Facebook‘s parent company Meta disabled only a small fraction of the over one million reports it received of underage users on Instagram since early 2019, a lawsuit filed by 33 US states reportedly said. The newly unsealed legal complaint accused the tech giant of carrying an “open secret” that it had millions of users under the age of 13, and that Instagram “routinely continued to collect” their personal information such as location without parental permission. The complaint stated that within the company, Meta’s actual knowledge that millions of Instagram users were under the age of 13 was an “open secret” that was routinely documented, rigorously analyzed and confirmed, and zealously protected from disclosure to the public, according to a New York Times report. Last month, attorneys general from 33 states, including New York’s AG Letitia James, filed a lawsuit against Meta alleging that the tech giant designed harmful features contributing to the country’s youth mental health crisis. The lawsuit alleged Meta created addictive and “psychologically manipulative” features targeting young people while assuring the public falsely that the platform was safe to use. “Meta has profited from children’s pain by intentionally designing its platforms with manipulative features that make children addicted to their platforms while lowering their self-esteem,” Ms James said. Meta’s spokesperson responded to the lawsuit, saying that the company was committed to providing teens with “safe, positive experiences online,” and that it had already introduced “over 30 tools to support teens and their families” such as age verification and preventing content promoting harmful behaviours. “We’re disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use, the attorneys general have chosen this path,” the spokesperson added. However, a significant portion of the evidence provided by the states was obscured from public view via redactions in the initial filing. The new unsealed complaint filed last week provided fresh insights from the lawsuit, including the accusation that Instagram “coveted and pursued” underage users for years and that Meta “continually failed” to make effective age-checking systems a priority. The lawsuit reportedly argued that Meta chose not to build effective systems to detect and exclude underage teen users, viewing them as a crucial next generation demographic it needed to capture. It also accused the tech giant of “automatically” ignoring some reports of under 13 users and allowing them to continue using the platform while knowing about such cases via the company’s internal reporting channels. The company responded that the now publicly revealed complaint “mischaracterizes our work using selective quotes and cherry-picked documents.” It said verifying the ages of its users was a “complex” challenge especially with younger people who likely do not have IDs or licenses. Meta recently said it supports federal legislation requiring app stores to get parents’ approval whenever their teens under 16 download apps. “With this solution, when a teen wants to download an app, app stores would be required to notify their parents, much like when parents are notified if their teen attempts to make a purchase,” the company said. “Parents can decide if they want to approve the download. They can also verify the age of their teen when setting up their phone, negating the need for everyone to verify their age multiple times across multiple apps,” it said. The tech giant holds that the best solution to support young people is a “simple, industry-wide solution” where all apps are held to the same standard. “By verifying a teen’s age on the app store, individual apps would not be required to collect potentially sensitive identifying information,” Meta recently said. Read More Russia places Meta spokesperson on wanted list Meta to allow users to delete Threads accounts without losing Instagram Nasa has received a signal from 10 million miles away Nasa has received a signal from 10 million miles away Elon Musk set to meet Netanyahu and hostage families in Israel Elon Musk weighs in on Dublin riots claiming country’s PM ‘hates the Irish people’

Unity Software Chairman and CEO John Riccitiello is retiring, Northrop Grumman stock extends gains, and PepsiCo is scheduled to report third-quarter earnings.

In Munich, where this week's IAA motor show is taking place, an interactive street survey elicits an overwhelming "yes" when asking passers-by if they would take a self-driving taxi from the...

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 22, 2023--

By Foo Yun Chee BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Commission will analyse the U.S. ban on new U.S. investment in China

Gen Xers and Millennials uttered a collective gasp on May 9, 2023, when Paramount announced it was shutting down MTV News after more than three decades of operation.

Schroders Plc is seeking to hire a third-party custodian for cryptocurrencies, people with knowledge of the matter said,

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Category 4 Hurricane Hilary was rushing toward Mexico's Baja California peninsula on Friday morning, threatening to bring

In yet another instalment of decisions-that-seem-destined-to-end-badly, Elon Musk's X, formerly known as Twitter, has reinstated

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jul 11, 2023--

After nearly two years and $69 billion, Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard is finally complete. The Xbox maker and the game developer are joining together in the biggest purchase in gaming history. It is a vast business undertaking that will define the future of the two companies and the gaming industry more broadly. But what will it actually mean for the gamers who use Microsoft’s platforms and play Activision’s games – as well as those that don’t? What happened in the deal? Microsoft first announced that it wanted to buy Activision Blizzard in January last year. Microsoft makes the Xbox and Activision Blizzard makes many of the worlds biggest games – it is often associated with Call of Duty, but also makes World Of Warcraft, Overwatch and mobile giant Candy Crush, and more. In the time since, the deal has been hit by opposition from rivals, primarily PlayStation maker Sony, and has been undergoing scrutiny from regulators, who worried that it would give Microsoft too much power in the gaming market, and harm players as a result. Regulators across the world expressed those reservations, and in some cases required Microsoft to make changes to the deal. Chief among those changes were Microsoft’s decision to give French gaming company Ubisoft the rights to distribute Activision games in the cloud. This was a response to concerns from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, which expressed concern specifically that the deal would give Microsoft too much power over cloud gaming. But there were a host of less dramatic and expensive commitments. That included signing deals with other companies such as Sony and Nintendo to commit to keep Call of Duty games on their platforms. What will it mean for Xbox players? At least initially, the biggest consequences of the deal are likely to be for Xbox’s Game Pass, the subscription platform that allows players to download and play games in return for a monthly fee. More Activision games are expected to come to that platform as a result of the acquisition. But even that won’t happen straight away, at least with all games. Activision said in a statement this week – before the deal closed – that its big titles won’t be coming to Game Pass this year, and has not made any commitments about which games will do so or when. “While we do not have plans to put Modern Warfare III or Diablo IV into Game Pass this year, once the deal closes, we expect to start working with Xbox to bring our titles to more players around the world,” Activision wrote in a tweet. “And we anticipate that we would begin adding games into Game Pass sometime in the course of next year.” What will it mean for gamers on other platforms? Much of the discussion with regulators has been about this question. And many of the concessions that Microsoft gave over the deal were done with the aim of ensuring that the answer is: not that much, at least at first. Xbox has committed to keep making its games available on other platforms such as PlayStation and Nintendo Switch, as well as on cloud platforms. And Xbox chief Phil Spencer echoed that commitment in the announcement that the deal was completed. “Whether you play on Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, PC or mobile, you are welcome here - and will remain welcome, even if Xbox isn’t where you play your favourite franchise. Because when everyone plays, we all win,” he wrote. But the bigger question might be about new games, especially those that come out after the initial commitments are over. Microsoft has committed to keep Call of Duty on rival platforms for 10 years, for instance – but things could change in the years after that, and with other, new games. When Microsoft bought another game developer Bethesda in 2020, for instance, there were questions over what it would mean for players on other platforms, and whether its games would be exclusive to Microsoft. Its most recent game Starcraft was available only on the Xbox and PC, and the upcoming Elder Scrolls VI is likely to be the same. Read More Nasa launches Psyche mission to study an ancient metal asteroid Microsoft buys Call of Duty developer in biggest deal in gaming history Microsoft gets go-ahead to buy Call of Duty maker Activision Nasa launches Psyche mission to study an ancient metal asteroid Microsoft buys Call of Duty developer in biggest deal in gaming history Microsoft gets go-ahead to buy Call of Duty maker Activision

By Akash Sriram (Reuters) -Elon Musk's selection of a new CEO for Twitter may remove a big distraction for the