Social – Our Story Insight

More countries weigh teen social media ban, experts warn it’s ‘lazy’

admin — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:53:35 +0000

Gen Z girl looking at smartphone screen feeling upset scrolling on social media.

Mementojpeg | Moment | Getty Images

Governments around the world are making efforts to crack down on teen social media use amid mounting evidence of potential harms, but critics argue blanket bans are an ineffective quick fix.

Australia became the first country to enforce a sweeping social media ban for under-16s in December, requiring platforms like Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok, Alphabet’s YouTube, Elon Musk’s X, and Reddit to implement age verification measures or face penalties.

Several European countries are now looking to follow Australia’s lead, with the U.K., Spain, France, and Austria drafting their own proposals. Although a national ban in the U.S. looks unlikely, state-level legislation is underway.

It comes after Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, faced two separate defeats in trials related to child safety and social media harms in March.

A Santa Fe jury found Meta misled users about child safety on its apps. The next day, a Los Angeles jury ruled that Meta and YouTube designed platform features that contributed to a plaintiff’s mental health harms.

Meta’s stock drops almost 8% as 2 court defeats add to Zuckerberg’s recent woes

These developments are set to “unleash a lot more legislation,” Sonia Livingstone, social psychology professor and director of the London School of Economics’ Digital Futures for Children center, told CNBC.

However, Livingstone said a social media ban for teens is a slapdash solution from governments that have failed to properly police tech giants for years.

“I think the argument for a ban is an admission of failure that we cannot regulate companies, so we can only restrict children,” she said, explaining that the U.S. and Europe already have a lot of legislation in the books that isn’t being enforced.

“When are governments really going to enforce, raise the stakes on fines, ban the companies if necessary for not complying,” she added.

Enforce existing laws

Experts argue the sector has for too long escaped accountability and the rigid requirements faced by other industries.

“[Governments] should be implementing the law [and] big tech companies should be facing a slew of regulatory interventions that forbid a whole series of practices that they currently do,” Livingstone said.

She highlighted the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, which “requires safety by design” — this means features such as Snapchat’s “Quick Add” that invite teens to befriend others should be stopped, according to Livingstone.

Livingstone believes that a blanket ban wouldn’t even be under discussion if social media companies had undergone appropriate premarket testing to establish if their features are safe for their target audience.

“There are lots of areas where we have a well functioning market that requires testing to establish it meets the standards…[before products] can go into the market,” she said. “If we did that for AI and for social media, we would be in a whole different place and we’d not be having to talk about banning children from anything.”

Josh Golin, executive director at Boston-based non-profit Fairplay, told CNBC that he’d like to see “privacy and safety by design legislation rather than blanket bans” across the U.S.

This includes passing the Children and Teen Online Privacy Protection Act to put a stop to personal data-driven advertising towards children, so there’s “less financial incentive for social media companies to target and addict kids.”

Golin added that passing the Senate’s version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is also key to ensuring platforms are held legally responsible for design features that can cause addiction or other harms.

He added that Meta has already successfully lobbied to stop KOSA even though it passed the Senate in 2024. But, if it continues to block legislation further, Golin thinks this could see further pressure “line up behind bans because addictive and unsafe is not OK.”

A ban is ‘lazy’ and ‘unfair’

A sweeping social media ban only punishes a generation of young people who have become increasingly dependent on online means of interaction, according to Livingstone. She said bans are a “lazy” solution from governments and an “unfair” outcome for young people.

“It’s the 15 years in which we don’t let our children go outside and meet their friends. It’s the 15 years in which we stopped funding parks and youth clubs for them to meet in,” she said.

“So a ban now is to say to ‘Children, we can’t make the regulation work. We can’t update it fast enough. We haven’t built you anything else to do, but that’s just tough. We’ve terrified your parents into feeling that there’s nothing they can do, and we’re going to take you away from the service where you hoped you would feel some sociability and entertainment.”

A ‘quiet revolution’: Why young people are swapping social media for lunch dates, vinyl records and brick phones

Dr. Victoria Nash, associate professor and senior policy fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, described social media bans as an “extreme” measure that alienates young people from the benefits these platforms provide.

“We know children and young people get their news online and through apps, so you cut that off,” she said. “My view would be that I don’t think this justifies a ban. To me, what this justifies is more responsible behavior by social platforms to cut down on their most harmful features.”

She said that bans could drive young people and children to less regulated corners of the internet, which don’t have the same protections.

Many Australian teens flouted the social media ban when it first came into force in December. A BBC report found that downloads of VPNs, which hide users’ locations to avoid country-specific restrictions, increased before the ban.

Additionally, downloads of some apps that weren’t yet affected such as Lemon8, Yope and Discord also surged in the days after the law came into effect, per the report.

“I think it [a ban] certainly gets rid of all the harmful aspects, but it gets rid of the good ones too and I’m just not yet sure if that’s proportionate,” Nash added.

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

The post More countries weigh teen social media ban, experts warn it’s ‘lazy’ appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Instagram head questioned about social media addiction

admin — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 22:47:09 +0000

Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testifies at a U.S. Senate hearing in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 8, 2021.

Brendan Smialowski | AFP | Getty Images

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said Wednesday during testimony in a high-profile social media trial that he thinks there can be problematic usage of social media, but does not think it constitutes an addiction.

“I’m sure I said this, but I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” said Mosseri, who noted several times that he is not a medical professional.

Mosseri said that sometimes the use of the word addiction can refer to something more casually, and noted that while he may have once said he was addicted to a Netflix show, that’s not an actual clinical addiction.

“So it’s a personal thing, but yeah, I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” Mosseri said. “Too much is relative, it’s personal.”

Mosseri testified in Los Angeles Superior Court, where the plaintiff alleges that social media platforms Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap misled the public about the safety of their apps while knowing certain design choices and features fostered detrimental mental health effects in young users.

Although TikTok and Snap were originally part of the case, the two companies are no longer involved after settling with a plaintiff involved in the lawsuit.

Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier questions Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta Platforms’ Instagram, as part of a trial on what plaintiffs call “social media addiction” in children and young adults, in Los Angeles, California, U.S. Feb. 11, 2026 in a courtroom sketch.

Mona Edwards | Reuters

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” a Meta spokesperson said.

The LA trial centers around a plaintiff listed as “KGM” and her mother, who allege that the tech companies designed features like infinite scroll that resulted in addictive behavior and negative mental health issues.

“The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media,” the Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, questioned Mosseri about social media addiction and about certain choices that company executives made that resulted in alleged negative harm.

When Lanier asked Mosseri whether there’s such a thing as problematic usage of Instagram, Mosseri replied, “I think it depends on the person.”

Lanier pressed Mosseri about his role as a “decision maker” for Instagram, and if he leans toward making decisions that lead to profit before testing, or if he emphasizes testing products first to protect children.

“In general, we should be focused on the protection of minors, but I believe protecting minors over the long run is good for business and for profit,” Mosseri said.

The trial, which had opening statements Monday, is one of multiple legal cases this year that center on the safety of social media platforms and what the companies knew about potential dangers to children.

Plastic surgery digital filters

Lanier introduced an exhibit detailing a November 2019 email exchange between company executives debating whether to ban digital filters that can alter photos of people’s faces to appear as if they had plastic surgery.

Mosseri said that the company ultimately decided to not allow any digital effects that would encourage plastic surgery after debating what could be permissible given the advanced capabilities of modern-day makeup.

In the email chain, in which one subhead included the phrase “PR fire on plastic surgery,” Meta executives discussed concerns from the press and health experts on whether the digital filtering effects could lead to detrimental mental health issues.

Meta tech chief Andrew Bosworth said in the email chain that he notified CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the plastic surgery digital filter, and that the Facebook co-founder “might want to review before implementing.”

“He is concerned about whether we have good enough data that this represents real harm,” Bosworth said of Zuckerberg’s view on the project.

Former Meta executive John Hegeman said in another email related to the chain that “a blanket ban on things that can’t be done with make-up is going to limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India).”

“I’d much rather see us develop a nuanced framework for responsible use that still allows us to build the products that people clearly want and intentionally seek out,” Hegeman wrote in the email.

Mosseri said Wednesday that while he interpreted Hegeman’s comments to mean that a blanket ban of the proposed filters would hurt the company’s ability to compete in Asian markets, he didn’t think that the former Meta executive was talking about money, but rather cultural relevance.

He said that Meta doesn’t make money from its filters and instead wants to be culturally relevant so people can enjoy the platform.

Lanier then presented an email exchange between Mosseri and Meta policy executive Andy O’Connell in which the Instagram head was asked to pick one of three options before going to Zuckerberg for his executive decision on the filters.

The first option included a temporary ban on plastic surgery filters under the current policy, and then a re-evaluation when there is more definitive data on wellbeing. The option listed “pros” of mitigating well-being concerns and leading to no PR or regulatory risks, but it had the “cons” of limiting growth.

The second option would lift the ban on the plastic surgery filters while removing the effects from being recommended to Instagram users. The “cons” of that option included a still notable risk to well-being.

The third option was a lift on the ban, which would have the lowest impact to growth but the highest risk to well-being and the possibility of generating bad media attention.

Mosseri replied to the email that he preferred option 2, which Lanier noted was the choice that involved a notable risk to well-being.

“I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but want it to just say for the record that i don’t think its the right call given the risks,” wrote Margaret Stewart, the vice president of product design and responsible innovation at Facebook, in a reply to Mosseri. Stewart supported banning the filters.

Mosseri told the courtroom repeatedly that the company ended up with a more “focused ban” that involved a subset of digital filters.

During cross-examination, Mosseri further explained that digital filters are for a minority of users who want to make posts more fun and entertaining, but that the company doesn’t make any money from the technology.

“We want to help people express themselves. But when it comes to revenue, that’s based on how many ads people see on Instagram,” Mosseri said. “I haven’t seen any data that suggests using filters drives content consumption or ads. It’s not a revenue decision.”

WATCH: New Mexico AG Raul Torrez on Meta trial.

The post Instagram head questioned about social media addiction appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Who’ll next implement an Australia-style under-16s social media ban?

admin — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:53:58 +0000

Recently the Australian Senate passed a law to ban children under 16 from having social media accounts including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X.

Matt Cardy | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Australia’s social media ban for children under the age of 16 has grabbed global attention, and governments worldwide are considering implementing similar policies, with the U.K. seen as likely to be next.

The Australian government’s Online Safety Amendment Act came into effect on December 10, and included major social media platforms, including Reddit, X, Meta’s Instagram, Alphabet’s YouTube, Bytedance’s TikTok.

The platforms were forced to implement age verification methods to ensure under-16s are unable to create an account, and the companies can face fines up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32 million) for not complying.

Although teenagers, tech giants, and experts have had mixed reactions since the ban came into force, governments globally are drafting bills to implement an Australia-style ban.

“This is a global issue, and governments everywhere are under pressure to respond,” Daisy Greenwell, co-founder of U.K.-based Smartphone Free Childhood, told CNBC. SFC is a grassroots campaign urging parents to delay giving children smartphones and social media access.

“We’re already seeing countries move in this direction, and as confidence builds and evidence accumulates, more will follow. No one thinks the status quo is working for children, parents, or society – and this is one of the clearest policy responses currently on the table,” Greenwell added.

Other countries that are considering an under-16s social media ban include the U.K., France, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Italy and Greece.

The U.S. is trailing behind on this front with a national ban being unlikely, however there is certainly state and local interest, according to Ravi Iyer, a managing director of the University of Southern California Marshall School’s Neely Center.

Iyer has worked closely with social psychologist Jonathon Haidt who wrote the renowned book The Anxious Generation, about the harmful impacts of social media and smartphones on children and teens.

“It’s really hard to predict Federal policy, but it is one of the few bipartisan issues left, so it certainly is possible,” Iyer said in emailed comments.

“I’m more confident at the state level and I believe we will see a few U.S. states enact such a policy in the next couple years.”

Lawmakers in California and Texas are looking at bringing in state-level bans in 2026.

But governments looking to implement such bans could face resistance from the tech giants.

Following Australia’s move, community-focused forum Reddit launched a lawsuit, arguing that the new law goes too far by restricting political discussion online. Facebook and Instagram owner Meta urged Canberra to reconsider the ban. And in a statement to users explaining how the restrictions work, Elon Musk’s X said: “It’s not our choice – it’s what the Australian law requires.”

U.K. set to vote on social media ban

Meanwhile, calls for a social media ban for under-16s in the U.K. have grown rapidly at the beginning of this year. The U.K.’s House of Lords is expected to vote this week to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to include a social media ban for under-16s.

Greenwell’s SFC launched an email campaign this week, which saw more than 100,000 emails sent to local U.K. lawmakers. The SFC template email urged the government to set “reasonable, age-appropriate boundaries that protect children’s wellbeing.”

“We consistently see that the more time children spend on smartphones and social media, the worse their mental health outcomes tend to be. If these platforms are no longer available, the network effects collapse – and young people can reconnect with each other and with the real world,” Greenwell told CNBC.

This is the right age to give your child a smartphone, according to an NYU mental health researcher

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even backed the idea saying “we need to better protect children from social media” and that he’s studying Australia’s ban.

“All options are on the table in relation to what further protections we can put in place – whether that’s under-16s on social media or an issue I am very concerned about, under fives and screen time,” Starmer said last week.

“Children are turning up age four at reception [the first year of school] having spent far too much time on screens,” he added.

Meanwhile, U.K. health secretary Wes Streeting asked The Anxious Generation author Haidt to address his officials at an event to push for stricter limits on young people.

France is also a strong contender as it debates two bills, one backed by French President Emmanuel Macron, to prevent social media access for under 15s, France24 reported last week. France’s public health watchdog ANSES outlined that social media’s negative effects are “numerous” and well documented.

USC’s Iyer said that if a teen ban becomes a global norm, it alleviates the pressure on young people to self-police.

“One of the primary goals of the law is to change the norm, such that teens don’t feel pressure to use social media because all their friends are doing so” Iyer said.

“It’s not really a realistic choice to abstain if you feel that all your friends are using a particular platform. If we can solve that problem and the majority of teens are off of social media, we’ll have done a lot of good,” he added.

The post Who’ll next implement an Australia-style under-16s social media ban? appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Social Security benefits could increase by $200 a month — here’s who would qualify

admin — Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:24:35 +0000

Democratic Senators are pushing legislation that could hike monthly Social Security payments by $200, arguing senior citizens are struggling to keep up with sky-high costs.

The recently introduced “Social Security Emergency Inflation Relief Act” would include the additional money until July 2026. Recipients of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, veteran disability compensation, veteran pensions and railroad retirement would get the extra dough, the bill’s sponsors said.

The legislation is all but certain to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Democratic senators have introduced legislation that could hike monthly Social Security payments by $200. Getty Images

Still, the bill’s prime sponsor Sens Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) argued that inflation has pushed prices so high that seniors need extra help.

The extra $200 per month would provide an “emergency lifeline for seniors struggling to afford Trump’s tariffs and rising inflation,” she said in a statement.

Upcoming cost-of-loving adjustment

The Social Security Administration said last month that benefits for more than 50 million American retirees will increase 2.8% next year as part of its annual cost-of-living adjustment, also known as COLA.

That is “simply not reflective of the current reality” for seniors, stated bill co-sponsor Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY.), the Senate minority leader.

Other sponsors of the legislation include Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

US inflation hit 3% in September – the highest level since January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index.

Prices on products from a cup of coffee and kids’ toys to living room furniture and Amazon deals have soared in recent months.

Concerns around the recently ended government shutdown – the longest in history – and broader economic issues like inflation sent monthly consumer sentiment to its lowest level in over three years, according to data released earlier this month.

Meanwhile, adults are putting off homeownership for longer than ever.

The median age of first-time homebuyers hit 40 years old this year – a record-high, according to the National Association of Realtors’ annual report.

The Social Security Emergency Inflation Relief Act would add $200 to monthly benefits until July 2026. zinkevych – stock.adobe.com

‘Boosting Benefits and COLAs for Seniors Act’

Separately from Warren’s bill, Democratic senators introduced the “Boosting Benefits and COLAs for Seniors Act,” which would tweak the current formula for annual cost-of-living adjustments.

The Social Security Administration currently calculates the adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

This inflation measure is based on the spending habits of younger, urban workers.

But the “Boosting Benefits” bill would base the adjustment on the CPI for older Americans, tracking the spending habits of retirees age 62 and older – which could raise the payments.

Democratic senators also introduced the Boosting Benefits and COLAs for Seniors Act. Christopher Sadowski

“Americans deserve to retire with dignity, not spend their golden years just trying to get by,” Gillibrand said in a statement.

“Our seniors have spent a lifetime of hard work paying into Social Security, but the payouts simply aren’t keeping up with rising costs, and this year’s annual cost-of-living adjustment is not enough to keep seniors afloat.”

The average retirement benefit in August was $2,008, according to the most recently available data.

About 73% of seniors depend on Social Security for more than half of their income, according to a study by the nonprofit Senior Citizens League.

Social Security benefits are available to retired Americans age 62 and older. Surviving family members of deceased workers and some disabled citizens are also eligible.

The post Social Security benefits could increase by $200 a month — here’s who would qualify appeared first on Our Story Insight.

SGLA testifies before Massachusetts committee about ‘Social Plus’ gaming

admin — Sat, 15 Nov 2025 11:48:57 +0000

The Social Gaming Leadership Alliance (SGLA) has this week (November 13) testified before a Massachusetts committee on a bill that contains provisions that could see Social Plus games banned in the Commonwealth.

Just the day before, the alliance announced the introduction of ‘Social Plus’ which they say is a new term that defines the category of freemium social games provided by SGLA partners. They describe these as being online social games with sweepstake promotions that “deliver interactive board, card and casino-style games to millions of Americans.”

The online casino-related bill, H.4431, was referred to the committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. At present, nothing has yet been actioned as the committee will accept written testimony until November 20.

In testimony to the committee, Sean Ostrow, the managing director of SGLA, urged them to consider an alternative approach that would “pay dividends to the Commonwealth for years to come by regulating and taxing Social Plus games.”

Committee to create report on Massachusetts bill H.4431 next month

The organization believes that allowing the ‘thriving’ industry to continue will generate new revenue for the Bay State. The SGLA also suggests that voters are opposed to the potential ban.

“A recent nationwide survey by Seven Letter Insight found that 84% of U.S. voters support modernizing laws to regulate and tax online Social Plus games. Only 8% believe the games should be banned, and just 4% say this issue should be a priority compared to concerns like inflation, health care, and housing,” a SGLA article reads.

The committee, which has been hearing both sides of the argument, has until December 17 to formulate a report.

“The SGLA stands behind strong regulation and consumer protection, responsible social gameplay for adults only, fair taxation, and enabling economic development here in the Commonwealth,” said Ostrow. “We look forward to working with members of this committee to achieve these mutually beneficial outcomes.”

Featured Image: Canva

The post SGLA testifies before Massachusetts committee about ‘Social Plus’ gaming appeared first on Our Story Insight.

‘Meager’ 2.8% Social Security boost for 2026 sparks outcry

admin — Sat, 25 Oct 2025 13:35:53 +0000

The Social Security Administration’s Friday announcement of a 2.8% bump in benefits next year was immediately blasted by critics — who called the increase inadequate to keep up with soaring costs of food, housing and health care.

The SSA said the adjustment, known as the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, will raise average monthly payments to Social Security recipients by about $56 starting in January.

The hike applies to retirement, disability and supplemental income checks for roughly 71 million Americans.

Social Security recipients blasted the government Friday after officials announced that benefits will rise just 2.8% next year. zinkevych – stock.adobe.com

The outcry was immediate. Senior groups said the increase was too small to offset real-world inflation pressures and accused Washington of ignoring retirees’ financial struggles.

“The 2026 COLA is going to hurt for seniors,” said Shannon Benton, executive director of the nonpartisan Senior Citizens League.

“Year after year, they warn that Social Security’s meager increases won’t be enough.”

Benton said her group’s research suggests that nearly one in ten retirement-age Americans lives in poverty — and that the true figure could be higher.

“It’s about time our elected representatives show up for seniors, or else seniors won’t show up for them at the voting booth,” she said.

Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet

Thanks for signing up!

The modest increase came despite the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting prices up 3% over the past year, fueled by stubborn housing and medical costs.

Analysts said the difference reflects how the government calculates the COLA — based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W — a formula critics say underestimates how inflation affects retirees.

Older Americans spend more on health care and essentials that rise faster than average inflation, Benton said, arguing for a switch to the CPI-E, a measure designed to capture seniors’ spending habits.

Her group also called for a minimum 3% annual adjustment.

The Social Security Administration said the adjustment, known as the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, will raise average monthly payments by about $56 starting in January. mehaniq41 – stock.adobe.com

Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano defended the calculation, saying the annual adjustment “is one way we are working to make sure benefits reflect today’s economic realities and continue to provide a foundation of security.”

Bisignano’s agency had delayed the announcement by more than a week because of the government shutdown that stalled September inflation data.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recalled furloughed workers to finish the report and allow the COLA release to move forward.

The announcement lands as Social Security faces deeper financial strains.

Earlier forecasts warn the retirement trust fund could be depleted within seven years, forcing automatic benefit cuts of as much as 24% if Congress fails to act.

Economists said the 2.8% raise roughly matches average COLAs over the past decade, which have averaged 3.1%, but doesn’t reflect how sharply costs have risen for retirees in recent years.

The post ‘Meager’ 2.8% Social Security boost for 2026 sparks outcry appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Musk-Trump war of words likely puts kibosh on rumored Truth Social buyout. Or will it?

admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:33:27 +0000

One of the less discussed blowbacks from the public feud between Elon Musk and President Trump is that any chance of the X mogul possibly buying Truth Social to combine it with his social media site is kaput, On The Money has learned. But the kiss-and-make-up between the two — which may be in the works – could get tongues wagging once again that Elon will throw Trump’s troubled social-media platform a lifeline.

Let’s recap the situation: Musk’s potential purchase of the president’s social media platform has been widely speculated among traders since the two men became besties sometime around the beginning of the 2024 election cycle – when Elon turned MAGA.

The theory goes something like this: Truth Social is ripe for a takeover. Its parent company, Trump Media and Technology Group, lost $400 million last year on revenues of a paltry $3.6 million. On its best days, it can get nearly 2 million daily users – small potatoes compared with the 36 million that can be found on X when it’s running hot.

Maybe it’s time for Musk to again become Trump’s “First Buddy” by throwing Truth Social that lifeline. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design

Trump Media is hovering around $20 a share with a market cap of $5.7 billion. Pocket change for Elon, who is worth $414 billion, according to Forbes. What better way to curry favor with the world’s most powerful businessman-turned-president than by putting money in his pocket?

That was before the battle of the titans. Trump Media tanked on Day 1 of the social media insults (as did Musk’s Tesla, which is reliant on government handouts for some of its revenues), as the buyout talk abated. Unlike Tesla, Truth Social hasn’t recovered and remains in the red. The culprit, savvy market types tell On The Money, is that buying Trump Media is the last thing on Musk’s mind after last week’s tit-for-tat.

Short interest appears to be growing in Truth Social as well, meaning traders that are betting the stock will collapse. It’s around 12% of the float of available shares, according to Bob Sloan of S3 Partners, the world’s expert in data surrounding this corner of the market. (Full disclosure: Sloan is my “Risk and Reward” podcast partner).

More From Charles Gasparino

Traders tell me the number would be higher were it not for the persistent speculation of Musk swooping in and buying the Trump platform as a favor to his pal, and because of what happened next: Elon has been looking to make amends with The Donald, posting that his attacks on the president went too far on Wednesday. Trump is now saying he’s open to kiss and make up.

Elon has been looking to make amends with The Donald, posting that his attacks on the president went too far. The two men at the White House in March. REUTERS

Love is in the air. Maybe, but recall Elon went all in on MAGA and Trump because he was tired of the woke ruling ethos of the Democratic Party. Even more, Musk is a businessman, and his businesses rely on the federal government — aka Trump — for various contracts and tax credits. Maybe it’s time for Musk to again become Trump’s “First Buddy” by throwing Truth Social that lifeline.

Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet

Thanks for signing up!

There are certainly other reasons why Truth Social’s stock hasn’t completely cratered. It’s owned by Trump, whose name recognition is second to none. His postings generate interest. The company is rolling out new features, like a streaming service, and it’s looking to expand the president’s already formidable crypto presence.

It is being pitched to investors as a new, nascent stage business that has a bright future, even if the numbers suggest otherwise..

It’s also takeover bait if Elon really wants to kiss and make up.

The post Musk-Trump war of words likely puts kibosh on rumored Truth Social buyout. Or will it? appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Videos reportedly telling US consumers to buy Chinese fashion items hit social media

admin — Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:47:37 +0000

Videos posted by Chinese TikTok users that suggest people should purchase fashion items directly from factories in China have surfaced in the U.S. in recent weeks, according to Bloomberg.

The videos claim many apparel brands, such as Nike and Lululemon, get their products from Chinese factories, with some praising the quality of Chinese manufacturing, the outlet reported Monday.

They appear to be seeking to spur American consumers to get apparel and accessories directly from Chinese manufacturing facilities at much lower prices instead of purchasing them in the United States, according to Bloomberg.

One such TikTok video said consumers “won’t believe the prices we give you” if consumers “just contact us and buy from us,” instead, the outlet reported.

Network Contagion Research Institute senior advisor Alex Goldenberg told Bloomberg the “campaign appears to be a calculated attempt to undermine President Trump’s tariff policy on China by leveraging TikTok to promote Chinese manufacturing as cheaper, more desirable, and accessible – even in defiance of trade restrictions.”

Videos posted by Chinese TikTok users that suggest people should purchase fashion items directly from factories in China have surfaced in the U.S. in recent weeks, according to Bloomberg. AFP via Getty Images

The videos claim many apparel brands, such as Nike and Lululemon, get their products from Chinese factories, with some praising the quality of Chinese manufacturing. AFP via Getty Images

They come amid ongoing heightened trade tensions between the U.S. and China and have, in some cases, been seeing large amounts of engagement on TikTok, according to the outlet.

President Donald Trump has hiked tariffs on goods coming from China multiple times since taking office, with the White House most recently upping them to 145% last week.

President Donald Trump has hiked tariffs on goods coming from China multiple times since taking office, recently upping them to 145% last week. AFP via Getty Images

China, in return, has lifted its tariffs on the U.S. to 125%. POOL/AFP via Getty Images

China has since lifted its tariffs on the U.S. to 125%.

Trump has put in place tariffs on other countries as well in recent weeks.

The White House unveiled a baseline levy of 10% on imported goods from foreign countries and “individualized reciprocal higher” tariffs on certain nations in early April.

The social media videos come amid ongoing heightened trade tensions between the U.S. and China, according to reports. AP

Then, on April 9, Trump said on TruthSocial that he would implement a 90-day pause and apply a 10% levy during that period on countries subject to the reciprocal tariffs that have not retaliated against the U.S.

“Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately,” he said at the time.

The post Videos reportedly telling US consumers to buy Chinese fashion items hit social media appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Meta’s Antitrust Trial Begins as FTC Argues Company Built Social Media Monopoly

admin — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 20:29:31 +0000

The Federal Trade Commission on Monday accused Meta of creating a monopoly that squelched competition by buying start-ups that stood in its way, kicking off a landmark antitrust trial that could dismantle a social media empire that has transformed how the world connects online.

In a packed courtroom in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, the F.T.C. opened its first antitrust trial under the Trump administration by arguing that Meta illegally cemented a monopoly in social networking by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp when they were tiny start-ups. Those actions were part of a “buy-or-bury strategy,” the F.T.C. said.

Ultimately, the purchases coalesced Meta’s power, depriving consumers of other social networking options and edging out competition, the government said.

“For more than 100 years, American public policy has insisted firms must compete if they want to succeed,” said Daniel Matheson, the F.T.C.’s lead litigator in the case, in his opening remarks. “The reason we are here is that Meta broke the deal.”

“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” he added.

Meta’s lawyers denied the allegations in opening arguments, countering that the company faces plenty of competition from TikTok and other social media platforms. The F.T.C. approved the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago, and it would set a dangerous precedent for the business world to try to unwind the mergers, the lawyers added.

“This case is a grab bag of F.T.C. theories at war with fact and at war with the law,” said Mark Hansen, the company’s litigator and a partner at the law firm Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick. “The facts are going to prove that the F.T.C.’s theories are all wrong.”

The trial — Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms — poses the most consequential threat to the business empire of Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s co-founder. If the government succeeds, the F.T.C. would most likely ask Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, potentially shifting the way that Silicon Valley does business and altering a long pattern of big tech companies snapping up younger rivals.

Still, legal experts cautioned that it might be challenging for the F.T.C. to win. That’s because the government must prove something unknowable: that Meta, formerly known as Facebook, wouldn’t have achieved the same success without the acquisitions. It is also extremely rare to try to unwind mergers approved years ago, legal experts said.

“One of the most difficult things for antitrust laws to deal with is when industry leaders purchase small potential competitors,” said Gene Kimmelman, a former senior official in the Obama administration’s Department of Justice. Meta, he added, “bought many things that either didn’t pan out or were integrated. How are Instagram and WhatsApp different?”

The efforts continue a yearslong bipartisan pursuit to curtail the vast power that a handful of tech companies have over commerce, the exchange of ideas, entertainment and political discourse. Despite attempts by tech executives to court President Trump, his antitrust appointees have signaled that they will continue the course.

The F.T.C.’s case against Meta is the third major tech antitrust lawsuit to go to trial in the past two years. Last year, the D.O.J. won its antitrust case against Google for monopolizing internet search. A federal judge is set to hear arguments over remedies, including a potential breakup, next week. The D.O.J. also completed a separate trial against Google for monopolizing ad technology, which is still being decided by a federal judge.

The Justice Department has also sued Apple, and the F.T.C. has sued Amazon, accusing the companies of antitrust violations. Those trials are expected to begin next year.

The case against Meta could affect its 3.5 billion users, who on average log onto Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp multiple times a day for news, shopping and texting. Instagram and WhatsApp have attracted more users in recent years as Facebook, Meta’s flagship app, has stopped growing.

F.T.C. Chairman Andrew Ferguson was in the courtroom to listen to the government’s opening statement. Meta’s chief legal officer, Jennifer Newstead, and Joel Kaplan, its chief global affairs officer, also attended. Alex Schultz, Meta’s chief marketing officer, sat at the litigator’s table and will serve as the company’s executive at the trial.

Presiding over the case is Judge James Boasberg, 62, the senior judge in the federal court. He is already in the national spotlight for rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to use a powerful wartime statute to summarily deport Venezuelan migrants it deemed to be members of a violent street gang.

Judge Boasberg has said he had never been a user of Meta’s apps, but was familiar with Facebook Live, which has been featured in criminal trials. He took notes as Mr. Matheson explained the government’s definitions of social networking and methodology to determine Meta was a monopoly. He was equally focused on Meta’s rebuttal of those definitions.

The F.T.C. argued that Mr. Zuckerberg said in 2006 that Facebook was used to connect “actual friends.” The F.T.C. has argued that Meta has had a monopoly in social networking since 2011 and that SnapChat was among the only comparable platforms to Facebook and Instagram.

Meta rejected the F.T.C.’s definition of social networking, saying it faces competition from TikTok, LinkedIn, YouTube and other platforms. Mr. Hansen said it competed with messaging apps for sharing content between friends and family.

He said more than half of all engagement on Facebook and Instagram is of videos, which put Meta squarely in competition with TikTok, the fast-growing short-video app. When TikTok was momentarily shut down in January, Meta saw a surge of usage to Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, which shows the company has plenty of competition.

“Meta has no monopoly,” Mr. Hansen said.

During what is projected to be an eight-week trial, the government and Meta are expected to tell competing versions of the company’s 20-year growth story.

The F.T.C.’s argument hinges on Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which forbids a company from maintaining a monopoly through anticompetitive practices.

The F.T.C. accused Facebook, as the company was previously known, of struggling to build a mobile app and fearing that Instagram would rapidly outpace it in popularity. The company overpaid when it purchased Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion, the F.T.C. argued.

In 2014, as WhatsApp grew, Meta offered to buy the company for $19 billion — also far above its market value, the government said.

The F.T.C. plans to highlight a paper trial of emails between Meta executives, alongside other evidence, to argue that the company bought the start-ups because they were threats.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Matheson mentioned documents, including what he described as a “smoking gun” February 2012 email by Mr. Zuckerberg, in which the chief executive discussed the rise of Instagram and the importance of “neutralizing a potential competitor.” In another email in November 2012 to the former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, Mr. Zuckerberg wrote, “Messenger isn’t beating WhatsApp, Instagram was growing so much faster than us that we had to buy them for $1 billion.”

The F.T.C. lawyer said Meta bought WhatsApp to keep it from being acquired by competitors like Google, which were trying to use a messaging service to launch a competing social network. Meta’s acquisition of WhatsApp was intended to build a “moat” around the company’s monopoly in social networking, Mr. Matheson said.

The government is set to call witnesses from Meta, as well as competitors, venture capitalists, economists and media industry executives. Mr. Zuckerberg was expected to be called as the first witness as soon as Monday. The F.T.C. said Ms. Sandberg, and Kevin Systrom, co-founder of Instagram, would testify this week.

The post Meta’s Antitrust Trial Begins as FTC Argues Company Built Social Media Monopoly appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Pressuring Migrants to ‘Self-Deport,’ White House Moves to Cancel Social Security Numbers

admin — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 20:46:06 +0000

Since taking office, the Trump administration has moved aggressively to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were allowed into the country under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Now, the administration is taking drastic steps to pressure some of those immigrants and others who had legal status to “self-deport” by effectively canceling the Social Security numbers they had lawfully obtained, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times and interviews with six people familiar with the plans.

The goal is to cut those people off from using crucial financial services like bank accounts and credit cards, along with their access to government benefits.

The effort hinges on a surprising new tactic: repurposing Social Security’s “death master file,” which for years has been used to track dead people who should no longer receive benefits, to include the names of living people who the government believes should be treated as if they are dead. As a result of being added to the death database, they would be blacklisted from a coveted form of identity that allows them to make and spend money.

The initial names are limited to people the administration says are convicted criminals and “suspected terrorists,” the documents show. But officials said the effort could broaden to include others in the country without authorization.

Their “financial lives,” the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner, Leland Dudek, wrote in an email to staff, would be “terminated.”

The move is the latest in an extraordinary series of actions by the Trump administration, pushed by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to harness personal data long considered off limits to immigration authorities in order to advance President Trump’s vision for a mass migrant crackdown. This week, several top officials at the Internal Revenue Service moved to resign after the tax agency said it would help locate undocumented immigrants.

In another previously unreported development, Mr. Dudek in February reached an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security that would provide the last known addresses of 98,000 people to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency responsible for deporting undocumented immigrants, other documents and interviews show. Personal information held by Social Security had been closely guarded under previous administrations, according to 12 current and former officials who said the agency had not engaged in such widespread data sharing with immigration authorities before.

By using Social Security data to blacklist immigrants, the administration is conscripting a broadly popular agency — one that exists to send benefits primarily to retired Americans and people with disabilities — in its effort to unwind what Mr. Trump has derided as the “open border” policies of his Democratic predecessor.

The new enforcement role for Social Security is raising fears that faulty data could result in people, including American citizens, mistakenly or improperly being placed on the list, upending their financial lives, according to interviews with current and former employees.

“Immigration enforcement is not within the scope of the Social Security Administration,” said Jason Fichtner, who held several senior positions at Social Security, where he was appointed by President George W. Bush. “The potential for errors can be very consequential.”

Elizabeth Huston, a White House spokeswoman, said the changes at Social Security would help advance the president’s immigration goals. “President Trump promised mass deportations, and by removing the monetary incentive for illegal aliens to come and stay, we will encourage them to self-deport,” she wrote in a statement. “He is delivering on his promise he made to the American people.”

Many changes at the Social Security Administration are being driven by Mr. Musk, who has spouted unfounded conspiracy theories about fraud perpetrated by undocumented immigrants, and about the agency sending billions of dollars to dead people. Mr. Trump has picked up many of those claims.

The billionaire, a top adviser to Mr. Trump, has also said without evidence that Democrats used the agency to grant immigrants Social Security numbers, making them eligible for benefits that kept them in the United States so they could shift the country’s demographics.

At the same time, Mr. Musk’s DOGE team has targeted the Social Security agency for cuts, alarming beneficiaries. Staff reductions have hobbled some local field offices, and recipients say it has become harder to receive services. Now, under Mr. Trump, the agency is taking on an additional mission of immigration enforcement, including those who entered under the Biden administration, according to a senior White House official not authorized to speak publicly. Mr. Biden allowed many migrants to enter the country temporarily as a way to incentivize them to avoid crossing the border country illegally. Those people became eligible to work in the United States, receive Social Security numbers and in some cases receive federal benefits.

More than 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti came under one of the so-called parole programs during the Biden administration that allowed them to fly into the country, if they had financial sponsors and passed security checks. Another 900,000 migrants used CBP One, a phone application used by the Biden administration, to enter at ports of entry and were given the opportunity to remain and work in the United States.

The Trump administration has targeted both programs. The program allowing migrants to fly in is scheduled to end later this month — and with it legal status for migrants already here, pending court challenges. Trump administration officials have also begun to revoke the parole of migrants who entered with the app.

On Tuesday, Aram Moghaddassi, a software engineer working for DOGE, sent Mr. Dudek the first batch of names to be added: a list of more than 6,300 immigrants Homeland Security officials had identified as having temporary legal status but who were now either on what he described as “the terrorist watch list,” or had been flagged as having “F.B.I. criminal records,” the documents show. The people’s parole status had been revoked that same day, Mr. Moghaddassi wrote.

The list included a 13-year-old and seven other minors, raising fears inside the agency that it was overly broad, according to one person familiar with the list who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

The White House official said that nearly 1,000 of the migrants had received federal benefits worth a total of roughly $600,000 before their parole was cut off, including Medicaid, unemployment insurance and federal student loans — an average of $600 per person.

Mr. Moghaddassi did not respond to a request for comment.

Although the agency has renamed the death list the “ineligible master file,” according to the documents reviewed by The Times, it has not developed a new way to mark people as being ineligible for benefits. For now the immigrants added are being given supposed dates of death, according to two people familiar with the process.

Martin O’Malley, who served as commissioner of the Social Security Administration under Mr. Biden, described the strategy as inhumane.

“It’s tantamount to financial murder,” Mr. O’Malley said.

Andrew Biggs, who served at the agency during the George W. Bush administration, suggested that such changes would help enact Mr. Trump’s immigration policy.

“If you favor immigration enforcement, this makes sense,” he said.

Trump administration officials have presented the change as a way to fight crime.

In a memo addressed to Mr. Dudek on Monday, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, wrote that the plan would “prevent suspected terrorists who are here illegally” from accessing “privileges reserved for those with lawful status.”

She did not say how the administration was determining if someone was a “suspected terrorist.”

The Death List

The Social Security agency’s death list is one of its most important data sets. Officials maintain it by collecting death records from state health records, funeral homes and family members, with roughly 3 million new death reports added each year. That prevents improper payments from going out.

Officials also share that information with other federal agencies to ensure that people who are dead no longer get benefits. And the Department of Commerce sells a version of the list to banks, credit bureaus and other financial institutions that want to avoid operating accounts for scammers using stolen Social Security numbers.

Those who have been put on the list mistakenly while still alive have reported calamitous effects, such as having their homes foreclosed and bank accounts canceled. In order to be removed, they have to go to field offices to try to prove their identity, a process known internally as “resurrection.” But even then the problem can take months to fix, or longer.

The repurposing of the death list, as well as the agency sharing addresses with immigration authorities, could face challenges under the federal tax and privacy laws that govern the maintenance of Social Security data, according to former officials and agency experts.

“The Social Security Administration has a legal obligation to keep accurate data to administer its programs, and strict laws govern the use and exchange of that data,” said Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

Trump officials have said that they want to modernize the nation’s deportation system by combining sets of data held by different agencies that have long been siloed, part of a broader effort to link personal data about the public scattered across the government.

Documents reviewed by The Times show that DOGE is playing an important role in that process, including in the agreement to share addresses that was struck in February.

Under the terms of that arrangement, immigration officials agreed to send thousands of Social Security numbers to the Social Security Administration, which would match them with personal data and send back associated addresses.

ICE collects as much information as possible to target, surveil and detain undocumented immigrants, although addresses in their records can sometimes be outdated.

Mr. Dudek gave permission to DOGE engineers and ICE leaders to use his agency’s data for law enforcement, the documents show. Michael Russo, the Social Security Administration’s then-chief information officer and a member of Mr. Musk’s team, also asked for the information to be sent to D.H.S. urgently.

Neither agency would confirm if the data had been sent.

Social Security regulations state that the agency may disclose information for law enforcement purposes in certain circumstances, including when a person has been indicted or convicted of “violent crimes,” and to investigate entitlement fraud. During the first Trump administration, the homeland security department, which oversees ICE, also pushed for broad access to Social Security data, but was rebuffed based on privacy concerns, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

Among the DOGE associates privy to the data-sharing agreement were Akash Bobba, a recent college graduate who gained access to the Social Security systems in early February, according to court records; Scott Coulter, who was named as Social Security’s chief information officer last month; and Marko Elez, an engineer who resigned from his government positions earlier this year after being linked to an X account with racist posts that pushed for immigration policies based on eugenics.

After Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance called for him to be brought back into DOGE, Mr. Elez was quietly rehired.

Kate Conger, Andrew Duehren and Miriam Jordan contributed reporting. Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

The post Pressuring Migrants to ‘Self-Deport,’ White House Moves to Cancel Social Security Numbers appeared first on Our Story Insight.