Tech CEOs including Mark Zuckerberg told "you have blood on your hands" during US Senate hearing
In a heated congressional hearing on Wednesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, along with leaders of other social media companies, faced intense scrutiny and reprimand from lawmakers for their alleged failure to adequately safeguard children online.
The Senate Judiciary Committee opened the session with disturbing videos portraying individuals who claimed to be sexually exploited on Facebook, Instagram, and Discord.
Senator Lindsey Graham accused Zuckerberg of having "blood on his hands," asserting that Meta's product was "killing people."
Committee chair, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, criticized social media platforms, citing instances where Discord was used for child grooming, Meta's Instagram facilitated a network of pedophiles, and Snapchat's disappearing messages were exploited by criminals engaging in financial sextortion.
The CEOs, starting with Discord's Jason Citron, defended their child safety procedures and pledged to collaborate with lawmakers, parents, nonprofits, and law enforcement to enhance protection for minors. Meta disclosed a $5 billion expenditure on safety and security in 2023, while TikTok announced plans to allocate $2 billion in 2024 to address the issue.
Under pressure from Missouri Republican Josh Hawley to apologize to victims present at the hearing, Zuckerberg stood up, acknowledging the impact on families and emphasizing Meta's significant investments to prevent similar experiences. However, he declined to commit to Hawley's suggestion of establishing a victim's compensation fund.
Zuckerberg consistently denied a direct link between Facebook and teen mental health issues, asserting that scientific evidence did not overwhelmingly support such claims. He later acknowledged that while the bulk of the evidence does not suggest a connection, individual cases of issues may exist.
TikTok's CEO Shou Zi Chew affirmed the platform's diligence in enforcing the ban on children under 13, emphasizing their commitment to a safer environment. Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X (formerly Twitter), claimed that her company did not cater to minors.
Snap CEO Evan Spiegel issued an apology to parents whose children overdosed on fentanyl after purchasing drugs on Snapchat. He expressed regret for the company's inability to prevent these tragedies, highlighting efforts to block search terms linked to drugs and collaborate with law enforcement.
Child health advocates criticized social media companies, arguing that they repeatedly failed to protect minors. Zamaan Qureshi, co-chair of Design It For Us, a youth-led coalition advocating for safer social media, emphasized the need for independent regulation and urged companies to prioritize safety and privacy over revenue.
Meta currently faces lawsuits from numerous states, accusing the company of deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms while failing to protect them from online predators. Internal emails released by Senator Richard Blumenthal's office reveal concerns raised by executives, including Nick Clegg, Meta's president of global affairs, about the effects on youth mental health and a call to hire more personnel to strengthen well-being across the company.
Lawmakers are increasingly pushing for measures to combat the spread of child sexual abuse images online and hold tech platforms accountable for safeguarding children. The congressional session on Wednesday is part of a broader effort to pass legislation addressing the long-standing inaction by Congress in regulating social media companies.
During the hearing, Spiegel expressed support for a federal bill creating legal liability for apps and social platforms recommending harmful content to minors. Yaccarino endorsed the Stop CSAM Act, which aims to allow victims of child exploitation to sue technology companies.
Some Republican lawmakers directed their focus on TikTok, accusing Chew of sympathizing with China. Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton questioned Chew's potential fear of losing his job if he spoke negatively about the Chinese Communist Party, despite Chew's background and residence in Singapore.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
