At first glance, Mark Zuckerberg’s new “privacy-focused vision ” for Facebook looks like a transformative mission statement from a CEO under pressure to reverse years of battering over its surveillance practices and privacy failures.
But critics say the announcement obscures Facebook’s deeper motivations: To expand lucrative new commercial services, continue monopolizing the attention of users, develop new data sources to track people and frustrate regulators who might be eyeing a breakup of the social-media behemoth.
Facebook “wants to be the operating system of our lives,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, director of media studies at the University of Virginia.
Zuckerberg’s plan, outlined Wednesday, expands Facebook’s commitment to private messaging, in sharp contrast with his traditional focus on public sharing. Facebook would combine its instant-messaging services WhatsApp and Instagram Direct with its core Messenger app so that users of one could message people on the others, and would expand the use of encrypted messaging to keep outsiders — including Facebook — from reading the messages.
The plan also calls for using those messaging services to expand Facebook’s role in e-commerce and payments. A Facebook spokesperson later said it was too early to answer detailed questions about the company’s messaging plans.
Vaidhyanathan said Zuckerberg wants people to abandon competing, person-to-person forms of communication such as email, texting and Apple’s iMessage in order to “do everything through a Facebook product.” The end goal could be transform Facebook into a service like the Chinese app WeChat , which has 1.1 billion users and includes the world’s most popular person-to-person online payment system.
In some respects, Facebook was already headed in this direction. It has dabbled with shopping features in its Messenger app for a few years, although without much effect. And WhatsApp, which Facebook acquired for $22 billion in 2014, embraced a strong privacy technology known as “end-to-end encryption” nearly three years ago. Messages protected this way are shielded from snooping, even by the services who deliver them.
But Zuckerberg said nothing in the Wednesday blog post about reforming privacy practices in its core business, which remains hungry for data. A recent Wall Street Journal report found that Facebook was still collecting personal information from apps such as user heart rates and when women ovulate .
Facebook, which perfected what critics call “surveillance capitalism,” knows it has serious credibility issues. Those go beyond repeated privacy lapses to include serious abuses by Russian agents, hate groups and disinformation mongers, which Zuckerberg acknowledged only belatedly.
“Until Facebook actually fixes its core privacy issues — and especially given their history — it’s difficult to take the pivot to privacy seriously,” said Justin Brookman, who was a research director at the Federal Trade Commission before joining Consumers Union as privacy and technology chief in 2017.
Combining the three messaging services could allow Facebook — which today has 15 million fewer US users than in 2017, according to Edison Research — build more complete data profiles on all its users.
The merged messaging services should generate new profits from the metadata they collect, including information on who you message, when you do it, from where and for how long, said Frederike Kaltheuner of the advocacy group Privacy International. That is the information that users leave behind when they message each other or conduct retail, travel or financial business, she added.
And Facebook doesn’t just use people’s information and activity on its platform, dissecting it to target people with tailored ads. It also tracks people who don’t even use the platform via small pieces of software embedded in third-party apps.
Privacy International published research in December showing that popular Android apps including KAYAK and Yelp were automatically sending user data directly to Facebook the moment they were opened. KAYAK, which was sending flight search results, halted the practice and said the transmission was inadvertent. Yelp continues to send unique identifiers known as “advertising IDs” that link to specific smartphones.
Facebook also has trackers that harvest data on people’s online behavior on about 30 percent of the world’s websites , said Jeremy Tillman of Ghostery, a popular ad-blocker and anti-tracking software.
“When they say they are building a private messaging platform there is nothing in there that suggests they are going to stop their data collection and ad-targeting business model,” he said.
In a Wednesday interview with The Associated Press, Zuckerberg offered no specifics on new revenue sources. But “the overall opportunity here is a lot larger than what we have built in terms of Facebook and Instagram,” he said.
Privacy advocates, however, do admire one key element of Zuckerberg’s announcement.
“In the last year, I’ve spoken with dissidents who’ve told me encryption is the reason they are free, or even alive,” Zuckerberg wrote.
How Facebook stands to profit from its ‘privacy’ push
How Facebook stands to profit from its ‘privacy’ push
Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s
- Aussie premier Anthony Albanese chapioned the bill in an effort to take young Australians “off their phones”
- Critics say the ban would not “make social media safer for young people,” lacks details about its enforcement
MELBOURNE: Australian lawmakers passed landmark rules to ban under 16s from social media on Thursday, approving one of the world’s toughest crackdowns on popular sites like Facebook, Instagram and X.
The legislation ordering social media firms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent young teens from having accounts was passed in the Senate with 34 votes in favor and 19 against.
The firms — who face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million) for failing to comply — have described the laws as “vague,” “problematic” and “rushed.”
The new rules will now return to the lower house — where lawmakers already backed the bill on Wednesday — for one final approval before it is all but certain to become law.
Speaking during the Senate debate, Greens politician Sarah Hanson-Young said the ban would not “make social media safer for young people.”
She said it was “devastating” that young people were “finding themselves addicted to these dangerous algorithms.”
Center-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, eyeing an election early next year, has enthusiastically championed the new rules and rallied Aussie parents to get behind it.
In the run up to the vote, he painted social media as “a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”
He wanted young Australians “off their phones and onto the footy and cricket field, the tennis and netball courts, in the swimming pool.”
But young social media users, like 12-year-old Angus Lydom, are not impressed.
“I’d like to keep using it. And it’ll be a weird feeling to not have it, and be able to talk to all my friends at home,” he told AFP.
Many are likely to try to find ways around it.
“I’ll find a way. And so will all my other friends” Lydom said.
Similarly, 11-year-old Elsie Arkinstall said there was still a place for social media, particularly for children wanting to watch tutorials about baking or art.
“Kids and teens should be able to explore those techniques because you can’t learn all those things from books,” she added.
On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world.
But the current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic piece of legislation that is unenforceable.
It will be at least 12 months before the details are worked out by regulators and the ban comes into effect.
Some companies will likely be granted exemptions, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
Late amendments were introduced to ensure government-issued digital ID cannot be used as a means of age verification.
Social media expert Susan Grantham told AFP that digital literacy programs that teach children to think “critically” about what they see online should be adopted — similar to a model used in Finland.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.
Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe
- Competitors complain Microsoft locks customers into its cloud service
- FTC earlier set the stage for probe into Microsoft’s role in AI market
The US Federal Trade Commission has opened a broad antitrust investigation into Microsoft, including of its software licensing and cloud computing businesses, a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The probe was approved by FTC Chair Lina Khan ahead of her likely departure in January. The election of Donald Trump as US president, and the expectation he will appoint a fellow Republican with a softer approach toward business, leaves the outcome of the investigation up in the air.
The FTC is examining allegations the software giant is potentially abusing its market power in productivity software by imposing punitive licensing terms to prevent customers from moving their data from its Azure cloud service to other competitive platforms, sources confirmed earlier this month.
The FTC is also looking at practices related to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence products, the source said on Wednesday.
Microsoft declined to comment on Wednesday.
Competitors have criticized Microsoft’s practices they say keep customers locked into its cloud offering, Azure. The FTC fielded such complaints last year as it examined the cloud computing market.
NetChoice, a lobbying group that represents online companies including Amazon and Google, which compete with Microsoft in cloud computing, criticized Microsoft’s licensing policies, and its integration of AI tools into its Office and Outlook.
“Given that Microsoft is the world’s largest software company, dominating in productivity and operating systems software, the scale and consequences of its licensing decisions are extraordinary,” the group said.
Google in September complained to the European Commission about Microsoft’s practices, saying it made customers pay a 400 percent mark-up to keep running Windows Server on rival cloud computing operators, and gave them later and more limited security updates.
The FTC has demanded a broad range of detailed information from Microsoft, Bloomberg reported earlier on Wednesday.
The agency had already claimed jurisdiction over probes into Microsoft and OpenAI over competition in artificial intelligence, and started looking into Microsoft’s $650 million deal with AI startup Inflection AI.
Microsoft has been somewhat of an exception to US antitrust regulators’ recent campaign against allegedly anticompetitive practices at Big Tech companies.
Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Apple, and Amazon.com Inc. have all been accused by the US of unlawfully maintaining monopolies.
Alphabet’s Google is facing two lawsuits, including one where a judge found it unlawfully thwarted competition among online search engines.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified at Google’s trial, saying the search giant was using exclusive deals with publishers to lock up content used to train artificial intelligence.
It is unclear whether Trump will ease up on Big Tech, whose first administration launched several Big Tech probes. JD Vance, the incoming vice president, has expressed concern about the power the companies wield over public discourse.
Still, Microsoft has benefited from Trump policies in the past.
In 2019, the Pentagon awarded it a $10 billion cloud computing contract that Amazon had widely been expected to win. Amazon later alleged that Trump exerted improper pressure on military officials to steer the contract away from its Amazon Web Services unit.
Union chiefs urge BBC staff to wear Palestinian flag colors or keffiyeh during ‘day of action’
- Protest on Thursday is a gesture of solidarity in support of demands for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the release of all hostages, organizers say
- Some workers voice concerns that the action violates the broadcaster’s strict guidelines on impartiality and risks upsetting colleagues
LONDON: Britain’s Trades Union Congress has urged BBC staff and workers in other sectors to participate in a “workplace day of action” on Thursday by wearing the colors of the Palestinian flag or a keffiyeh.
Organizers said their call for action is intended as a gesture of solidarity and to support demands for a permanent ceasefire and end to the violence in Gaza, and the release of all hostages.
The TUC, an umbrella organization that represents 5.5 million members of 48 trade unions, suggested that employees “wear something red, green, black, or a Palestinian keffiyeh to visibly show solidarity” in their workplaces.
The National Union of Journalists informed its members of the protest last week and condemned the actions of the Israeli government, which it said have resulted in the deaths of at least 135 Palestinian journalists since the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas last year.
“The NUJ is urging branches and chapels to show support on the day and amplify the union’s calls,” it said.
However, The Times newspaper reported on Wednesday that the campaign has drawn criticism, particularly from Jewish staff at the BBC who raised concerns that it violates the broadcaster’s strict guidelines on impartiality and risks upsetting colleagues.
A spokesperson for the TUC emphasized the need for sensitivity while participating in the protest.
“The day of action is focused on the TUC’s call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and the release of all hostages and political prisoners,” the organization said.
“We are advising trade union members to undertake the action respectfully and to discuss with colleagues what action is best suited to their workplace.”
Lebanon state media says Israeli fire wounds 2 journalists in south
- Video journalist Abdelkader Bay, two other visual journalists was reporting in Khiam when shots
BEIRUT: Two journalists were injured by Israeli fire on Wednesday, state media said, while reporting from a border town where Israeli troops and Hezbollah fought fierce battles before a ceasefire took effect.
The truce came into force on Wednesday morning after more than two months of full-scale war, which itself followed nearly a year of cross-border exchanges of fire initiated by Hezbollah in support of ally Hamas over the Gaza war.
Both Israel and Lebanon’s army have warned people against returning to southern areas heavily hit by war, with Israeli troops still present in some border towns and villages.
“Israeli enemy forces in the town of Khiam opened fire on a group of journalists while they were covering the return of the residents and the Israeli withdrawal from the town, wounding two,” the National News Agency said.
Video journalist Abdelkader Bay told AFP he was reporting in Khiam with two other visual journalists when shots were fired and he was injured along with his colleague.
“We saw people checking on their homes and, at the same time, we were hearing the sounds of tanks withdrawing,” Bay said, adding the other wounded journalist was hospitalized.
“While we were filming, we realized there were Israeli soldiers in a building and suddenly they shot at us,” he said.
“It was clear that we were journalists,” he added.
Photographer Ali Hachicho was with Bay in Khiam when the incident happened but was not injured. They both said they saw a drone above the town before shots were fired.
“We saw military fatigues on the ground,” Hachicho told AFP, then he spotted Israeli soldiers nearby.
“When I put the camera to my eye to film them, I started hearing the sound of bullets between our feet,” he said.
Later on Wednesday, the Israel army set limits on nighttime movement in south Lebanon.
Watchdog calls for international probe into alleged war crimes targeting journalists in Lebanon
- Committee to Protect Journalists urges actions to ‘ensure journalist murders do not go unpunished’
- Investigations found Israel ‘deliberately targeted’ compound that killed 3 journalists in southern Lebanon in October
LONDON: The Committee to Protect Journalists has called for an international investigation into “possible war crimes” after separate investigations by The Guardian and Human Rights Watch concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed three journalists in southern Lebanon.
“Journalists are civilians and must never be targeted,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “Israel must be held accountable for its actions and the international community must act to ensure that journalist murders are not allowed to go unpunished.”
HRW and The Guardian revealed on Monday that the Oct. 25 airstrike in Hasbaya, southern Lebanon, was carried out using a US-supplied bomb guidance kit.
The attack killed Ghassan Najjar, Mohammed Reda, and Wissam Kassem — journalists and media workers affiliated with Hezbollah-linked outlets — and injured three others.
The strike targeted a chalet in a Druze-majority area, which had been used as a press hub for over 20 days by more than a dozen journalists.
The Israeli military initially claimed the attack targeted a “Hezbollah military structure” harboring “terrorists” but later stated the incident was under review after discovering journalists were among the victims.
Investigations found no evidence of military presence or activity at the site. Analysis of shrapnel, video footage, satellite images, and interviews with survivors suggested the attack was a deliberate strike on civilians, constituting an apparent war crime.
HRW noted: “Information reviewed indicates that the Israeli military knew or should have known that journalists were staying in the area and in the targeted building.”
Legal experts also pointed to potential US complicity due to its provision of the weaponry used in the strike.
The incident follows the Oct. 13 killing of Lebanese journalist Issam Abdallah in an Israeli tank strike, which also wounded six other journalists.
Independent investigations by Reuters, AFP, HRW, Amnesty International, and Reporters Without Borders concluded the attack deliberately targeted journalists who were clearly identifiable.
Since the outbreak of hostilities in October, CPJ has confirmed the deaths of six Lebanese journalists.
In its Deadly Pattern report published before the war, CPJ found that Israel had failed to hold its military accountable for the killings of at least 20 journalists over the past 22 years.
Tuesday’s announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has brought a pause to hostilities, but media watchdogs will likely continue to demand accountability for attacks on journalists and press freedom violations.
