A 28-year-old Delaware woman, Hadja Kone, was arrested after cops linked her to an international sextortion scheme targeting thousands of victims—mostly young men and including some minors, the US Department of Justice announced Friday.

Citing a recently unsealed indictment, the DOJ alleged that Kone and co-conspirators “operated an international, financially motivated sextortion and money laundering scheme in which the conspirators engaged in cyberstalking, interstate threats, money laundering, and wire fraud.”

Through the scheme, conspirators allegedly sought to extort about $6 million from “thousands of potential victims,” the DOJ said, and ultimately successfully extorted approximately $1.7 million.

Young men from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom fell for the scheme, the DOJ said. They were allegedly targeted by scammers posing as “young, attractive females online,” who initiated conversations by offering to send sexual photographs or video recordings, then invited victims to “web cam” or “live video chat” sessions.

“Unbeknownst to the victims, during the web cam/live video chats,” the DOJ said, the scammers would “surreptitiously” record the victims “as they exposed their genitals and/or engaged in sexual activity.” The scammers then threatened to publish the footage online or else share the footage with “the victims’ friends, family members, significant others, employers, and co-workers,” unless payments were sent, usually via Cash App or Apple Pay.

Much of these funds were allegedly transferred overseas to Kone’s accused co-conspirators, including 22-year-old Siaka Ouattara of the West African country the Ivory Coast. Ouattara was arrested by Ivorian authorities in February, the DOJ said.

“If convicted, Kone and Ouattara each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each conspiracy count and money laundering count, and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each wire fraud count,” the DOJ said.

The FBI has said that it has been cracking down on sextortion after “a huge increase in the number of cases involving children and teens being threatened and coerced into sending explicit images online.” In 2024, the FBI announced a string of arrests, but none of the schemes so far have been as vast or far-reaching as the scheme that Kone allegedly helped operate.

In January, the FBI issued a warning about the “growing threat” to minors, warning parents that victims are “typically males between the ages of 14 to 17, but any child can become a victim.” Young victims are at risk of self-harm or suicide, the FBI said.

“From October 2021 to March 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations received over 13,000 reports of online financial sextortion of minors,” the FBI’s announcement said. “The sextortion involved at least 12,600 victims—primarily boys—and led to at least 20 suicides.”

For years, reports have shown that payment apps have been used in sextortion schemes with seemingly little intervention. When it comes to protecting minors, sextortion protections seem sparse, as neither Apple Pay nor Cash App appear to have any specific policies to combat the issue. However, both apps only allow minors over 13 to create accounts with authorized adult supervisors.

Apple and Cash App did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Instagram, Snapchat add sextortion protections

Some social media platforms are responding to the spike in sextortion targeting minors.

Last year, Snapchat released a report finding that nearly two-thirds of more than 6,000 teens and young adults in six countries said that “they or their friends have been targeted in online ‘sextortion’ schemes” across many popular social media platforms. As a result of that report and prior research, Snapchat began allowing users to report sextortion specifically.

“Under the reporting menu for ‘Nudity or sexual content,’ a Snapchatter’s first option is to click, ‘They leaked/are threatening to leak my nudes,'” the report said.

Additionally, the DOJ’s announcement of Kone’s arrest came one day after Instagram confirmed that it was “testing new features to help protect young people from sextortion and intimate image abuse, and to make it more difficult for potential scammers and criminals to find and interact with teens.”

One feature will by default blur out sexual images shared over direct message, which Instagram said would protect minors from “scammers who may send nude images to trick people into sending their own images in return.” Instagram will also provide safety tips to anyone receiving a sexual image over DM, “encouraging them to report any threats to share their private images and reminding them that they can say no to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.”

Perhaps more impactful, Instagram claimed that it was “developing technology to help identify where accounts may potentially be engaging in sextortion scams, based on a range of signals that could indicate sextortion behavior.” Having better signals helps Instagram to make it “harder for potential sextortion accounts to message or interact with people,” the platform said, by hiding those requests. Instagram also by default blocks adults from messaging users under 16 in some countries and under 18 in others.

Instagram said that other tech companies have also started “sharing more signals about sextortion accounts” through Lantern, a program that Meta helped to found with the Tech Coalition to prevent child sexual exploitation. Snapchat also participates in the cross-platform research.

According to the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Norfolk field office, Brian Dugan, “one of the best lines of defense to stopping a crime like this is to educate our most vulnerable on common warning signs, as well as empowering them to come forward if they are ever victimized.”

Both Instagram and Snapchat said they were also increasing sextortion resources available to educate young users.

“We know that sextortion is a risk teens and adults face across a range of platforms, and have developed tools and resources to help combat it,” Snap’s spokesperson told Ars. “We have extra safeguards for teens to protect against unwanted contact, and don’t offer public friend lists, which we know can be used to extort people. We also want to help young people learn the signs of this type of crime, and recently launched in-app resources to raise awareness of how to spot and report it.”

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2017299

On Friday, Meta announced policy updates to stop censoring harmless AI-generated content and instead begin “labeling a wider range of video, audio, and image content as ‘Made with AI.'”

Meta’s policy updates came after deciding not to remove a controversial post edited to show President Joe Biden seemingly inappropriately touching his granddaughter’s chest, with a caption calling Biden a “pedophile.” The Oversight Board had agreed with Meta’s decision to leave the post online while noting that Meta’s current manipulated media policy was too “narrow,” “incoherent,” and “confusing to users.”

Previously, Meta would only remove “videos that are created or altered by AI to make a person appear to say something they didn’t say.” The Oversight Board warned that this policy failed to address other manipulated media, including “cheap fakes,” manipulated audio, or content showing people doing things they’d never done.

“We agree with the Oversight Board’s argument that our existing approach is too narrow since it only covers videos that are created or altered by AI to make a person appear to say something they didn’t say,” Monika Bickert, Meta’s vice president of content policy, wrote in a blog. “As the Board noted, it’s equally important to address manipulation that shows a person doing something they didn’t do.”

Starting in May 2024, Meta will add “Made with AI” labels to any content detected as AI-generated, as well as to any content that users self-disclose as AI-generated.

Meta’s Oversight Board had also warned that Meta removing AI-generated videos that did not directly violate platforms’ community standards was threatening to “unnecessarily risk restricting freedom of expression.” Moving forward, Meta will stop censoring content that doesn’t violate community standards, agreeing that a “less restrictive” approach to manipulated media by adding labels is better.

“If we determine that digitally created or altered images, video, or audio create a particularly high risk of materially deceiving the public on a matter of importance, we may add a more prominent label so people have more information and context,” Bickert wrote. “This overall approach gives people more information about the content so they can better assess it and so they will have context if they see the same content elsewhere.”

Meta confirmed that, in July, it will stop censoring AI-generated content that doesn’t violate rules restricting things like voter interference, bullying and harassment, violence, and incitement.

“This timeline gives people time to understand the self-disclosure process before we stop removing the smaller subset of manipulated media,” Bickert explained in the blog.

Finally, Meta adopted the Oversight Board’s recommendation to “clearly define in a single unified Manipulated Media policy the harms it aims to prevent—beyond users being misled—such as preventing interference with the right to vote and to participate in the conduct of public affairs.”

The Oversight Board issued a statement provided to Ars, saying that members “are pleased that Meta will begin labeling a wider range of video, audio, and image content as ‘made with AI’ when they detect AI image indicators or when people indicate they have uploaded AI content.”

“This will provide people with greater context and transparency for more types of manipulated media, while also removing posts which violate Meta’s rules in other ways,” the Oversight Board said.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2015131

Unsealed court documents have revealed more details about a secret Facebook project initially called “Ghostbusters,” designed to sneakily access encrypted Snapchat usage data to give Facebook a leg up on its rival, just when Snapchat was experiencing rapid growth in 2016.

The documents were filed in a class-action lawsuit from consumers and advertisers, accusing Meta of anticompetitive behavior that blocks rivals from competing in the social media ads market.

“Whenever someone asks a question about Snapchat, the answer is usually that because their traffic is encrypted, we have no analytics about them,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (who has since rebranded his company as Meta) wrote in a 2016 email to Javier Olivan.

“Given how quickly they’re growing, it seems important to figure out a new way to get reliable analytics about them,” Zuckerberg continued. “Perhaps we need to do panels or write custom software. You should figure out how to do this.”

At the time, Olivan was Facebook’s head of growth, but now he’s Meta’s chief operating officer. He responded to Zuckerberg’s email saying that he would have the team from Onavo—a controversial traffic-analysis app acquired by Facebook in 2013—look into it.

Olivan told the Onavo team that he needed “out of the box thinking” to satisfy Zuckerberg’s request. He “suggested potentially paying users to ‘let us install a really heavy piece of software'” to intercept users’ Snapchat data, a court document shows.

What the Onavo team eventually came up with was a project internally known as “Ghostbusters,” an obvious reference to Snapchat’s logo featuring a white ghost. Later, as the project grew to include other Facebook rivals, including YouTube and Amazon, the project was called the “In-App Action Panel” (IAAP).

The IAAP program’s purpose was to gather granular insights into users’ engagement with rival apps to help Facebook develop products as needed to stay ahead of competitors. For example, two months after Zuckerberg’s 2016 email, Meta launched Stories, a Snapchat copycat feature, on Instagram, which the Motley Fool noted rapidly became a key ad revenue source for Meta.

In an email to Olivan, the Onavo team described the “technical solution” devised to help Zuckerberg figure out how to get reliable analytics about Snapchat users. It worked by “develop[ing] ‘kits’ that can be installed on iOS and Android that intercept traffic for specific sub-domains, allowing us to read what would otherwise be encrypted traffic so we can measure in-app usage,” the Onavo team said.

Olivan was told that these so-called “kits” used a “man-in-the-middle” attack typically employed by hackers to secretly intercept data passed between two parties. Users were recruited by third parties who distributed the kits “under their own branding” so that they wouldn’t connect the kits to Onavo unless they used a specialized tool like Wireshark to analyze the kits. TechCrunch reported in 2019 that sometimes teens were paid to install these kits. After that report, Facebook promptly shut down the project.

This “man-in-the-middle” tactic, consumers and advertisers suing Meta have alleged, “was not merely anticompetitive, but criminal,” seemingly violating the Wiretap Act. It was used to snoop on Snapchat starting in 2016, on YouTube from 2017 to 2018, and on Amazon in 2018, relying on creating “fake digital certificates to impersonate trusted Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon analytics servers to redirect and decrypt secure traffic from those apps for Facebook’s strategic analysis.”

Ars could not reach Snapchat, Google, or Amazon for comment.

Facebook allegedly sought to confuse advertisers

Not everyone at Facebook supported the IAAP program. “The company’s highest-level engineering executives thought the IAAP Program was a legal, technical, and security nightmare,” another court document said.

Pedro Canahuati, then-head of security engineering, warned that incentivizing users to install the kits did not necessarily mean that users understood what they were consenting to.

“I can’t think of a good argument for why this is okay,” Canahuati said. “No security person is ever comfortable with this, no matter what consent we get from the general public. The general public just doesn’t know how this stuff works.”

Mike Schroepfer, then-chief technology officer, argued that Facebook wouldn’t want rivals to employ a similar program analyzing their encrypted user data.

“If we ever found out that someone had figured out a way to break encryption on [WhatsApp] we would be really upset,” Schroepfer said.

While the unsealed emails detailing the project have recently raised eyebrows, Meta’s spokesperson told Ars that “there is nothing new here—this issue was reported on years ago. The plaintiffs’ claims are baseless and completely irrelevant to the case.”

According to Business Insider, advertisers suing said that Meta never disclosed its use of Onavo “kits” to “intercept rivals’ analytics traffic.” This is seemingly relevant to their case alleging anticompetitive behavior in the social media ads market, because Facebook’s conduct, allegedly breaking wiretapping laws, afforded Facebook an opportunity to raise its ad rates “beyond what it could have charged in a competitive market.”

Since the documents were unsealed, Meta has responded with a court filing that said: “Snapchat’s own witness on advertising confirmed that Snap cannot ‘identify a single ad sale that [it] lost from Meta’s use of user research products,’ does not know whether other competitors collected similar information, and does not know whether any of Meta’s research provided Meta with a competitive advantage.”

This conflicts with testimony from a Snapchat executive, who alleged that the project “hamper[ed] Snap’s ability to sell ads” by causing “advertisers to not have a clear narrative differentiating Snapchat from Facebook and Instagram.” Both internally and externally, “the intelligence Meta gleaned from this project was described” as “devastating to Snapchat’s ads business,” a court filing said.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2012980

Instagram users have started complaining on X (formerly Twitter) after discovering that Meta has begun limiting recommended political content by default.

“Did [y’all] know Instagram was actively limiting the reach of political content like this?!” an X user named Olayemi Olurin wrote in an X post with more than 150,000 views as of this writing. “I had no idea ‘til I saw this comment and I checked my settings and sho nuff political content was limited.”

“Instagram quietly introducing a ‘political’ content preference and turning on ‘limit’ by default is insane?” wrote another X user named Matt in a post with nearly 40,000 views.

Instagram apparently did not notify users directly on the platform when this change happened.

Instead, Instagram rolled out the change in February, announcing in a blog that the platform doesn’t “want to proactively recommend political content from accounts you don’t follow.” That post confirmed that Meta “won’t proactively recommend content about politics on recommendation surfaces across Instagram and Threads,” so that those platforms can remain “a great experience for everyone.”

“This change does not impact posts from accounts people choose to follow; it impacts what the system recommends, and people can control if they want more,” Meta’s spokesperson Dani Lever told Ars. “We have been working for years to show people less political content based on what they told us they want, and what posts they told us are political.”

To change the setting, users can navigate to Instagram’s menu for “settings and activity” in their profiles, where they can update their “content preferences.” On this menu, “political content” is the last item under a list of “suggested content” controls that allow users to set preferences for what content is recommended in their feeds.

There are currently two options for controlling what political content users see. Choosing “don’t limit” means “you might see more political or social topics in your suggested content,” the app says. By default, all users are set to “limit,” which means “you might see less political or social topics.”

“This affects suggestions in Explore, Reels, Feed, Recommendations, and Suggested Users,” Instagram’s settings menu explains. “It does not affect content from accounts you follow. This setting also applies to Threads.”

For general Instagram and Threads users, this change primarily limits what content posted can be recommended, but for influencers using professional accounts, the stakes can be higher. The Washington Post reported that news creators were angered by the update, insisting that Meta’s update diminished the value of the platform for reaching users not actively seeking political content.

“The whole value-add for social media, for political people, is that you can reach normal people who might not otherwise hear a message that they need to hear, like, abortion is on the ballot in Florida, or voting is happening today,” Keith Edwards, a Democratic political strategist and content creator, told The Post.

Meta’s blog noted that “professional accounts on Instagram will be able to use Account Status to check their eligibility to be recommended based on whether they recently posted political content. From Account Status, they can edit or remove recent posts, request a review if they disagree with our decision, or stop posting this type of content for a period of time, in order to be eligible to be recommended again.”

Ahead of a major election year, Meta’s change could impact political outreach attempting to inform voters. The change also came amid speculation that Meta was “shadowbanning” users posting pro-Palestine content since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, The Markup reported.

“Our investigation found that Instagram heavily demoted nongraphic images of war, deleted captions and hid comments without notification, suppressed hashtags, and limited users’ ability to appeal moderation decisions,” The Markup reported.

Meta appears to be interested in shifting away from its reputation as a platform where users expect political content—and misinformation—to thrive. Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that Meta wanted out of politics and planned to “scale back how much political content it showed users,” after criticism over how the platform handled content related to the January 6 Capitol riot.

The decision to limit recommended political content on Instagram and Threads, Meta’s blog said, extends Meta’s “existing approach to how we treat political content.”

“People have told us they want to see less political content, so we have spent the last few years refining our approach on Facebook to reduce the amount of political content—including from politicians’ accounts—you see in Feed, Reels, Watch, Groups You Should Join, and Pages You May Like,” Meta wrote in a February blog update.

“As part of this, we aim to avoid making recommendations that could be about politics or political issues, in line with our approach of not recommending certain types of content to those who don’t wish to see it,” Meta’s blog continued, while at the same time, “preserving your ability to find and interact with political content that’s meaningful to you if that’s what you’re interested in.”

While platforms typically update users directly on the platform when terms of services change, that wasn’t the case for this update, which simply added new controls for users. That’s why many users who prefer to be recommended political content—and apparently missed Meta’s announcement and subsequent media coverage—expressed shock to discover that Meta was limiting what they see.

On X, even Instagram users who don’t love seeing political content are currently rallying to raise awareness and share tips on how to update the setting.

“This is actually kinda wild that Instagram defaults everyone to this,” one user named Laura wrote. “Obviously political content is toxic but during an election season it’s a little weird to just hide it from everyone?”

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2012207

For months, some of the biggest tech companies have been wrapped up in discussions with the European Commission (EC), seeking feedback and tweaking their plans to ensure their core platform services comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) ahead of that law taking force in the European Union tomorrow.

Under the DMA, companies designated as gatekeepers—Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft—must follow strict rules to ensure that they don’t engage in unfair business practices that could limit consumer choice in core platform services. These include app stores, search engines, social networking services, online marketplaces, operating systems, web browsers, advertising services, cloud computing services, virtual assistants, and certain messaging services.

At its heart, the DMA requires more interoperability than ever, making it harder for gatekeepers to favor their own services or block other businesses from reaching consumers on their platforms.

Each gatekeeper will publish compliance reports in the coming days, detailing for the first time what changes they’ve made to comply with the DMA. All companies have already previewed changes coming in the buildup to the deadline. Some companies, like Google, have announced various changes impacting businesses and users, while others, like TikTok-owner ByteDance, are begrudgingly updating services now while still contesting their gatekeeper status.

Although the EC has said that the DMA is intended to protect fair and open markets—theoretically offering users more choices to enhance transparency, privacy, security, and competition online—some tech companies have warned that some of the changes coming under the DMA may increase risks or decrease choices for their users.

Last January, Apple warned that complying with the DMA required the company to take additional new steps “to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates.” According to Apple, DMA requirements linked to user choice—such as options to choose an alternative default contactless payment method other than Apple’s—could introduce new threats, like malware or malicious code used to scam users, that Apple can’t promise to protect against.

So far, all gatekeepers except for ByteDance have specified that changes coming soon will only impact users in the EU, the European Economic Area (EEA), and Switzerland. In a TikTok blog, ByteDance announced in March that new functionality added for DMA compliance will “roll out globally in the near future.”

However, it’s possible that other gatekeepers adjusting services may end up doing a cost-benefit analysis and, like ByteDance, eventually updating services in other parts of the world. This would potentially extend the DMA’s reach beyond the EU’s borders.

It also seems possible that other regions will quickly adopt the DMA’s standards. The EU and the US, for example, formed the EU-US Trade and Technology Council in 2021, which has been meeting more consistently in the ramp-up to DMA enforcement. Partly formed to cooperate on setting best practice technology standards, the next meeting is scheduled for this spring, just after the EC publishes summaries of gatekeepers’ compliance reports. Other countries, including Turkey, Australia, Brazil, India, and the United Kingdom, have already embraced the DMA model, according to the nonprofit tech policy think tank the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).

Some critics of the DMA, including ITIF, have urged countries to “carefully consider the full implications before copying the EU’s digital regulatory system,” warning of potentially burdensome restrictions possibly hampering innovation and distorting competition.

Now that the EC is preparing to enforce the DMA officially, its impact will soon become clearer. However, the EC does not expect the online world to immediately look different tomorrow in the EU than it does today.

Some companies, like Microsoft, have estimated that DMA updates may not be available to all EU users until April, while other companies may fall short of DMA standards and be ordered to make more changes after submitting their first compliance reports.

Gatekeepers are expected to share compliance reports starting this afternoon, but for now, here’s a brief overview of changes coming to core services offered in the EU by all six gatekeepers.

Apple warns DMA creates potential risks

In January, Apple announced changes coming to iOS, Safari, and the App Store that will “become available to users in the 27 EU countries beginning in March 2024.”

Some changes are small. The only change in Safari, for example, is that users will be prompted to choose a default browser when they first open Safari in iOS 17.4 or later.

But changes to the App Store and iOS are more significant.

In the App Store, developers can expect extensive changes “affecting apps across Apple’s operating systems, including iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS.” These include new options to process payments for digital goods with alternative service providers or by linking out to a website. Developers can now offer deals, discounts, and promotions outside their apps, too.

To help developers navigate these options, Apple also developed business tools to estimate fees or potentially reduced commissions.

Specifically for iOS, updates include new options to distribute iOS apps in alternative marketplaces and new APIs enabling developers to create alternative app marketplaces, use alternative web browser engines for in-app browsing, and “submit additional requests for interoperability with iPhone and iOS hardware and software features.”

Perhaps more significantly for users, Apple introduced “new controls that allow users to select a third-party contactless payment app—or an alternative app marketplace—as their default.”

Using these alternatives, Apple warned, may diminish the user experience by impacting system performance or draining battery life. And some features, like Family Purchase Sharing and Ask to Buy, won’t work “with apps downloaded from outside of the App Store.”

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2008325

Mar 04, 2024 Marina Londei Gestione dati, In evidenza, News, RSS 0

Qualche mese fa su Facebook e Instagram è comparso un avviso che chiedeva ai suoi utenti di scegliere se pagare per non avere più pubblicità sui social o continuare a usare il servizio in modo gratuito, acconsentendo alla raccolta e all’analisi dei propri dati. Questa scelta non è piaciuta a otto associazioni dei consumatori dell’UE che hanno presentato denunce contro Meta, accusandola di violare il GDPR.

Dietro la mossa della compagnia c’era l’intenzione di rispettare le leggi UE offrendo una scelta ai consumatori; scelta che, però, è stata giudicata “finta” dalle organizzazioni a protezione dei consumatori e non in linea col regolamento europeo.

Come riporta The Register, l’organizzazione no-profit austriaca NOYB (Non Of Your Business) ha sottolineato che le leggi europee sulla privacy impongono che la scelta sulla condivisione dei dati deve essere libera, e non, come in questo caso, un’alternativa quasi obbligata a una tassa.

Pexels

Le associazioni dei consumatori affermano che il nuovo modello proposto da Meta per l’uso dei social viola i principi di data protection espressi nel GDPR, come il principio della limitazione delle finalità, dell’offuscamento dei dati, dell’elaborazione etica e trasparente delle informazioni. La scelta di inserire un abbonamento per usare i social senza annunci non offre una vera scelta agli utenti, ed è visto come un modo per costringere i consumatori a condividere i propri dati e continuare a proporre pubblicità.

Contattata da The Register, Meta ha affermato che è pronta a contrastare le accuse, sottolineando che “i nostri obblighi normativi sono estremamente seri e siamo fiduciosi che il nostro approccio sia conforme al GDPR”. La compagnia ha aggiunto che il nuovo modello introdotto per l’uso dei suoi social sia in linea con il regolamento dell’UE.

Le battaglie legali per Meta sembrano non finire mai: l’anno scorso la compagnia ha dovuto pagare una multa da più di un miliardo di euro per aver inviato i dati dei cittadini europei negli Stati Uniti, violando la legislazione UE.

Le organizzazioni dei consumatori hanno presentato le loro denunce lo scorso giovedì, e ora Meta è in attesa di sapere se dovrà imbarcarsi ancora una volta in una dura battaglia legale.

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/6-instagram-strategies-that-can-grow-your-reach/469036

Meta has begun hiding sensitive content from teenagers under the age of 18 on Facebook and Instagram, a company blog announced on Tuesday.

Starting now, Meta will begin removing content from feeds and Stories about sensitive topics that have been flagged as harmful to teens by experts in adolescent development, psychology, and mental health. That includes content about self-harm, suicide, and eating disorders, as well as content discussing restricted goods or featuring nudity.

Even if sensitive content is shared by friends or accounts that teens follow, the teen will be blocked from viewing it, Meta confirmed.

Any teen searching for sensitive content will instead be prompted to contact a friend or consult “expert organizations like the National Alliance on Mental Illness,” Meta said.

In addition to hiding more content from teens, Meta has also announced that in the coming weeks, it will be blocking everyone on its apps from searching for a wider range of sensitive terms “that inherently break” Meta’s rules. Meta did not specify what new terms might be blocked but noted that it was already hiding results for suicide and self-harm search terms.

A Meta spokesperson told Ars that the company can’t “share a more comprehensive list of those terms since we don’t want people to be able to go around them or develop workarounds.”

On top of limiting teens’ access to content, Meta is “sending new notifications encouraging” teens “to update their settings to a more private experience with a single tap.” Teens who opt in to Meta’s “recommended settings” will enjoy more privacy on Facebook and Instagram, restricting unwanted tags, mentions, or reposting of their content to only approved followers. Teens opting in will also be spared from viewing some “offensive” comments. Perhaps most importantly, recommended settings will “ensure only their followers can message them.”

Meta said that previously, any new teens joining Facebook or Instagram have defaulted to “the most restrictive settings,” but now Meta is expanding that effort to “teens who are already using these apps.” These restrictive settings, Meta said, will prevent teens from stumbling across sensitive content.

Last year, 41 states sued Meta for allegedly addicting kids to Facebook and Instagram. States accused Meta of intentionally designing its apps to be unsafe for young users. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell went so far as to allege that Meta “deliberately” exploited “young users’ vulnerabilities for profit.”

At that time, Meta said it was disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use,” state attorneys general chose to pursue legal action.

Experts considered the states’ push to hold Meta accountable for its allegedly harmful design choices as the most significant effort yet. It followed disturbing testimony from a whistleblower, former Meta employee Arturo Bejar, who told a US Senate subcommittee in November that “Meta continues to publicly misrepresent the level and frequency of harm that users, especially children, experience on the platform.”

Bejar claimed that Meta could easily make its apps safer for kids, “if they were motivated to do so.” He also provided recommendations to regulators, including suggesting new laws requiring social media platforms to develop ways for teens to report content that causes them discomfort.

That policy shift, Bejar said, would “generate extensive user experience data, which then should be regularly and routinely reported to the public, probably alongside financial data.” Bejar said that “if such systems are properly designed, we can radically improve the experience of our children on social media” without “eliminating the joy and value they otherwise get from using such services.”

Intensified legal scrutiny on Meta isn’t restricted only to the US, though. In the European Union, Meta has also been asked to inform regulators about how it designs apps to shield kids from potentially harmful content.

It’s possible that the EU probe prompted Meta’s updates this week.

Meta said it expects all these changes to be “fully in place on Instagram and Facebook in the coming months.”

Even with these updates, though, Bejar said on Tuesday that Meta still wasn’t doing enough to protect teens. Bejar pointed out that Meta’s platforms still lack a meaningful way for teens to report unwanted advances, Reuters reported.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1994843

Add Search Engine Land to your Google News feed.    

---

About the author

Nicola Agius is Paid Media Editor of Search Engine Land after joining in 2023. She covers paid search, paid social, retail media and more. Prior to this, she was SEO Director at Jungle Creations (2020-2023), overseeing the company’s editorial strategy for multiple websites. She has over 15 years of experience in journalism and has previously worked at OK! Magazine (2010-2014), Mail Online (2014-2015), Mirror (2015-2017), Digital Spy (2017-2018) and The Sun (2018-2020). She also previously teamed up with SEO agency Blue Array to co-author Amazon bestselling book ‘Mastering In-House SEO’.

https://searchengineland.com/meta-new-ai-tools-emu-video-edit-434844

Apple has officially joined Meta and TikTok in appealing the European Union’s designation of their services as “gatekeepers” under the Digital Markets Act (DMA)—a strict EU antitrust law aimed at “preventing gatekeepers from imposing unfair conditions on businesses and end users” and “ensuring the openness of important digital services.”

On Friday, the EU Court of Justice confirmed the Apple appeal in a post on X. No other details about Apple’s legal challenge have been made public, Reuters reported. But last week, sources told Bloomberg that Apple’s appeal was expected to oppose gatekeeper status of its App Store, iOS operating system, and Safari browser. That report, however, noted that sources had only seen a draft of the appeal, which could have been edited ahead of filing.

Apple had previously argued that its App Store could be considered not one software application marketplace, but five distinct marketplaces offered across five devices: iPhones, iPads, Mac computers, Apple TVs, and Apple Watches. Following this logic, only the iOS App Store should be considered a gatekeeper, Apple argued. Ultimately, the EU disagreed, saying that the “nature, function, and usage of the different devices on which the App Store can be accessed” does not “alter the common purpose the App Store serves across all Apple’s devices.”

Similarly, Apple argued that its iOS operating system should not be designated as one single gatekeeper, but five distinct operating systems across the same five devices, and because each device required a uniquely designed operating system, the EU seemed to agree that only iOS met the threshold as a gatekeeper.

Finally, Apple similarly argued that its Safari browser is actually three different browsers accessed on three devices: iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers. According to Apple, Safari works differently on different devices depending on use cases, leading to different versions of Safari on each device, disputing Safari features like a sidebar that’s available on desktop that does not appear in Safari on mobile. The EU rejected Apple’s arguments, finding that Safari is a single web browser providing the same services “irrespective of the device.”

Apple’s appeal came after Meta became the first to appeal gatekeeper status of its Messenger and Marketplace services on Wednesday, Reuters reported. According to Meta, its Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp services qualify as gatekeepers, but not other designated services that the social giant considers simply functionalities of Facebook—its Messenger and Marketplace services. Further, Meta argued that its Marketplace enables consumer-to-consumer services—which it said is different from businesses promoting outside services—and therefore, Meta contends that service falls outside the DMA’s scope.

That same day, ByteDance quickly followed suit, appealing TikTok’s gatekeeper status. According to a TikTok blog post, TikTok shouldn’t be designated as a gatekeeper because it’s a newcomer that “does not hold an ‘entrenched’ position.”

TikTok claimed that its services were entirely miscategorized by the European Commission because, unlike other companies, “no market investigation was conducted in relation to” TikTok’s designation.

“Multiple studies and findings agree that TikTok is a challenger bringing important new competition to the space,” TikTok’s blog said. “The designation decision is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our business and threatens our ability to grow and compete with true gatekeepers—put simply, it risks protecting the very monopolies that the law intended to open up.”

TikTok likely feels shirked because the Commission has conducted four market investigations “to further assess Microsoft’s and Apple’s submissions arguing that, despite meeting the thresholds, some of their core platform services do not qualify as gateways,” including Bing, Edge, Microsoft Advertising, and iMessages. Those ongoing investigations could delay designations of these services until next September, sparing Apple and Microsoft risks of infringement and “fines up to 10 percent of the company’s total worldwide turnover, which can go up to 20 percent.” The Commission also granted rebuttals from Google and Samsung, deciding not to designate services Gmail, Outlook.com, and Samsung Internet Browser as core platform services under the DMA.

Further, TikTok said it is the “only service designated under the DMA that does not meet the law’s threshold for revenues generated in the European Economic Area.” According to TikTok, the EU designated TikTok as a gatekeeper based on ByteDance’s global market capitalization, derived “primarily on the performance of business lines that do not even operate in Europe.”

If the Commission had conducted a market investigation, TikTok suggested, its platform would never have been designated as a gatekeeper. Without the investigation, “the result is a designation decision based on inaccuracies and errors, to which we were not given the opportunity to fully respond,” TikTok’s blog said.

It’s unclear how successful Meta and ByteDance will be with their appeals. In earlier rebuttals, Meta and ByteDance have already argued against gatekeeper status for the services at the core of their appeals. The European Commission has said that only “exceptional circumstances” would enable a tech company that meets the threshold to avoid being designated as a gatekeeper.

Meta has said its appeal represents the company’s struggle to gain clarity about why Messenger and Marketplace should be designated as gatekeepers.

“This appeal seeks clarification on specific points of law regarding the designations of Messenger and Marketplace under the DMA,” a Meta spokesperson told Reuters. “It does not alter or detract from our firm commitment to complying with the DMA, and we will continue to work constructively with the European Commission to prepare for compliance.”

TikTok has come out a bit stronger, warning the Commission that designating TikTok as a gatekeeper would contradict everything the DMA stands for.

“We fully support the principles of the DMA, which aims to better enable challengers to compete with incumbent players,” TikTok’s blog said. “Indeed, our appeal is based on the belief that our designation risks undermining the DMA’s own stated goal by protecting actual gatekeepers from newer competitors like TikTok. Far from being a gatekeeper, our platform, which has been operating in Europe for just over five years, is arguably the most capable challenger to more entrenched platform businesses.”

Twenty-two services managed by six tech companies have so far been designated as gatekeepers under the DMA, including services from Google owner Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft. When the DMA takes effect on March 7, it will require companies with more than 45 million monthly active users and a market capitalization of 75 billion euros to allow third-party apps and app stores on their platforms and force platforms to make it easier for users to switch services. It will also stop platforms from favoring their own services over rivals’ or using third-party businesses’ data against them to squash competition.

Thursday is the deadline for designated gatekeepers to appeal the European Commission’s decision. Google and Microsoft have decided not to appeal, Reuters reported.

A spokesperson for the European Commission told Ars that the Commission has taken note of the appeals, respects companies’ right to appeal, and will defend its decisions in court.

“Our designation decisions are publicly available,” the spokesperson told Ars, and “they set out a solid reasoning for the designations.”

“In parallel, we will continue our work with all gatekeepers towards effective implementation of the DMA by March,” the Commission’s spokesperson said.

This story was updated on Nov. 17, 2023, to note Apple’s appeal.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1984413