Instagram

Meta wins monopoly trial, convinces judge that social networking is dead

Antitrust law, facebook, federal trade commission, Instagram, Meta, monopoly, Policy, reels, tiktok, whatsapp, youtube / Mike M. / November 19, 2025

People are “bored” by their friends’ content, judge ruled, siding with Meta.

Mark Zuckerberg arrives at court after The Federal Trade Commission alleged the acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 gave Meta a social media monopoly. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg

After years of pushback from the Federal Trade Commission over Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, Meta has defeated the FTC’s monopoly claims.

In a Tuesday ruling, US District Judge James Boasberg said the FTC failed to show that Meta has a monopoly in a market dubbed “personal social networking.” In that narrowly defined market, the FTC unsuccessfully argued, Meta supposedly faces only two rivals, Snapchat and MeWe, which struggle to compete due to its alleged monopoly.

But the days of grouping apps into “separate markets of social networking and social media” are over, Boasberg wrote. He cited the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who “posited that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” while telling the FTC they missed their chance to block Meta’s purchase.

Essentially, Boasberg agreed with Meta that social media—as it was known in Facebook’s early days—is dead. And that means that Meta now competes with a broader set of rival apps, which includes two hugely popular platforms: TikTok and YouTube.

“When the evidence implies that consumers are reallocating massive amounts of time from Meta’s apps to these rivals and that the amount of substitution has forced Meta to invest gobs of cash to keep up, the answer is clear: Meta is not a monopolist insulated from competition,” Boasberg wrote.

In fact, adding just TikTok alone to the market defeated the FTC’s claims, Boasberg wrote, leaving him to conclude that “Meta holds no monopoly in the relevant market.”

The FTC is not happy about the loss, which comes after Boasberg determined that one of the agency’s key expert witnesses, Scott Hemphill, could not have approached his testimony “with an open mind.” According to Boasberg, Hemphill was aligned with figures publicly calling for the breakup of Facebook, and that made “neutral evaluation of his opinions more difficult” in a case with little direct evidence of monopoly harms.

“We are deeply disappointed in this decision,” Joe Simonson, the FTC’s director of public affairs, told CNBC. “The deck was always stacked against us with Judge Boasberg, who is currently facing articles of impeachment. We are reviewing all our options.”

For Meta, the win ends years of FTC fights intended to break up the company’s family of apps: Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

“The Court’s decision today recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition,” Jennifer Newstead, Meta’s chief legal officer, said. “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.”

Reels’ popularity helped save Meta

Meta app users clicking on Reels helped Meta win.

Boasberg noted that “a majority of Americans’ time” on both Facebook and Instagram “is now spent watching videos,” with Reels becoming “the single most-used part of Facebook.” That puts Meta apps more on par with entertainment apps like TikTok and YouTube, the judge said.

While “connecting with friends remains an important part of both apps,” the judge cited Meta’s evidence showing that Meta had to pump more recommended content from strangers into users’ feeds to account for a trend where its users grew increasingly less inclined to post publicly.

“Both scrolling and sharing have transformed” since Facebook was founded, Boasberg wrote, citing six factors that he concluded invalidated the FTC’s market definition as markets exist today.

Initial factors that shifted markets were due to leaps in innovation. “First, smartphone usage exploded,” Boasberg explained, then “cell phone data got better,” which made it easier to watch videos without frustrating “freezing and buffering.” Soon after, content recommendation systems got better, with “advanced AI algorithms” helping users “find engaging videos about the things” they “care most about in the world.”

Other factors stemmed from social changes, the judge suggested, describing the fourth factor as a trend where Meta app users started feeling “increasingly bored by their friends’ posts.”

“Longtime users’ friend lists” start fresh, but over time, they “become an often-outdated archive of people they once knew: a casual friend from college, a long-ago friend from summer camp, some guy they met at a party once,” Boasberg wrote. “Posts from friends have therefore grown less interesting.”

Then came TikTok, the fifth factor, Boasberg said, which forced Meta to “evolve” Facebook and Instagram by adding Reels.

And finally, “those five changes both caused and were reinforced by a change in social norms, which evolved to discourage public posting,” Boasberg wrote. “People have increasingly become less interested in blasting out public posts that hundreds of others can see.”

As a result of these tech advancements and social trends, Boasberg said, “Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube have thus evolved to have nearly identical main features.” That reality undermined the FTC’s claims that users preferred Facebook and Instagram before Meta shifted its focus away from friends-and-family content.

“The Court simply does not find it credible that users would prefer the Facebook and Instagram apps that existed ten years ago to the versions that exist today,” Boasberg wrote.

Meta apps have not deteriorated, judge ruled

Boasberg repeatedly emphasized that the FTC failed to prove that Meta has a monopoly “now,” either actively or imminently causing harms.

The FTC tried to win by claiming that “Meta has degraded its apps’ quality by increasing their ad load, that falling user sentiment shows that the apps have deteriorated and that Meta has sabotaged its apps by underinvesting in friend sharing,” Boasberg noted.

But, Boasberg said, the FTC failed to show that Meta’s app quality has diminished—a trend that Cory Doctorow dubbed “enshittification,” which Meta apparently successfully argued is not real.

The judge was also swayed by Meta’s arguments that users like seeing ads. Meta showed evidence that it can only profitably increase its ad load when ad quality improves; otherwise, it risks losing engagement. Because “the rate at which users buy something or subscribe to a service based on Meta’s ads has steadily risen,” this suggested “that the ads have gotten more and more likely to connect users to products in which they have an interest,” Boasberg said.

Additionally, surveys of Meta app users that show declining user sentiment are not evidence that its apps are deteriorating in quality, Boasberg said, but are more about “brand reputation.”

“That is unsurprising: ask people how they feel about, say, Exxon Mobil, and their answers will tell you very little about how good its oil is,” Boasberg wrote. “The FTC’s claim that worsening sentiment shows a worsening product is unpersuasive.”

Finally, the FTC’s claim that Meta underinvested in friends-and-family content, to the detriment of its core app users, “makes no sense,” Boasberg wrote, given Meta’s data showing that user posting declined.

“While it is true that users see less content from their friends these days, that is largely due to the friends themselves: people simply post less,” Boasberg wrote. “Users are not seeing less friend content because Meta is hiding it from them, but instead because there is less friend content for Meta to show.”

It’s not even “clear that users want more friend posts,” the judge noted, agreeing with Meta that “instead, what users really seem to want is Reels.”

Further, if Meta were a monopolist, Boasberg seemed to suggest that the platform might be more invested in forcing friends-and-family content than Reels, since “Reels earns Meta less money” due to its smaller ad load.

“Courts presume that sophisticated corporations act rationally,” Boasberg wrote. “Here, the FTC has not offered even an ordinarily persuasive case that Meta is making the economically irrational choice to underinvest in its most lucrative offerings. It certainly has not made a particularly persuasive one.”

Among the critics unhappy with the ruling is Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, who suggested that Boasberg’s ruling was “a colossally wrong decision” that “turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it.”

“Judge Boasberg has purposefully ignored the overwhelming evidence of how Meta became a monopoly—not by building a better product, but by buying its rivals to shut down any real competitors before they could grow,” Hegde said. “These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family. By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side.”

On the other side, industry groups cheered the ruling. Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, suggested that Boasberg concluded “what every Internet user knows—that Meta competes with a number of platforms and the company’s relevant market shares are therefore nowhere close to those required to establish monopoly power.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Meta wins monopoly trial, convinces judge that social networking is dead Read More »

Bombshell report exposes how Meta relied on scam ad profits to fund AI

AI, facebook, Instagram, Meta, online advertising, online scams, Policy, scam ads, whatsapp / Kelly Newman / November 8, 2025

“High risk” versus “high value”

Meta goosed its revenue by targeting users likely to click on scam ads, docs show.

Internal documents have revealed that Meta has projected it earns billions from ignoring scam ads that its platforms then targeted to users most likely to click on them.

In a lengthy report, Reuters exposed five years of Meta practices and failures that allowed scammers to take advantage of users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

Documents showed that internally, Meta was hesitant to abruptly remove accounts, even those considered some of the “scammiest scammers,” out of concern that a drop in revenue could diminish resources needed for artificial intelligence growth.

Instead of promptly removing bad actors, Meta allowed “high value accounts” to “accrue more than 500 strikes without Meta shutting them down,” Reuters reported. The more strikes a bad actor accrued, the more Meta could charge to run ads, as Meta’s documents showed the company “penalized” scammers by charging higher ad rates. Meanwhile, Meta acknowledged in documents that its systems helped scammers target users most likely to click on their ads.

“Users who click on scam ads are likely to see more of them because of Meta’s ad-personalization system, which tries to deliver ads based on a user’s interests,” Reuters reported.

Internally, Meta estimates that users across its apps in total encounter 15 billion “high risk” scam ads a day. That’s on top of 22 billion organic scam attempts that Meta users are exposed to daily, a 2024 document showed. Last year, the company projected that about $16 billion, which represents about 10 percent of its revenue, would come from scam ads.

“High risk” scam ads strive to sell users on fake products or investment schemes, Reuters noted. Some common scams in this category that mislead users include selling banned medical products, or promoting sketchy entities, like linking to illegal online casinos. However, Meta is most concerned about “imposter” ads, which impersonate celebrities or big brands that Meta fears may halt advertising or engagement on its apps if such scams aren’t quickly stopped.

“Hey it’s me,” one scam advertisement using Elon Musk’s photo read. “I have a gift for you text me.” Another using Donald Trump’s photo claimed the US president was offering $710 to every American as “tariff relief.” Perhaps most depressingly, a third posed as a real law firm, offering advice on how to avoid falling victim to online scams.

Meta removed these particular ads after Reuters flagged them, but in 2024, Meta earned about $7 billion from “high risk” ads like these alone, Reuters reported.

Sandeep Abraham, a former Meta safety investigator who now runs consultancy firm Risky Business Solutions as a fraud examiner, told Reuters that regulators should intervene.

“If regulators wouldn’t tolerate banks profiting from fraud, they shouldn’t tolerate it in tech,” Abraham said.

Meta won’t disclose how much it made off scam ads

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told Reuters that its collection of documents—which were created between 2021 and 2025 by Meta’s finance, lobbying, engineering, and safety divisions—“present a selective view that distorts Meta’s approach to fraud and scams.”

Stone claimed that Meta’s estimate that it would earn 10 percent of its 2024 revenue from scam ads was “rough and overly-inclusive.” He suggested the actual amount Meta earned was much lower but declined to specify the true amount. He also said that Meta’s most recent investor disclosures note that scam ads “adversely affect” Meta’s revenue.

“We aggressively fight fraud and scams because people on our platforms don’t want this content, legitimate advertisers don’t want it, and we don’t want it either,” Stone said.

Despite those efforts, this spring, Meta’s safety team “estimated that the company’s platforms were involved in a third of all successful scams in the US,” Reuters reported. In other internal documents around the same time, Meta staff concluded that “it is easier to advertise scams on Meta platforms than Google,” acknowledging that Meta’s rivals were better at “weeding out fraud.”

As Meta tells it, though seemingly dismal, these documents came amid vast improvements in its fraud protections. Stone told Reuters that “over the past 18 months, we have reduced user reports of scam ads globally by 58 percent and, so far in 2025, we’ve removed more than 134 million pieces of scam ad content,” Stone said.

According to Reuters, the problem may be the pace Meta sets in combating scammers. In 2023, Meta laid off “everyone who worked on the team handling advertiser concerns about brand-rights issues,” then ordered safety staffers to limit use of computing resources to devote more resources to virtual reality and AI. A 2024 document showed Meta recommended a “moderate” approach to enforcement, plotting to reduce revenue “attributable to scams, illegal gambling and prohibited goods” by 1–3 percentage points each year since 2024, supposedly slashing it in half by 2027. More recently, a 2025 document showed Meta continues to weigh how “abrupt reductions of scam advertising revenue could affect its business projections.”

Eventually, Meta “substantially expanded” its teams that track scam ads, Stone told Reuters. But Meta also took steps to ensure they didn’t take too hard a hit while needing vast resources—$72 billion—to invest in AI, Reuters reported.

For example, in February, Meta told “the team responsible for vetting questionable advertisers” that they weren’t “allowed to take actions that could cost Meta more than 0.15 percent of the company’s total revenue,” Reuters reported. That’s any scam account worth about $135 million, Reuters noted. Stone pushed back, saying that the team was never given “a hard limit” on what the manager described as “specific revenue guardrails.”

“Let’s be cautious,” the team’s manager wrote, warning that Meta didn’t want to lose revenue by blocking “benign” ads mistakenly swept up in enforcement.

Meta should donate scam ad profits, ex-exec says

Documents showed that Meta prioritized taking action when it risked regulatory fines, although revenue from scam ads was worth roughly three times the highest fines it could face. Possibly, Meta most feared that officials would require disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, rather than fines.

Meta appeared to be less likely to ramp up enforcement from police requests. Documents showed that police in Singapore flagged “146 examples of scams targeting that country’s users last fall,” Reuters reported. Only 23 percent violated Meta’s policies, while the rest only “violate the spirit of the policy, but not the letter,” a Meta presentation said.

Scams that Meta failed to flag offered promotions like crypto scams, fake concert tickets, or deals “too good to be true,” like 80 percent off a desirable item from a high-fashion brand. Meta also looked past fake job ads that claimed to be hiring for Big Tech companies.

Rob Leathern previously led Meta’s business integrity unit that worked to prevent scam ads but left in 2020. He told Wired that it’s hard to “know how bad it’s gotten or what the current state is” since Meta and other social media platforms don’t provide outside researchers access to large random samples of ads.

With such access, researchers like Leathern and Rob Goldman, Meta’s former vice president of ads, could provide “scorecards” showing how well different platforms work to combat scams. Together, Leathern and Goldman launched a nonprofit called CollectiveMetrics.org in hopes of “bringing more transparency to digital advertising in order to fight deceptive ads,” Wired reported.

“I want there to be more transparency. I want third parties, researchers, academics, nonprofits, whoever, to be able to actually assess how good of a job these platforms are doing at stopping scams and fraud,” Leathern told Wired. “We’d like to move to actual measurement of the problem and help foster an understanding.”

Another meaningful step that Leathern thinks companies like Meta should take to protect users would be to notify users when Meta discovers that they clicked on a scam ad—rather than targeting them with more scam ads, as Reuters suggested was Meta’s practice.

“These scammers aren’t getting people’s money on day one, typically. So there’s a window to take action,” he said, recommending that platforms donate ill-gotten gains from running scam ads to “fund nonprofits to educate people about how to recognize these kinds of scams or problems.”

“There’s lots that could be done with funds that come from these bad guys,” Leathern said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Bombshell report exposes how Meta relied on scam ad profits to fund AI Read More »

EU accuses Meta of violating content rules in move that could anger Trump

Digital Services Act, European Union, facebook, Instagram, Meta, Policy, tiktok / Mike M. / October 25, 2025

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson recently warned Meta and a dozen social media and technology companies that “censoring Americans to comply with a foreign power’s laws, demands, or expected demands” may violate US law. Ferguson’s letters said the EU’s Digital Services Act and other laws “incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech.”

Meta told media outlets that “we disagree with any suggestion that we have breached the DSA, and we continue to negotiate with the European Commission on these matters.” Meta also said it made changes to comply with the DSA.

“In the European Union, we have introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process, and data access tools since the DSA came into force and are confident that these solutions match what is required under the law in the EU,” Meta said.

TikTok, Meta accused of restricting data access

The EC also said it preliminarily found that both Meta and TikTok violated their DSA obligation to grant researchers adequate access to public data.

“The Commission’s preliminary findings show that Facebook, Instagram and TikTok may have put in place burdensome procedures and tools for researchers to request access to public data. This often leaves them with partial or unreliable data, impacting their ability to conduct research, such as whether users, including minors, are exposed to illegal or harmful content,” the announcement said.

The data-access requirement “is an essential transparency obligation under the DSA, as it provides public scrutiny into the potential impact of platforms on our physical and mental health,” the EC said.

In a statement provided to Ars, TikTok said it is committed to transparency and has made data available to nearly 1,000 research teams. TikTok said it may be impossible to comply with both the DSA and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

“We are reviewing the European Commission’s findings, but requirements to ease data safeguards place the DSA and GDPR in direct tension. If it is not possible to fully comply with both, we urge regulators to provide clarity on how these obligations should be reconciled,” TikTok said.

EU accuses Meta of violating content rules in move that could anger Trump Read More »

Meta won’t allow users to opt out of targeted ads based on AI chats

Ad targeting, AI, facebook, generative ai, Instagram, Meta, Meta AI, online ads, Policy, privacy, whatsapp / Kelly Newman / October 4, 2025

Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp users may want to be extra careful while using Meta AI, as Meta has announced that it will soon be using AI interactions to personalize content and ad recommendations without giving users a way to opt out.

Meta plans to notify users on October 7 that their AI interactions will influence recommendations beginning on December 16. However, it may not be immediately obvious to all users that their AI interactions will be used in this way.

The company’s blog noted that the initial notification users will see only says, “Learn how Meta will use your info in new ways to personalize your experience.” Users will have to click through to understand that the changes specifically apply to Meta AI, with a second screen explaining, “We’ll start using your interactions with AIs to personalize your experience.”

Ars asked Meta why the initial notification doesn’t directly mention AI, and Meta spokesperson Emil Vazquez said he “would disagree with the idea that we are obscuring this update in any way.”

“We’re sending notifications and emails to people about this change,” Vazquez said. “As soon as someone clicks on the notification, it’s immediately apparent that this is an AI update.”

In its blog post, Meta noted that “more than 1 billion people use Meta AI every month,” stating its goals are to improve the way Meta AI works in order to fuel better experiences on all Meta apps. Sensitive “conversations with Meta AI about topics such as their religious views, sexual orientation, political views, health, racial or ethnic origin, philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership “will not be used to target ads, Meta confirmed.

“You’re in control,” Meta’s blog said, reiterating that users can “choose” how they “interact with AIs,” unlink accounts on different apps to limit AI tracking, or adjust ad and content settings at any time. But once the tracking starts on December 16, users will not have the option to opt out of targeted ads based on AI chats, Vazquez confirmed, emphasizing to Ars that “there isn’t an opt out for this feature.”

Meta won’t allow users to opt out of targeted ads based on AI chats Read More »

Meta backtracks on rules letting chatbots be creepy to kids

AI, chatbots, child safety, facebook, Instagram, Meta, Meta AI, Policy / Mike M. / August 14, 2025

“Your youthful form is a work of art”

Meta drops AI rules letting chatbots generate innuendo and profess love to kids.

After what was arguably Meta’s biggest purge of child predators from Facebook and Instagram earlier this summer, the company now faces backlash after its own chatbots appeared to be allowed to creep on kids.

After reviewing an internal document that Meta verified as authentic, Reuters revealed that by design, Meta allowed its chatbots to engage kids in “sensual” chat. Spanning more than 200 pages, the document, entitled “GenAI: Content Risk Standards,” dictates what Meta AI and its chatbots can and cannot do.

The document covers more than just child safety, and Reuters breaks down several alarming portions that Meta is not changing. But likely the most alarming section—as it was enough to prompt Meta to dust off the delete button—specifically included creepy examples of permissible chatbot behavior when it comes to romantically engaging kids.

Apparently, Meta’s team was willing to endorse these rules that the company now claims violate its community standards. According to a Reuters special report, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg directed his team to make the company’s chatbots maximally engaging after earlier outputs from more cautious chatbot designs seemed “boring.”

Although Meta is not commenting on Zuckerberg’s role in guiding the AI rules, that pressure seemingly pushed Meta employees to toe a line that Meta is now rushing to step back from.

“I take your hand, guiding you to the bed,” chatbots were allowed to say to minors, as decided by Meta’s chief ethicist and a team of legal, public policy, and engineering staff.

There were some obvious safeguards built in. For example, chatbots couldn’t “describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable,” the document said, like saying their “soft rounded curves invite my touch.”

However, it was deemed “acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness,” like a chatbot telling a child that “your youthful form is a work of art.” And chatbots could generate other innuendo, like telling a child to imagine “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss,” Reuters reported.

Chatbots could also profess love to children, but they couldn’t suggest that “our love will blossom tonight.”

Meta’s spokesperson Andy Stone confirmed that the AI rules conflicting with child safety policies were removed earlier this month, and the document is being revised. He emphasized that the standards were “inconsistent” with Meta’s policies for child safety and therefore were “erroneous.”

“We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors,” Stone said.

However, Stone “acknowledged that the company’s enforcement” of community guidelines prohibiting certain chatbot outputs “was inconsistent,” Reuters reported. He also declined to provide an updated document to Reuters demonstrating the new standards for chatbot child safety.

Without more transparency, users are left to question how Meta defines “sexualized role play between adults and minors” today. Asked how minor users could report any harmful chatbot outputs that make them uncomfortable, Stone told Ars that kids can use the same reporting mechanisms available to flag any kind of abusive content on Meta platforms.

“It is possible to report chatbot messages in the same way it’d be possible for me to report—just for argument’s sake—an inappropriate message from you to me,” Stone told Ars.

Kids unlikely to report creepy chatbots

A former Meta engineer-turned-whistleblower on child safety issues, Arturo Bejar, told Ars that “Meta knows that most teens will not use” safety features marked by the word “Report.”

So it seems unlikely that kids using Meta AI will navigate to find Meta support systems to “report” abusive AI outputs. Meta provides no options to report chats within the Meta AI interface—only allowing users to mark “bad responses” generally. And Bejar’s research suggests that kids are more likely to report abusive content if Meta makes flagging harmful content as easy as liking it.

Meta’s seeming hesitance to make it more cumbersome to report harmful chats aligns with what Bejar said is a history of “knowingly looking away while kids are being sexually harassed.”

“When you look at their design choices, they show that they do not want to know when something bad happens to a teenager on Meta products,” Bejar said.

Even when Meta takes stronger steps to protect kids on its platforms, Bejar questions the company’s motives. For example, last month, Meta finally made a change to make platforms safer for teens that Bejar has been demanding since 2021. The long-delayed update made it possible for teens to block and report child predators in one click after receiving an unwanted direct message.

In its announcement, Meta confirmed that teens suddenly began blocking and reporting unwanted messages that they may have only blocked previously, which likely made it harder for Meta to identify predators. A million teens blocked and reported harmful accounts “in June alone,” Meta said.

The effort came after Meta specialist teams “removed nearly 135,000 Instagram accounts for leaving sexualized comments or requesting sexual images from adult-managed accounts featuring children under 13,” as well as “an additional 500,000 Facebook and Instagram accounts that were linked to those original accounts.” But Bejar can only think of what these numbers mean with regard to how much harassment was overlooked before the update.

“How are we [as] parents to trust a company that took four years to do this much?” Bejar said. “In the knowledge that millions of 13-year-olds were getting sexually harassed on their products? What does this say about their priorities?”

Bejar said the “key problem” with Meta’s latest safety feature for kids “is that the reporting tool is just not designed for teens,” who likely view “the categories and language” Meta uses as “confusing.”

“Each step of the way, a teen is told that if the content doesn’t violate” Meta’s community standards, “they won’t do anything,” so even if reporting is easy, research shows kids are deterred from reporting.

Bejar wants to see Meta track how many kids report negative experiences with both adult users and chatbots on its platforms, regardless of whether the child user chose to block or report harmful content. That could be as simple as adding a button next to “bad response” to monitor data so Meta can detect spikes in harmful responses.

While Meta is finally taking more action to remove harmful adult users, Bejar warned that advances from chatbots could come across as just as disturbing to young users.

“Put yourself in the position of a teen who got sexually spooked by a chat and then try and report. Which category would you use?” Bejar asked.

Consider that Meta’s Help Center encourages users to report bullying and harassment, which may be one way a young user labels harmful chatbot outputs. Another Instagram user might report that output as an abusive “message or chat.” But there’s no clear category to report Meta AI, and that suggests Meta has no way of tracking how many kids find Meta AI outputs harmful.

Recent reports have shown that even adults can struggle with emotional dependence on a chatbot, which can blur the lines between the online world and reality. Reuters’ special report also documented a 76-year-old man’s accidental death after falling in love with a chatbot, showing how elderly users could be vulnerable to Meta’s romantic chatbots, too.

In particular, lawsuits have alleged that child users with developmental disabilities and mental health issues have formed unhealthy attachments to chatbots that have influenced the children to become violent, begin self-harming, or, in one disturbing case, die by suicide.

Scrutiny will likely remain on chatbot makers as child safety advocates generally push all platforms to take more accountability for the content kids can access online.

Meta’s child safety updates in July came after several state attorneys general accused Meta of “implementing addictive features across its family of apps that have detrimental effects on children’s mental health,” CNBC reported. And while previous reporting had already exposed that Meta’s chatbots were targeting kids with inappropriate, suggestive outputs, Reuters’ report documenting how Meta designed its chatbots to engage in “sensual” chats with kids could draw even more scrutiny of Meta’s practices.

Meta is “still not transparent about the likelihood our kids will experience harm,” Bejar said. “The measure of safety should not be the number of tools or accounts deleted; it should be the number of kids experiencing a harm. It’s very simple.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Meta backtracks on rules letting chatbots be creepy to kids Read More »

Toy company may regret coming for “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker, experts say

calico critters, copyright infringement, Instagram, online advertising, parody, Policy, satire, Social Media, sponsored content, tiktok, trademark infringement / Mike M. / July 23, 2025

Possible legal paths to revive a shuttered video series on TikTok and Instagram.

A popular account on TikTok and Instagram stopped posting suddenly at the end of last year, hit by a lawsuit after garnering millions of views on funny videos it made using adorable children’s Calico Critter dolls to act out dark, cringe-y adult storylines.

While millions of followers mourn the so-called “Sylvanian Drama” account’s demise, experts told Ars that the creator may have a decent chance at beating the lawsuit.

The “Sylvanian Drama” account derived its name from “Sylvanian Families,” a brand name used by Epoch Company Ltd., the maker of Calico Critters, for its iconic fuzzy animal dolls in some markets outside the US. Despite these videos referencing murder, drugs, and hookups, the toy company apparently had no problem, until the account, managed by Ireland-based Thea Von Engelbrechten, started accepting big brand partnerships and making sponsored content featuring the dolls.

Since Epoch, too, strikes partnerships with brands and influencers to promote its own videos marketing the dolls, the company claimed “Sylvanian Drama” risked creating too much confusion online. They also worried viewers would think Epoch had signed off on the videos, since the sponsored content was marked “paid partnership” without specifying precisely which featured brands had paid for the spots. They further accused Von Engelbrechten of building her advertising business around their brand without any attempt to properly license the dolls, while allegedly usurping licensing opportunities from Epoch.

So far, Von Engelbrechten has delayed responding in the lawsuit. As the account remained inactive over the past few months, fans speculated whether it could survive the lawsuit, which raised copyright and trademark infringement claims to get all the videos removed. In their complaint, the toy company requested not only an injunction preventing Von Engelbrechten from creating more “Sylvanian Drama” videos, but also sought all of her profits from her online accounts, in addition to further damages.

Von Engelbrechten declined Ars’ request to provide an update on her defense in the case, but her response is due in early August. That filing will make clear what arguments she may make to overcome Epoch’s suit, but legal experts told Ars that the case isn’t necessarily a slam dunk for the toy company. So all that “Sylvanian Drama” isn’t over just yet.

Epoch’s lawyers did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

“Sylvanian Drama” needs the court to get the joke

Epoch raised copyright infringement charges that could hit Von Engelbrechten with fines totaling $150,000 per violation.

For Von Engelbrechten to defeat the copyright infringement claim, she’ll need to convince the court that her videos are parodies. A law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, Eric Goldman, told Ars that her videos may qualify since “even if they don’t expressly reference Epoch’s offerings by name, the videos intentionally communicate a jarring juxtaposition of adorable critters who are important parts of pop culture living through the darker sides of humanity.”

Basically, Von Engelbrechten will need the court to understand the humor in her videos to win on that claim, Rebecca Tushnet, a First Amendment law professor at Harvard Law School, told Ars.

“Courts have varied in their treatment of parodies; the complaint’s definition of parody is not controlling but humor is one of the hardest things to predict—if the court gets the joke, it will be more likely to say that the juxtaposition between the storylines and the innocent appearance of the dolls is parodic,” Tushnet said.

But if the court does get the joke, Goldman suggested that even the sponsored content—which hilariously incorporates product placements from various big brands like Marc Jacobs, Taco Bell, Hilton, and Sephora into storylines—could possibly be characterized as parody.

However, “the fact that the social media posts were labeled #ad will make it extremely difficult for the artist to contest the videos’ status as ads,” Goldman said.

Ultimately, Goldman said that Epoch’s lawsuit “raises a host of complex legal issues” and is “not an easy case on either side.”

And one of the most significant issues that Epoch may face in the courtroom could end up gutting all of its trademark infringement claims that supposedly entitle the toy company to all of Von Engelbrechten’s profits, Alexandra Jane Roberts, a Northeastern University professor of law and media with special expertise in trademark law, told Ars.

Calico Critters may stumble on trademark hurdle

The toy company has raised several trademark infringement claims, all of which depend on Epoch proving that Von Engelbrechten “knowingly and willfully” used its trademarks without permission.

However, Roberts pointed out to Ars that Epoch has no trademarks for its iconic dolls, relying only on common law to assert sole rights to the “look and design of the critters.”

It’s likely impossible for Epoch to trademark the dolls, since trademarks are not intended to block competition, and there are only so many ways to design cute dolls that resemble cats or bunnies, Roberts suggested. A court may decide “there’s only so many ways to make a small fuzzy bunny that doesn’t look like this,” potentially narrowing the rights Epoch has under trade dress, a term that Epoch doesn’t use once in its complaint.

Roberts told Ars that Epoch’s trademark claims are “not so far off the mark,” and Von Engelbrechten’s defense was certainly not strengthened by her decision to monetize the content. Prior cases, like the indie band OK Go sending a cease-and-desist to Post cereal over a breakfast product called “OK Go” due to fears of false endorsement, make it clear that courts have agreed in the past that online collaborations have muddied the waters regarding who is the actual source of content for viewers.

“The question becomes whether people are going to see these videos, even though they’re snarky, and even though they’re silly and think, ‘Oh, Calico Critters must have signed off on this,'” Roberts said. “So the argument about consumer confusion, I think, is a plausible argument.”

However, if Epoch fails to convince the court that its trademarks have been infringed, then its other claims alleging false endorsement and unfair competition would likely also collapse.

“You can still get sometimes to unfair competition or to kind of like a false endorsement, but it’s harder to win on those claims and certainly harder to get damages on those claims,” Roberts said. “You don’t get trademark infringement if you don’t have a trademark.”

Possible defenses to keep “Sylvanian Drama” alive

Winning on the trademark claims may not be easy for Von Engelbrechten, who possibly weakened her First Amendment defense by creating the sponsored content. Regardless, she will likely try to convince the court to view the videos as parody, which is a slightly different analysis under trademark law than copyright’s more well-known fair use parody exceptions.

That could be a struggle, since trademark law requires that Von Engelbrechten’s parody videos directly satirize the “Sylvanian Families” brand, and “Sylvanian Drama” videos, even the ads, instead seem to be “making fun of elements of society and culture,” rather than the dolls themselves, Roberts said.

She pointed to winning cases involving the Barbie trademark as an instructive example. In a case disputing Mattel trademarks used in the lyrics for the one-hit wonder “Barbie Girl,” the song was cleared for trademark infringement as a “purely expressive work” that directly parodies Barbie in the lyrics. And in another case, where an artist, Tom Forsythe, captured photos of Barbie dolls in kitchen vessels like a blender or a margarita glass, more robust First Amendment protection was offered since his photos “had a lot to say about sexism and the dolls and what the dolls represent,” Roberts said.

The potential “Sylvanian Drama” defense seems to lack strong go-to arguments that typically win trademark cases, but Roberts said there is still one other defense the content creator may be weighing.

Under “nominative fair use,” it’s OK to use another company’s trademark if it’s necessary in an ad. Roberts provided examples, like a company renting Lexus cars needing to use that trademark or comparative advertising using Tiffany’s diamonds as a reference point to hype their lower prices.

If Von Engelbrechten goes that route, she will need to prove she used “no more of the mark than is necessary” and did not mislead fans on whether Epoch signed off on the use.

“Here it’s hard to say that ‘Sylvanian Drama’ really needed to use so much of those characters and that they didn’t use more than they needed and that they weren’t misleading,” Roberts said.

However, Von Engelbrechten’s best bet might be arguing that there was no confusion, since “Sylvanian Families” isn’t even a brand that’s used in the US, which is where Epoch chose to file its lawsuit because the brands that partnered with the popular account are based in New York. And the case may not even get that far, Roberts suggested, since “before you can get to those questions about the likelihood of confusion, you have to show that you actually have trademark or trade dress rights to enforce.”

Calico Critters creator may face millennial backlash

Epoch may come to regret filing the lawsuit, Roberts said, noting that as a millennial who grew up a big “Hello Kitty” fan, she still buys merch that appeals to her, and Epoch likely knows about that market, as it has done collaborations with the “Hello Kitty” brand. The toymaker could risk alienating other millennials nostalgic for Calico Critters who may be among the “Sylvanian Drama” audience and feel turned off by the lawsuit.

“When you draw attention to something like this and appear litigious, and that you’re coming after a creator who a lot of people really like and really enjoy and probably feel defensive about, like, ‘Oh, she’s just making these funny videos that everyone loves. Why would you want to sue her?'” Roberts said, “that can be really bad press.”

Goldman suggested that Epoch might be better off striking a deal with the creator, which “could establish some boundaries for the artist to keep going without stepping on the IP owner’s rights.” But he noted that “often IP owners in these situations are not open to negotiation,” and “that requires courts to draw difficult and unpredictable lines about the permissible scope of fair use.”

For Von Engelbrechten, the lawsuit may mean that her days of creating “Sylvanian Drama”-sponsored content are over, which could risk crushing a bigger dream she had to succeed in advertising. However, if the lawsuit can be amicably settled, the beloved content creator could also end up making money for Epoch, considering her brand deals appeared to be bigger.

While she seems to take her advertising business seriously, Von Engelbrechten’s videos often joke about legal consequences, such as one where a cat doll says she cannot go to a party because she’s in jail but says “I’ll figure it out” when told her ex will be attending. Perhaps Von Engelbrechten is currently devising a scheme, like her characters, to escape consequences and keep the “Sylvanian Drama” going.

“Maybe if this company were really smart, they would want to hire this person instead of suing them,” Roberts said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Toy company may regret coming for “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker, experts say Read More »

Threat of Meta breakup looms as FTC’s monopoly trial ends

Antitrust law, facebook, federal trade commission, Instagram, Meta, meta monopoly trial, monopoly, Policy, whatsapp / Kelly Newman / May 28, 2025

“Meta is a proud American success story, and we look forward to continuing to innovate and serve the people and businesses who love our services,” Meta’s spokesperson said.

Experts aren’t so sure Meta has clinched it

Boasberg has said that the key question he must answer is whether the FTC’s market definition is too narrow.

Arguing against the market definition, Meta has said that connecting friends and family isn’t even Meta apps’ “core use” anymore, as an evolving competitive social media landscape has forced Meta to turn its newsfeeds into discovery engines to rival TikTok. Justin Teresi, an antitrust analyst, told Bloomberg that because the FTC failed to show that users primarily come to Meta apps to connect with friends and family, it may have strengthened Meta’s case.

Rebecca Allensworth, a Vanderbilt law professor and antitrust expert, told Bloomberg that the “FTC’s narrowly defined market was always the weakest part of its case,” but the government “has done a nice job of minimizing that weakness” by showing that apps that don’t connect friends and family aren’t adequate substitutes for Meta’s apps.

“This was evident when Meta saw spikes in usage on holidays,” Allensworth suggested, which is perhaps “a sign people were turning to its products to connect with loved ones.”

Teresi thinks Meta has a 60 percent shot at winning the trial, although he criticized Meta’s seeming defense that any company competing for online ad dollars competes with Meta. That argument may have broadened the market definition too much, he suggested.

“If you’re saying that the relevant market here is competing for advertising dollars, then you could throw anything in there,” Teresi said. “You could throw TV in there, you could throw print in there if you wanted to, and there’s really no end to that concept.”

Allensworth was less confident in Meta’s chances, telling Bloomberg, “I really actually think this could go either way.”

Threat of Meta breakup looms as FTC’s monopoly trial ends Read More »

Meta hypes AI friends as social media’s future, but users want real connections

antitrust, decentralization, facebook, Features, ftc, Instagram, interoperability, Meta, meta monopoly trial, Policy, Social Media / DJ Henderson / May 21, 2025

Two visions for social media’s future pit real connections against AI friends.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

If you ask the man who has largely shaped how friends and family connect on social media over the past two decades about the future of social media, you may not get a straight answer.

At the Federal Trade Commission’s monopoly trial, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attempted what seemed like an artful dodge to avoid criticism that his company allegedly bought out rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to lock users into Meta’s family of apps so they would never post about their personal lives anywhere else. He testified that people actually engage with social media less often these days to connect with loved ones, preferring instead to discover entertaining content on platforms to share in private messages with friends and family.

As Zuckerberg spins it, Meta no longer perceives much advantage in dominating the so-called personal social networking market where Facebook made its name and cemented what the FTC alleged is an illegal monopoly.

“Mark Zuckerberg says social media is over,” a New Yorker headline said about this testimony in a report noting a Meta chart that seemed to back up Zuckerberg’s words. That chart, shared at the trial, showed the “percent of time spent viewing content posted by ‘friends'” had declined over the past two years, from 22 to 17 percent on Facebook and from 11 to 7 percent on Instagram.

Supposedly because of this trend, Zuckerberg testified that “it doesn’t matter much” if someone’s friends are on their preferred platform. Every platform has its own value as a discovery engine, Zuckerberg suggested. And Meta platforms increasingly compete on this new playing field against rivals like TikTok, Meta argued, while insisting that it’s not so much focused on beating the FTC’s flagged rivals in the connecting-friends-and-family business, Snap and MeWe.

But while Zuckerberg claims that hosting that kind of content doesn’t move the needle much anymore, owning the biggest platforms that people use daily to connect with friends and family obviously still matters to Meta, MeWe founder Mark Weinstein told Ars. And Meta’s own press releases seem to back that up.

Weeks ahead of Zuckerberg’s testimony, Meta announced that it would bring back the “magic of friends,” introducing a “friends” tab to Facebook to make user experiences more like the original Facebook. The company intentionally diluted feeds with creator content and ads for the past two years, but it now appears intent on trying to spark more real conversations between friends and family, at least partly to fuel its newly launched AI chatbots.

Those chatbots mine personal information shared on Facebook and Instagram, and Meta wants to use that data to connect more personally with users—but “in a very creepy way,” The Washington Post wrote. In interviews, Zuckerberg has suggested these AI friends could “meaningfully” fill the void of real friendship online, as the average person has only three friends but “has demand” for up to 15. To critics seeking to undo Meta’s alleged monopoly, this latest move could signal a contradiction in Zuckerberg’s testimony, showing that the company is so invested in keeping users on its platforms that it’s now creating AI friends (wh0 can never leave its platform) to bait the loneliest among us into more engagement.

“The average person wants more connectivity, connection, than they have,” Zuckerberg said, hyping AI friends. For the Facebook founder, it must be hard to envision a future where his platforms aren’t the answer to providing that basic social need. All this comes more than a decade after he sought $5 billion in Facebook’s 2012 initial public offering so that he could keep building tools that he told investors would expand “people’s capacity to build and maintain relationships.”

At the trial, Zuckerberg testified that AI and augmented reality will be key fixtures of Meta’s platforms in the future, predicting that “several years from now, you are going to be scrolling through your feed, and not only is it going to be sort of animated, but it will be interactive.”

Meta declined to comment further on the company’s vision for social media’s future. In a statement, a Meta spokesperson told Ars that “the FTC’s lawsuit against Meta defies reality,” claiming that it threatens US leadership in AI and insisting that evidence at trial would establish that platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and X are Meta’s true rivals.

“More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared our acquisitions, the Commission’s action in this case sends the message that no deal is ever truly final,” Meta’s spokesperson said. “Regulators should be supporting American innovation rather than seeking to break up a great American company and further advantaging China on critical issues like AI.”

Meta faces calls to open up its platforms

Weinstein, the MeWe founder, told Ars that back in the 1990s when the original social media founders were planning the first community portals, “it was so beautiful because we didn’t think about bots and trolls. We didn’t think about data mining and surveillance capitalism. We thought about making the world a more connected and holistic place.”

But those who became social media overlords found more money in walled gardens and increasingly cut off attempts by outside developers to improve the biggest platforms’ functionality or leverage their platforms to compete for their users’ attention. Born of this era, Weinstein expects that Zuckerberg, and therefore Meta, will always cling to its friends-and-family roots, no matter which way Zuckerberg says the wind is blowing.

Meta “is still entirely based on personal social networking,” Weinstein told Ars.

In a Newsweek op-ed, Weinstein explained that he left MeWe in 2021 after “competition became impossible” with Meta. It was a time when MeWe faced backlash over lax content moderation, drawing comparisons between its service and right-wing apps like Gab or Parler. Weinstein rejected those comparisons, seeing his platform as an ideal Facebook rival and remaining a board member through the app’s more recent shift to decentralization. Still defending MeWe’s failed efforts to beat Facebook, he submitted hundreds of documents and was deposed in the monopoly trial, alleging that Meta retaliated against MeWe as a privacy-focused rival that sought to woo users away by branding itself the “anti-Facebook.”

Among his complaints, Weinstein accused Meta of thwarting MeWe’s attempts to introduce interoperability between the two platforms, which he thinks stems from a fear that users might leave Facebook if they discover a more appealing platform. That’s why he’s urged the FTC—if it wins its monopoly case—to go beyond simply ordering a potential breakup of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp to also require interoperability between Meta’s platforms and all rivals. That may be the only way to force Meta to release its clutch on personal data collection, Weinstein suggested, and allow for more competition broadly in the social media industry.

“The glue that holds it all together is Facebook’s monopoly over data,” Weinstein wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, recalling the moment he realized that Meta seemed to have an unbeatable monopoly. “Its ownership and control of the personal information of Facebook users and non-users alike is unmatched.”

Cory Doctorow, a special advisor to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars that his vision of a better social media future goes even further than requiring interoperability between all platforms. Social networks like Meta’s should also be made to allow reverse engineering so that outside developers can modify their apps with third-party tools without risking legal attacks, he said.

Doctorow said that solution would create “an equilibrium where companies are more incentivized to behave themselves than they are to cheat” by, say, retaliating against, killing off, or buying out rivals. And “if they fail to respond to that incentive and they cheat anyways, then the rest of the world still has a remedy,” Doctorow said, by having the choice to modify or ditch any platform deemed toxic, invasive, manipulative, or otherwise offensive.

Doctorow summed up the frustration that some users have faced through the ongoing “enshittification” of platforms (a term he coined) ever since platforms took over the Internet.

“I’m 55 now, and I’ve gotten a lot less interested in how things work because I’ve had too many experiences with how things fail,” Doctorow told Ars. “And I just want to make sure that if I’m on a service and it goes horribly wrong, I can leave.”

Social media haters wish OG platforms were doomed

Weinstein pointed out that Meta’s alleged monopoly impacts a group often left out of social media debates: non-users. And if you ask someone who hates social media what the future of social media should look like, they will not mince words: They want a way to opt out of all of it.

As Meta’s monopoly trial got underway, a personal blog post titled “No Instagram, no privacy” rose to the front page of Hacker News, prompting a discussion about social media norms and reasonable expectations for privacy in 2025.

In the post, Wouter-Jan Leys, a privacy advocate, explained that he felt “blessed” to have “somehow escaped having an Instagram account,” feeling no pressure to “update the abstract audience of everyone I ever connected with online on where I am, what I am doing, or who I am hanging out with.”

But despite never having an account, he’s found that “you don’t have to be on Instagram to be on Instagram,” complaining that “it bugs me” when friends seem to know “more about my life than I tell them” because of various friends’ posts that mention or show images of him. In his blog, he defined privacy as “being in control of what other people know about you” and suggested that because of platforms like Instagram, he currently lacked this control. There should be some way to “fix or regulate this,” Leys suggested, or maybe some universal “etiquette where it’s frowned upon to post about social gatherings to any audience beyond who already was at that gathering.”

On Hacker News, his post spurred a debate over one of the longest-running privacy questions swirling on social media: Is it OK to post about someone who abstains from social media?

Some seeming social media fans scolded Leys for being so old-fashioned about social media, suggesting, “just live your life without being so bothered about offending other people” or saying that “the entire world doesn’t have to be sanitized to meet individual people’s preferences.” Others seemed to better understand Leys’ point of view, with one agreeing that “the problem is that our modern norms (and tech) lead to everyone sharing everything with a large social network.”

Surveying the lively thread, another social media hater joked, “I feel vindicated for my decision to entirely stay off of this drama machine.”

Leys told Ars that he would “absolutely” be in favor of personal social networks like Meta’s platforms dying off or losing steam, as Zuckerberg suggested they already are. He thinks that the decline in personal post engagement that Meta is seeing is likely due to a combination of factors, where some users may prefer more privacy now after years of broadcasting their lives, and others may be tired of the pressure of building a personal brand or experiencing other “odd social dynamics.”

Setting user sentiments aside, Meta is also responsible for people engaging with fewer of their friends’ posts. Meta announced that it would double the amount of force-fed filler in people’s feeds on Instagram and Facebook starting in 2023. That’s when the two-year span begins that Zuckerberg measured in testifying about the sudden drop-off in friends’ content engagement.

So while it’s easy to say the market changed, Meta may be obscuring how much it shaped that shift. Degrading the newsfeed and changing Instagram’s default post shape from square to rectangle seemingly significantly shifted Instagram social norms, for example, creating an environment where Gen Z users felt less comfortable posting as prolifically as millennials did when Instagram debuted, The New Yorker explained last year. Where once millennials painstakingly designed immaculate grids of individual eye-catching photos to seem cool online, Gen Z users told The New Yorker that posting a single photo now feels “humiliating” and like a “social risk.”

But rather than eliminate the impulse to post, this cultural shift has popularized a different form of personal posting: staggered photo dumps, where users wait to post a variety of photos together to sum up a month of events or curate a vibe, the trend piece explained. And Meta is clearly intent on fueling that momentum, doubling the maximum number of photos that users can feature in a single post to encourage even more social posting, The New Yorker noted.

Brendan Benedict, an attorney for Benedict Law Group PLLC who has helped litigate big tech antitrust cases, is monitoring the FTC monopoly trial on a Substack called Big Tech on Trial. He told Ars that the evidence at the trial has shown that “consumers want more friends and family content, and Meta is belatedly trying to address this” with features like the “friends” tab, while claiming there’s less interest in this content.

Leys doesn’t think social media—at least the way that Facebook defined it in the mid-2000s—will ever die, because people will never stop wanting social networks like Facebook or Instagram to stay connected with all their friends and family. But he could see a world where, if people ever started truly caring about privacy or “indeed [got] tired of the social dynamics and personal brand-building… the kind of social media like Facebook and Instagram will have been a generational phenomenon, and they may not immediately bounce back,” especially if it’s easy to switch to other platforms that respond better to user preferences.

He also agreed that requiring interoperability would likely lead to better social media products, but he maintained that “it would still not get me on Instagram.”

Interoperability shakes up social media

Meta thought it may have already beaten the FTC’s monopoly case, filing for a motion for summary judgment after the FTC rested its case in a bid to end the trial early. That dream was quickly dashed when the judge denied the motion days later. But no matter the outcome of the trial, Meta’s influence over the social media world may be waning just as it’s facing increasing pressure to open up its platforms more than ever.

The FTC has alleged that Meta weaponized platform access early on, only allowing certain companies to interoperate and denying access to anyone perceived as a threat to its alleged monopoly power. That includes limiting promotions of Instagram to keep users engaged with Facebook Blue. A primary concern for Meta (then Facebook), the FTC claimed, was avoiding “training users to check multiple feeds,” which might allow other apps to “cannibalize” its users.

“Facebook has used this power to deter and suppress competitive threats to its personal social networking monopoly. In order to protect its monopoly, Facebook adopted and required developers to agree to conditional dealing policies that limited third-party apps’ ability to engage with Facebook rivals or to develop into rivals themselves,” the FTC alleged.

By 2011, the FTC alleged, then-Facebook had begun terminating API access to any developers that made it easier to export user data into a competing social network without Facebook’s permission. That practice only ended when the UK parliament started calling out Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct toward app developers in 2018, the FTC alleged.

According to the FTC, Meta continues “to this day” to “screen developers and can weaponize API access in ways that cement its dominance,” and if scrutiny ever subsides, Meta is expected to return to such anticompetitive practices as the AI race heats up.

One potential hurdle for Meta could be that the push for interoperability is not just coming from the FTC or lawmakers who recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation to end walled gardens. Doctorow told Ars that “huge public groundswells of mistrust and anger about excessive corporate power” that “cross political lines” are prompting global antitrust probes into big tech companies and are perhaps finally forcing a reckoning after years of degrading popular products to chase higher and higher revenues.

For social media companies, mounting concerns about privacy and suspicions about content manipulation or censorship are driving public distrust, Doctorow said, as well as fears of surveillance capitalism. The latter includes theories that Doctorow is skeptical of. Weinstein embraced them, though, warning that platforms seem to be profiting off data without consent while brainwashing users.

Allowing users to leave the platform without losing access to their friends, their social posts, and their messages might be the best way to incentivize Meta to either genuinely compete for billions of users or lose them forever as better options pop up that can plug into their networks.

In his Newsweek op-ed, Weinstein suggested that web inventor Tim Berners-Lee has already invented a working protocol “to enable people to own, upload, download, and relocate their social graphs,” which maps users’ connections across platforms. That could be used to mitigate “the network effect” that locks users into platforms like Meta’s “while interrupting unwanted data collection.”

At the same time, Doctorow told Ars that increasingly popular decentralized platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon already provide interoperability and are next looking into “building interoperable gateways” between their services. Doctorow said that communicating with other users across platforms may feel “awkward” at first, but ultimately, it may be like “having to find the diesel pump at the gas station” instead of the unleaded gas pump. “You’ll still be going to the same gas station,” Doctorow suggested.

Opening up gateways into all platforms could be useful in the future, Doctorow suggested. Imagine if one platform goes down—it would no longer disrupt communications as drastically, as users could just pivot to communicate on another platform and reach the same audience. The same goes for platforms that users grow to distrust.

The EFF supports regulators’ attempts to pass well-crafted interoperability mandates, Doctorow said, noting that “if you have to worry about your users leaving, you generally have to treat them better.”

But would interoperability fix social media?

The FTC has alleged that “Facebook’s dominant position in the US personal social networking market is durable due to significant entry barriers, including direct network effects and high switching costs.”

Meta disputes the FTC’s complaint as outdated, arguing that its platform could be substituted by pretty much any social network.

However, Guy Aridor, a co-author of a recent article called “The Economics of Social Media” in the Journal of Economic Literature, told Ars that dominant platforms are probably threatened by shifting social media trends and are likely to remain “resistant to interoperability” because “it’s in the interest of the platform to make switching and coordination costs high so that users are less likely to migrate away.” For Meta, research shows its platforms’ network effects have appeared to weaken somewhat but “clearly still exist” despite social media users increasingly seeking content on platforms rather than just socialization, Aridor said.

Interoperability advocates believe it will make it easier for startups to compete with giants like Meta, which fight hard and sometimes seemingly dirty to keep users on their apps. Reintroducing the ACCESS Act, which requires platform compatibility to enable service switching, Senator Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said that “interoperability and portability are powerful tools to promote innovative new companies and limit anti-competitive behaviors.” He’s hoping that passing these “long-overdue requirements” will “boost competition and give consumers more power.”

Aridor told Ars it’s obvious that “interoperability would clearly increase competition,” but he still has questions about whether users would benefit from that competition “since one consistent theme is that these platforms are optimized to maximize engagement, and there’s numerous empirical evidence we have by now that engagement isn’t necessarily correlated with utility.”

Consider, Aridor suggested, how toxic content often leads to high engagement but lower user satisfaction, as MeWe experienced during its 2021 backlash.

Aridor said there is currently “very little empirical evidence on the effects of interoperability,” but theoretically, if it increased competition in the current climate, it would likely “push the market more toward supplying engaging entertainment-related content as opposed to friends and family type of content.”

Benedict told Ars that a remedy like interoperability would likely only be useful to combat Meta’s alleged monopoly following a breakup, which he views as the “natural remedy” following a potential win in the FTC’s lawsuit.

Without the breakup and other meaningful reforms, a Meta win could preserve the status quo and see the company never open up its platforms, perhaps perpetuating Meta’s influence over social media well into the future. And if Zuckerberg’s vision comes to pass, instead of seeing what your friends are posting on interoperating platforms across the Internet, you may have a dozen AI friends trained on your real friends’ behaviors sending you regular dopamine hits to keep you scrolling on Facebook or Instagram.

Aridor’s team’s article suggested that, regardless of user preferences, social media remains a permanent fixture of society. If that’s true, users could get stuck forever using whichever platforms connect them with the widest range of contacts.

“While social media has continued to evolve, one thing that has not changed is that social media remains a central part of people’s lives,” his team’s article concluded.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Meta hypes AI friends as social media’s future, but users want real connections Read More »

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial

antitrust, facebook, federal trade commission, ftc, Instagram, mark zuckerberg, Meta, meta monopoly trial, Policy, Social Media, whatsapp / Mike M. / May 16, 2025

Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that users sharing friends-and-family content were shown more ads. Meta noted that it “does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them,” so it only shows more ads to users who click ads.

Meta also insisted that there’s “nothing but speculation” showing that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better off or grown into rivals had Meta not acquired them.

The company claimed that without Meta’s resources, Instagram may have died off. Meta noted that Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom testified that his app was “pretty broken and duct-taped” together, making it “vulnerable to spam” before Meta bought it.

Rather than enshittification, what Meta did to Instagram could be considered “a consumer-welfare bonanza,” Meta argued, while dismissing “smoking gun” emails from Mark Zuckerberg discussing buying Instagram to bury it as “legally irrelevant.”

Dismissing these as “a few dated emails,” Meta argued that “efforts to litigate Mr. Zuckerberg’s state of mind before the acquisition in 2012 are pointless.”

“What matters is what Meta did,” Meta argued, which was pump Instagram with resources that allowed it “to ‘thrive’—adding many new features, attracting hundreds of millions and then billions of users, and monetizing with great success.”

In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that nobody thinks WhatsApp had any intention to pivot to social media when the founders testified that their goal was to never add social features, preferring to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disputed any claim that it feared Google might buy WhatsApp as the basis for creating a Facebook rival, arguing that “the sole Meta witness to (supposedly) learn of Google’s acquisition efforts testified that he did not have that worry.”

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial Read More »

Meta is making users who opted out of AI training opt out again, watchdog says

AI, AI training, Artificial Intelligence, facebook, Instagram, Meta, Online Privacy, Policy / Kelly Newman / May 14, 2025

Noyb has requested a response from Meta by May 21, but it seems unlikely that Meta will quickly cave in this fight.

In a blog post, Meta said that AI training on EU users was critical to building AI tools for Europeans that are informed by “everything from dialects and colloquialisms, to hyper-local knowledge and the distinct ways different countries use humor and sarcasm on our products.”

Meta argued that its AI training efforts in the EU are far more transparent than efforts from competitors Google and OpenAI, which, Meta noted, “have already used data from European users to train their AI models,” supposedly without taking the steps Meta has to inform users.

Also echoing a common refrain in the AI industry, another Meta blog warned that efforts to further delay Meta’s AI training in the EU could lead to “major setbacks,” pushing the EU behind rivals in the AI race.

“Without a reform and simplification of the European regulatory system, Europe threatens to fall further and further behind in the global AI race and lose ground compared to the USA and China,” Meta warned.

Noyb discredits this argument and noted that it can pursue injunctions in various jurisdictions to block Meta’s plan. The group said it’s currently evaluating options to seek injunctive relief and potentially even pursue a class action worth possibly “billions in damages” to ensure that 400 million monthly active EU users’ data rights are shielded from Meta’s perceived grab.

A Meta spokesperson reiterated to Ars that the company’s plan “follows extensive and ongoing engagement with the Irish Data Protection Commission,” while reiterating Meta’s statements in blogs that its AI training approach “reflects consensus among” EU Data Protection Authorities (DPAs).

But while Meta claims that EU regulators have greenlit its AI training plans, Noyb argues that national DPAs have “largely stayed silent on the legality of AI training without consent,” and Meta seems to have “simply moved ahead anyways.”

“This fight is essentially about whether to ask people for consent or simply take their data without it,” Schrems said, adding, “Meta’s absurd claims that stealing everyone’s personal data is necessary for AI training is laughable. Other AI providers do not use social network data—and generate even better models than Meta.”

Meta is making users who opted out of AI training opt out again, watchdog says Read More »

Meta plans to test and tinker with X’s community notes algorithm

community notes, facebook, Instagram, Meta, misinformation, Policy, threads, Twitter, X / DJ Henderson / March 14, 2025

Meta also confirmed that it won’t be reducing visibility of misleading posts with community notes. That’s a change from the prior system, Meta noted, which had penalties associated with fact-checking.

According to Meta, X’s algorithm cannot be gamed, supposedly safeguarding “against organized campaigns” striving to manipulate notes and “influence what notes get published or what they say.” Meta claims it will rely on external research on community notes to avoid that pitfall, but as recently as last October, outside researchers had suggested that X’s Community Notes were easily sabotaged by toxic X users.

“We don’t expect this process to be perfect, but we’ll continue to improve as we learn,” Meta said.

Meta confirmed that the company plans to tweak X’s algorithm over time to develop its own version of community notes, which “may explore different or adjusted algorithms to support how Community Notes are ranked and rated.”

In a post, X’s Support account said that X was “excited” that Meta was using its “well-established, academically studied program as a foundation” for its community notes.

Meta plans to test and tinker with X’s community notes algorithm Read More »

Meta to cut 5% of employees deemed unfit for Zuckerberg’s AI-fueled future

AI, augmented reality, facebook, Instagram, layoffs, mark zuckerberg, Meta, Policy, smart glasses / Mike M. / January 14, 2025

Anticipating that 2025 will be an “intense year” requiring rapid innovation, Mark Zuckerberg reportedly announced that Meta would be cutting 5 percent of its workforce—targeting “lowest performers.”

Bloomberg reviewed the internal memo explaining the cuts, which was posted to Meta’s internal Workplace forum Tuesday. In it, Zuckerberg confirmed that Meta was shifting its strategy to “move out low performers faster” so that Meta can hire new talent to fill those vacancies this year.

“I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management,” Zuckerberg said. “We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.”

Cuts will likely impact more than 3,600 employees, as Meta’s most recent headcount in September totaled about 72,000 employees. It may not be as straightforward as letting go anyone with an unsatisfactory performance review, as Zuckerberg said that any employee not currently meeting expectations could be spared if Meta is “optimistic about their future performance,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Any employees affected will be notified by February 10 and receive “generous severance,” Zuckerberg’s memo promised.

This is the biggest round of cuts at Meta since 2023, when Meta laid off 10,000 employees during what Zuckerberg dubbed the “year of efficiency.” Those layoffs followed a prior round where 11,000 lost their jobs and Zuckerberg realized that “leaner is better.” He told employees in 2023 that a “surprising result” from reducing the workforce was “that many things have gone faster.”

“A leaner org will execute its highest priorities faster,” Zuckerberg wrote in 2023. “People will be more productive, and their work will be more fun and fulfilling. We will become an even greater magnet for the most talented people. That’s why in our Year of Efficiency, we are focused on canceling projects that are duplicative or lower priority and making every organization as lean as possible.”

Meta to cut 5% of employees deemed unfit for Zuckerberg’s AI-fueled future Read More »