Congress Slams Zuckerberg: Meta Accused of Monetizing Drug Ads Targeting Teens on Instagram
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is back in the hot seat over drug ads on Facebook and Instagram. Photo by Chung Sung-Jun / Getty Image.
Key Takeaways
- Congressional lawmakers have written to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about illegal drug ads on Facebook and Instagram.
- In January, a Senate hearing on social media harms previously grilled Zuckerberg over the issue.
- However, research by the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) has found that illegal drug ads remain prevalent on Meta’s social media platforms.
After the Wall Street Journal reported that Meta had failed to prevent ads on Facebook and Instagram from directing users to illegal drug marketplaces, a bipartisan group of lawmakers have demanded answers from CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
In a strongly worded letter, 19 members of Congress accused the firm of being complicit in the trafficking of illicit drugs, with especially dangerous consequences for children and teenagers.
Social Media Drug Ads Bypass Meta Content Moderation
The issue of drug advertisements on Facebook and Instagram first came to the public’s attention in March when the Journal reported that federal prosecutors were investigating Meta for facilitating the sale of illegal narcotics.
Responding to the allegations, Meta said it proactively cooperates with law enforcement authorities to combat the drug trade on its platforms.
Yet despite the firm’s reassurances, on July 31, the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) published an investigation that identified over 450 ads on Instagram and Facebook that flouted the platforms’ rules.
While Meta has automatic systems in place designed to prevent the advertisement of illegal substances, many of the ads identified by TPP circumvented these measures. Tactics used by online drug dealers include using emojis and coded references to drugs in the ad text, rather than mentioning them by name. Many also consisted of images of the drugs in question.
The typical social media drug ad directs users to Telegram or another encrypted messaging app, where potential customers are encouraged to place an order, paying by crypto or direct transfer.
Zuckerberg Back in the Hot Seat
For Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the latest Congressional intervention reignites scrutiny of a controversy that has already seen him testify before a Senate hearing on social media harms.
During the hearing in January 2024, Zuckerberg and other social media bosses apologized to parents whose children were harmed by social media, including some who died of drug overdoses.
Obstacles to Holding Social Media Firms Accountable
“No one should go through the things that your families have suffered, and this is why we invest so much,” Zuckerberg said . Seven months later, lawmakers are once again grilling the Meta CEO over his perceived inaction.
Despite Congress’ efforts, there are limited legal mechanisms to hold platform operators accountable for harmful content hosted on their sites.
One issue raised in the January hearing was the ongoing debate over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996).
Section 230 was designed to protect website operators from liability for illegal content hosted on their sites and it offers broad indemnity to social media firms, not just for posts and comments, but for advertisements too.
Hinting at his frustration with how the statute has been interpreted, Senator Lindsey Graham called on Congress to “open up the courthouse door.”
“Until you do that, nothing will change. Until these people can be sued for the damage they’re doing, it is all talk,” he declared.
The Benefits of Section 230
While critics of the current liability regime argue that it threatens online safety, watering down Section 230 would undermine legal norms critical in fostering a diverse and open internet.
At the heart of the debate is the question of whether platforms should be legally obliged to employ human moderators, or whether automated systems are sufficient.
Proponents of Section 230 immunity argue that without it, the cost of moderation could cripple the social media ecosystem as we know it.
It would also undermine freedom of expression online, especially for platforms like X that favor a hands-off approach to content moderation.
In the 2023 case of Google vs Reynaldo Gonzales et al , the Supreme Court upheld the traditional reading of Section 230, ruling that Google couldn’t be held responsible for ISIS videos hosted on YouTube.
The case has consequences for Meta because threats to child safety sit alongside terrorism as one of the most emotive issues relating to liability for online content.
Both debates are prone to moral panic, which often places the blame for online crimes on platform operators. However, critics of Section 230 indemnity should remember why the law was enacted in the first place and what the costs of weakening it could be.
Meta Claims it’s Not Political as Mark Zuckerberg FlipFlops on Trump
