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.
HC to decide if gram panchayat members can continue in Manipur post tenure: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.
