Mark Zuckerberg was one of several social media bosses accused of having “blood on [their] hands” at a hearing where companies were criticised for not doing enough to protect children from being exploited on their platforms.
Mr Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, faced a sea of people who held pictures of their dead children all affected by online harms.
Also at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing were the chiefs of X, Linda Yaccarino, Snap Inc’s Evan Spiegel, TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew and Discord’s Jason Citron.
Image: Mark Zuckerberg faces the room. Pic: Reuters
Image: (L to R) Discord’s Jason Citron, Snap Inc’s Evan Spiegel, TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew, X’s Linda Yaccarino and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. Pic: Reuters
The room was first shown a video of children speaking about their victimisation on social media and senators recounted stories of young people taking their lives while being extorted after sharing photos with sexual predators.
Senator Lindsey Graham said: “Mr Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us, I know you don’t mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands.”
Image: Pic: Reuters
Referring to the founder of Facebook specifically, Mr Graham said: “You have a product that’s killing people.”
Mr Zuckerberg apologised to the families present, saying: “I’m sorry for everything you have all been through.
Image: Zuckerberg apologised to the families present. Pic: Reuters
“No one should go through the things that your families have suffered and this is why we invest so much and we are going to continue doing industry-wide efforts to make sure no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer.”
Advertisement
Instagram, which is operated by Meta, was further denounced as one of its features included alerting a user to an image that might show sexual abuse but allowed them to see it anyway.
Mr Zuckerberg responded that it can be helpful to redirect users to resources rather than blocking content. He reiterated the company had no plans to pursue a previous idea to create a child version of the app.
Meta has said it will block harmful contentfrom being viewed by under-18s, and will instead share resources from mental health charities when someone posts about their struggles with self-harm or eating disorders.
The 39-year-old chief executive has faced a committee before, with the first being over a privacy scandal in 2018 for Cambridge Analytica.
It is only the second time for Mr Chew and the first for Ms Yaccarino.
X has faced heavy criticism since Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform, and this week has been embroiled in a deepfake scandal, when sexually explicit pictures appearing to show Taylor Swift went viral.
Her name was temporarily unsearchable as the platform sought to redress the situation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:11
Online victims write to tech bosses
What did the other chiefs have to say?
The boss of X said the company did not cater to children and the firm supported the STOP CSAM Act, a bill which facilitates restitution for victims of child exploitation.
It is one of several aimed at addressing child safety – but none have become law.
Meanwhile, TikTok’s chief executive was grilled on the app’s potential detriment to the mental health of children.
Mr Chew insisted his platform made “careful product design choices to help make our app inhospitable to those seeking to harm teens”, reiterating the enforcement of a policy that would ban children under 13 from using the app.
He also said TikTok would spend $2bn (£1.57bn) on trust and safety measures.
Discord’s boss said safety tools already existed on its platforms, adding it had worked with NGOs and law enforcement to protect children.
Before the hearing, Mr Spiegel, the chief executive of Snap Inc, which operates Snapchat, said the company would back a bill to hold apps and social media platforms legally accountable if they recommended harmful material to children.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK
Image: Vladimir Putin shaking hands with Donald Trump when they met last week. Pic: Reuters
It was a stunning illustration of Mr Trump’s about-face in his approach to peace. For the past six months, a ceasefire has been his priority, but after meeting Mr Putin in Alaska, suddenly it’s not.
Confirmation that he now views the war through Moscow’s eyes.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Trump applauds Putin and shares ride in ‘The Beast’ last week
The second was the format itself, with Mr Trump reverting to his favoured ask-what-you-like open-ended Q&A.
In Alaska, Mr Putin wasn’t made to take any questions – most likely, because he didn’t want to. But here, Mr Zelenskyy didn’t have a choice. He was subjected to a barrage of them to see if he’d learnt his lesson from last time.
It was a further demonstration of the special status Mr Trump seems to afford to Mr Putin.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
The third was their phone call. Initially, President Trump said he’d speak to the Kremlin leader after his meeting with European leaders. But it turned out to be during it.
A face-to-face meeting with seven leaders was interrupted for a phone call with one – as if Mr Trump had to check first with Mr Putin, before continuing his discussions.
We still don’t know the full details of the peace proposal that’s being drawn up, but all this strongly suggests that it’s one sketched out by Russia. The White House is providing the paper, but the Kremlin is holding the pen.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Trump, Zelenskyy and the suit: What happened?
For Moscow, the aim now is to keep Mr Trump on their path to peace, which is settlement first, ceasefire later.
It believes that’s the best way of securing its goals, because it has more leverage so long as the fighting continues.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But Mr Putin will be wary that Mr Trump is pliable and can easily change his mind, depending on the last person he spoke to.
So to ensure that his sympathies aren’t swayed, and its red lines remain intact, Russia will be straining to keep its voice heard.
On Monday, for example, the Russian foreign ministry was quick to condemn recent comments from the UK government that it would be ready to send troops to help enforce any ceasefire.
It described the idea as “provocative” and “predatory”.
Moscow is trying to drown out European concerns by portraying itself as the party that wants peace the most, and Kyiv (and Europe) as the obstacle.
But while Mr Zelenskyy has agreed to a trilateral meeting, the Kremlin has not. After the phone call between Mr Putin and Mr Trump, it said the leaders discussed “raising the level of representatives” in the talks between Russia and Ukraine. No confirmation to what level.
Donald Trump wants to set up a face-to-face meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. How would that work? And would it accelerate peace in Ukraine?
Zelenskyy and other European leaders made their way to Washington DC. What was their goal? To make sure Trump is still on their side – and to make sure he’s not got too close to Putin and his plans to annex parts of Ukraine after the pair met in Alaska.
How much of a turning point was the White House summit in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
If you’ve got a question you’d like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@sky.uk.
You can also watch all episodes – including the interview with Tim – on our YouTube channel.
It’s always wise to let the dust settle before reaching conclusions with this presidency.
But on the face of it we are further away from peace now than we were two weeks ago.
The consensus that was held back then was that Vladimir Putin would only relent under maximum pressure. He does not want slivers of territory. He wants the whole of Ukraine extinguished and absorbed into his greater Russia.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
What’s next for Ukraine?
To stop him, allies agreed an immediate ceasefire was necessary, along with much more painful pressure, namely sanctions hitting his oil industry. Europeans and Republicans in Congress agree on that.
Then Alaska and Donald Trump’s U-turn. No ceasefire and no more severe sanctions. So less pressure.
Yesterday’s reality TV diplomatic circus in Washington has not shifted him on that stance, so he stays it seems now aligned with Mr Putin on those crucial points.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:42
Starmer: This needs to be a lasting deal
Making matters worse for Ukraine, allies seem to be accepting it will have to give up land taken by force.
They sweeten the pill by saying of course only Ukraine can decide whether or not to cede territory, but there is now enormous pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to do so.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
In return there is nebulous and vague talk of security guarantees. European leaders are seizing on the fact Mr Trump did not rule out American troops being involved and hinted at US support for post-war security arrangements.
But that is little consolation for Ukrainians. They point out this president changes his mind as often as his socks and goes back on commitments, even those enshrined in international treaties.
The best that can be said for the White House meeting is it sets up more such meetings.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Much of yesterday’s events were focused on stroking President Trump’s ego. Many here in Kyiv would prefer he was reminded of a few hard facts about this war. Mr Putin cannot be trusted. Mr Putin wants the end of Ukraine. Mr Putin will only relent under maximum pressure.
Protracted international diplomacy may suit Mr Trump’s craving for attention, but they fear it will only take us further away from peace.