shift in how tech companies may handle private messaging in the future. As regulations continue to evolve, platforms may increasingly adjust their systems to meet safety requirements while managing user expectations around privacy.

Meta has ended end-to-end encryption for direct messages on Instagram from May 8, 2026. This means that messages sent through Instagram DMs are no longer fully private, marking a significant change in how users communicate on the platform.

‘Your DM chats are no longer private’: Instagram removes end-to-end encryption from messages

Big changes are coming to Instagram DMs after May 8, as Meta reportedly scales back end-to-end encryption. This move raises concerns about how private conversations will be in the future. Users may no longer have the same level of message security they once relied on. Privacy advocates are already warning that this could weaken trust in one of the world’s most popular messaging platforms.


Instagram Ends Private Chat Feature After May 8 

In March, a court verdict in U.S. took tech giants by a storm. It held Meta accountable for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people. Meta has now challenged this verdict, citing a federal law which exempts online platforms from liability for user-generated content. 

Meta Appeals Against Verdict Holding It Accountable for Social Media Addiction

Social media giant Meta Platforms is under legal pressure as the U.S. state of New Mexico seeks $3.7 billion in damages. The case targets platforms like Instagram and Facebook, alleging serious concerns over user safety and platform accountability.

The lawsuit marks a significant escalation in regulatory scrutiny of big tech, raising broader questions about social media governance, user protection, and corporate responsibility.

Instagram, Facebook Under Legal Scrutiny: New Mexico State Seeks $3.7 BN From Meta

Emily Hart is a “hot girl” who speaks to conservative MAGA men on Instagram. She even has a Fanvue account and thousands of followers in both places. However, she is not real. A man sitting in India created her to make some money, and his plan hit the bull's eye.

Emily Hart is a “hot girl” who speaks to conservative MAGA men on Instagram. She even has a Fanvue account and thousands of followers in both places. However, she is not real. A man sitting in India created her to make some money, and his plan hit the bull's eye.

Indian man scams MAGA men with AI-generated 'hot' influencer, calls them 'super dumb'

In a landmark ruling that could redefine the legal liability of social media giants, a New Mexico jury has ordered Meta Platforms to pay $375 million in civil penalties. On Tuesday (Mar 24), after a six-week trial, the jury found that the tech titan violated state consumer protection laws by misleading parents about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The verdict marks the first time a jury has held Meta accountable for claims that its platforms enabled child sexual exploitation and prioritised engagement over teen mental health. While Meta has vowed to appeal, the decision signals a major defeat for the company’s long-standing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act defence. It sets a high-stakes precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits pending across the United States.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/no-dog-left-behind-7-stolen-pets-trek-17km-in-homeward-bound-escape-from-china-s-meat-market-their-story-is-breaking-the-internet-watch-video-1774330849117">No dog left behind: Tiny Corgi leads pack of 7 stolen dogs on miraculous 17km journey home — their story is breaking the internet | Watch video</a><h2>'Profits Over Kids'</h2>A New Mexico jury has ruled that Meta engaged in unfair and deceptive practices and ordered the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties. The case, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, accused Meta of misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, while allowing child sexual exploitation to persist on its platforms."This is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta’s choice to put profits over kids’ safety." Torrez said, calling the ruling "a ​clear message to big tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law". The jury found 75,000 violations of the state’s consumer protection law, awarding $5,000 for each.<h2>What the case revealed</h2>At the heart of the lawsuit was an undercover operation carried out by the attorney general’s office in 2023. Investigators created accounts posing as users under the age of 14. According to the state, those accounts were quickly exposed to explicit material and contacted by adults seeking similar content, leading to multiple criminal cases.Prosecutors argued that Meta was aware of these risks but failed to act. They pointed to internal documents that, they said, acknowledged problems around sexual exploitation and mental health harm among young users. However, despite that the company, the state says, did not institute basic safety tools such as age verification and insisted its platforms were safe.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/did-patriot-missiles-down-3-american-f-15-jets-over-kuwait-trump-accidentally-reveals-little-mishap-1774396550862">Did Patriot missiles down 3 American F-15 jets over Kuwait? Trump accidentally reveals 'little mishap'</a>The state also accused the company of designing features such as infinite scroll and auto-play to foster addictive behaviour and keep users, especially minors, engaged despite potential harm.<h2>Meta pushes back</h2>Meta has denied the allegations and said it will appeal the verdict. "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal," a company spokesperson said, adding that Meta has invested heavily in safety tools and continues to work to remove harmful content. "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."

Meta hit with a $375M verdict in a landmark case over child safety on its platforms. A US jury says the company misled parents and enabled harm, shaking its legal shield. What this means for Big Tech? Scroll down to read.

In a landmark ruling that could redefine the legal liability of social media giants, a New Mexico jury has ordered Meta Platforms to pay $375 million in civil penalties. On Tuesday (Mar 24), after a six-week trial, the jury found that the tech titan violated state consumer protection laws by misleading parents about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The verdict marks the first time a jury has held Meta accountable for claims that its platforms enabled child sexual exploitation and prioritised engagement over teen mental health. While Meta has vowed to appeal, the decision signals a major defeat for the company’s long-standing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act defence. It sets a high-stakes precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits pending across the United States. Also read | No dog left behind: Tiny Corgi leads pack of 7 stolen dogs on miraculous 17km journey home — their story is breaking the internet | Watch video 'Profits Over Kids' A New Mexico jury has ruled that Meta engaged in unfair and deceptive practices and ordered the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties. The case, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, accused Meta of misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, while allowing child sexual exploitation to persist on its platforms. "This is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta’s choice to put profits over kids’ safety." Torrez said, calling the ruling "a clear message to big tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law". The jury found 75,000 violations of the state’s consumer protection law, awarding $5,000 for each. What the case revealed At the heart of the lawsuit was an undercover operation carried out by the attorney general’s office in 2023. Investigators created accounts posing as users under the age of 14. According to the state, those accounts were quickly exposed to explicit material and contacted by adults seeking similar content, leading to multiple criminal cases. Prosecutors argued that Meta was aware of these risks but failed to act. They pointed to internal documents that, they said, acknowledged problems around sexual exploitation and mental health harm among young users. However, despite that the company, the state says, did not institute basic safety tools such as age verification and insisted its platforms were safe. Also read | Did Patriot missiles down 3 American F-15 jets over Kuwait? Trump accidentally reveals 'little mishap' The state also accused the company of designing features such as infinite scroll and auto-play to foster addictive behaviour and keep users, especially minors, engaged despite potential harm. Meta pushes back Meta has denied the allegations and said it will appeal the verdict. "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal," a company spokesperson said, adding that Meta has invested heavily in safety tools and continues to work to remove harmful content. "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."

Meta hit with a $375M verdict in a landmark case over child safety on its platforms. A US jury says the company misled parents and enabled harm, shaking its legal shield. What does this mean for Big Tech? Scroll down to read.

'Profits over kids' safety': New Mexico slaps $375m penalty on Meta for enabling child exploitation on Facebook & Instagram

Instagram is set to end end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) direct messages on May 8, 2026, marking a major shift in the platform’s messaging privacy features. The move means that encrypted chats previously available for some users will no longer be supported, raising questions about privacy, security, and user data protection.

Instagram Drops Encrypted Messages | E2EE Direct Messages End May 8, 2026

instagram

Instagram, News on Instagram, stories on Instagram, articles on Instagram, Instagram stories at Wion, Instagram news, Instagram latest news