Tag: Instagram

News : Ad‑Free Facebook & Insta … For £3.99 Monthly

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta will let UK users pay a monthly fee to use Facebook and Instagram without adverts, introducing a lower‑priced “consent or pay” model in response to UK data protection guidance.

Users Offered A Choice

Meta has confirmed that UK users will soon be offered a choice, i.e., continue using Facebook and Instagram for free with personalised ads, or pay a monthly subscription to remove them. The subscription will cost £2.99 per month when accessed on the web, or £3.99 per month on iOS and Android. These rates will apply to a user’s first Meta account. If additional Facebook or Instagram accounts are linked via Meta’s Accounts Centre, extra accounts can be added to the subscription for £2 a month (web) or £3 a month (mobile). A dismissible notification will begin appearing to users in the coming weeks, giving adults over 18 time to review and decide.

When?

Meta has not provided an exact date for when the ad-free subscription will go live in the UK, but it has stated that it will begin rolling out “in the coming weeks” as of its official announcement on 26 September 2025.

How The Subscription Model Will Work

Meta (Facebook) says subscribing will essentially remove all ads from Facebook and Instagram feeds, Stories, Reels, and other surfaces. Meta says that subscriber data will no longer be used to deliver personalised advertising and the company has also stated that it is charging a higher price for mobile subscriptions due to Apple and Google’s in‑app transaction fees.

The subscription applies across all accounts linked to a user’s Meta Accounts Centre. This means that users managing both a personal and a business account, or other multiple accounts, can pay one primary fee and then add extra accounts at a reduced monthly rate.

People who choose not to subscribe will continue to see ads, but will retain access to existing tools such as Ad Preferences, activity-based targeting controls, and the “Why am I seeing this ad?” explainer.

Why Meta Is Making This Change

It seems that the subscription model is being launched in direct response to regulatory pressure in the UK. For example, Meta said the approach was developed following “extensive engagement” with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which has recently clarified that online personalised advertising should be treated as a form of direct marketing. Under UK data protection law, users have the right to object to their data being used in this way.

In a high-profile settlement earlier this year, Meta agreed to stop using the personal data of human rights campaigner Tanya O’Carroll for targeted advertising. The ICO publicly supported O’Carroll’s position and urged Meta to offer clearer choices to users over how their data is used. Meta now says the subscription offers a fair and transparent way for people to choose whether to consent to personalised advertising or pay to avoid it entirely.

The UK Regulatory Context

The ICO’s interpretation of data rights has shaped the new model. For example, its March 2025 statement emphasised that organisations must give people a way to opt out of their personal data being used for direct marketing, including targeted online ads. Following its settlement with Meta, the ICO confirmed that the company had significantly reduced the originally proposed subscription price and welcomed the introduction of the new model as an example of compliance with UK data protection obligations.

It should also be noted that the UK pricing tier is substantially lower than the EU equivalent, where Meta had introduced a similar subscription model in 2023 priced at around €9.99 per month. That model attracted regulatory criticism, fines, and calls for more privacy-friendly alternatives.

The European Backdrop

In April 2024, the European Data Protection Board published an opinion stating that “consent or pay” models must not pressure people into accepting data use. In their view, consent must be freely given and fully informed, and platforms like Facebook must offer real alternatives rather than a binary choice. Regulators have argued that due to Meta’s market dominance, users may feel they have no realistic option but to accept personal data tracking or start paying to keep using services that are widely embedded in social and professional life.

In April 2025, Meta was fined €200 million by the European Commission under the Digital Markets Act for failing to provide a compliant version of its subscription model across the EU. Meta is appealing the decision but has framed the UK rollout as an example of how “pro-innovation” regulatory engagement can lead to workable outcomes.

What It Means For Everyday Users

For individual users in the UK, the subscription appears to create a direct trade-off between privacy and cost. For example, those who do not want to see ads can now remove them for a relatively low monthly fee, particularly when compared to the higher pricing seen in Europe. The pricing structure may also appeal to users who manage multiple accounts, as they can cover all of them under one bundled subscription.

People who continue using the free tier will still see ads, but Meta says they will remain in control of how their data is used to shape ad experiences. Existing privacy tools will remain available, including options to turn off activity-based ad targeting and to manage interests and advertiser interactions.

And For Business Users?

UK business users who rely on Facebook and Instagram for customer engagement, lead generation, or ecommerce should not see significant disruption. The free tier remains intact, and most users are expected to continue using the platform without subscribing, at least initially.

However, business users who also use Facebook and Instagram for personal reasons may choose to pay for the ad-free experience. This could help reduce distraction, but it also raises questions for businesses managing multiple accounts. Meta’s Account Centre lets users link multiple profiles, but additional accounts incur a fee, potentially adding monthly costs for businesses using more than one profile across different functions.

Advertisers

The launch of the subscription model essentially introduces a new form of audience segmentation. People who pay for the ad-free experience will not be shown any ads and will also be excluded from data processing for advertising purposes. This means they will not be available for targeting, retargeting, or inclusion in lookalike audience models.

In practical terms, this could result in slightly smaller campaign reach, reduced effectiveness of retargeting strategies, and less data for ad performance optimisation. However, the actual impact will depend on how many people choose to subscribe. Meta has positioned the new subscription as a supplement rather than a replacement for its ad business, which continues to power most of its revenue and remains core to its UK economic contribution.

Competitors

The move follows broader industry trends, with other major platforms already offering ad-free tiers. For example, YouTube Premium removes all adverts across videos and music and charges more than Meta’s proposed rate. X (formerly Twitter) offers a Premium Plus plan to remove almost all ads, and Snapchat has experimented with removing ads from key surfaces in its Platinum plan.

Meta’s UK pricing is among the lowest, undercutting most other ad-free subscription options. This may give the company a competitive edge with privacy-conscious users and could create pressure on rivals to adjust pricing or introduce similar models.

A Compliance Measure … And An Opportunity

Meta has positioned the change as a regulatory compliance measure, but it also presents an opportunity to test new revenue streams and reduce legal exposure. By charging a relatively low price and tying it to UK-specific guidance, the company is attempting to avoid further fines and litigation while learning how users respond to a consent-based subscription model.

The pricing structure reflects wider industry dynamics, including the growing cost of mobile transactions and the limitations placed on data processing by new data laws. Meta has also used the announcement to promote the economic value of its advertising tools, saying its platforms supported over 357,000 jobs and £65 billion in UK economic activity in 2024 alone.

Others Who Will Be Watching Closely

Those likely to be most affected by or involved in the rollout include regulators, privacy campaigners, advertisers, and everyday users of the platforms. The ICO is expected to monitor how the subscription model works in practice and whether it meets legal standards for free and informed consent. Privacy groups may also be looking for evidence that Meta genuinely stops using subscriber data for advertising. Advertisers will be watching for any impact on campaign performance, particularly around reach and targeting. Rival platforms in the UK and beyond may also be studying how effectively Meta manages the balance between regulation, user experience, and revenue.

Concerns

Privacy experts have already raised some concerns that the model places a price tag on privacy, forcing people to pay to prevent their data being used for tracking and targeting. Critics argue that data protection rights should not depend on a person’s ability to pay. The ICO’s current position is that the subscription represents a valid approach to consent, but some legal observers suggest further scrutiny may follow if complaints emerge about how the choice is presented or how data is processed.

Campaigners also point out that a paid subscription will not necessarily solve deeper issues with surveillance advertising, including the scale of data collection and the risks it poses to vulnerable users. Others have noted that people in low-income groups, young users, and those with limited digital literacy may be less able to make informed decisions or afford the subscription, reinforcing digital inequality.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Meta’s new ad-free subscription introduces a clearer line between paid privacy and free access, but it also raises significant questions about fairness, regulation, and business impact. For UK businesses, the ability to continue reaching a large audience on Facebook and Instagram remains largely unchanged in the short term. However, if a growing number of users pay to avoid ads, the addressable audience for paid campaigns may begin to shrink, thereby making it harder for small firms to rely on low-cost, highly targeted advertising. Meta’s economic contribution to UK advertising is significant, but maintaining that value depends on how many users continue opting into the ad-supported model.

The low UK price point is likely to encourage adoption compared to similar schemes in the EU, and it gives Meta a way to meet regulatory demands without heavily disrupting its business model. It also gives other tech firms a benchmark for what regulators might accept in similar contexts. For regulators and privacy advocates, the coming months will be a test of whether offering a paid alternative is enough to uphold the principle of free and informed consent.

For users, the offer may feel fairer than being given no choice at all, but the framing still forces a trade-off that not everyone will find acceptable. For competitors, the low pricing could trigger reassessments of their own ad-free offerings. For campaigners, the subscription will not address wider concerns about surveillance-based business models, and for Meta, the rollout could either become a blueprint for future compliance or a flashpoint if uptake leads to new scrutiny.

Tech News : Trial To Break Up Zuckerberg’s Empire

Posted on by Paul Stradling

In a landmark antitrust trial now under way in Washington, the US government is trying to force Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing that its dominance of personal social networking is illegal and harmful to competition.

Meta in the Dock as Trial Gets Under Way

One of the most significant antitrust battles in US tech history is now under way as Meta (the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp) is facing off against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a legal showdown that could reshape not just its business but the entire social media landscape.

At the heart of the trial is the FTC’s demand that Meta be forced to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. These were deals that were made over a decade ago and which the Commission now argues were part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate competition. The outcome could see CEO Mark Zuckerberg ordered to break up the very empire he spent years building.

The trial (which started last week and is taking place in a federal court in Washington) is expected to last around eight weeks and is being presided over by Judge James Boasberg. While he previously described the FTC’s case as presenting “hard questions”, he has allowed it to proceed, suggesting at least some of the regulator’s arguments have merit.

A ‘Buy or Bury’ Strategy?

According to the FTC, Meta holds an illegal monopoly over what it calls the “personal social networking” market, i.e. a space defined by platforms where users connect and share with family and friends. While TikTok, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) dominate the entertainment and interest-based content space, the FTC argues that they are not substitutes for Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp.

As the FTC’s lawyer, Daniel Matheson, said in his opening statement: “They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them”. Mr Matheson pointed to internal emails from Zuckerberg in 2012 describing Instagram as “very disruptive” to Facebook and suggesting that “what we’re really buying is time”.

The FTC essentially contends that these acquisitions allowed Meta to cement its dominance and avoid the natural evolution of competition. As highlighted by Vanderbilt Law professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth: “The argument is the acquisition of Instagram was a way of neutralising this rising competitive threat to Facebook,” and that “He said it’s better to buy than to compete—it’s hard to get more literal than that.”

The Commission also claims Meta used its dominant position to reduce quality for users (with more ads, and fewer privacy protections) knowing that people had few realistic alternatives to switch to.

Meta Says It’s Built a Better Experience

Meta has pushed back hard in its defence. It says the FTC’s definition of the market is flawed, outdated, and ignores the huge competition it now faces. In court, Meta lawyer Mark Hansen argued that while Facebook and Instagram once dominated social interaction, that era has passed. “When TikTok went down, people went on Instagram,” Hansen noted, claiming this is evidence of genuine substitution and healthy competition. Meta insists it doesn’t hold a monopoly, and cites strong rival platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and even iMessage.

The company also highlights that its acquisitions helped Instagram and WhatsApp thrive. For example, Instagram now has more than 150 million users in the US, up from 30 million when Meta bought it for $1 billion in 2012. Also, WhatsApp, acquired in 2014 for $19 billion, has become one of the most used messaging platforms in the world.

“Any way you look at it, the consumers have been the big winners,” said Hansen. He pointed out that the platforms remain free to use and have never raised prices (which is typically a key indicator in monopoly cases).

Zuckerberg’s Memos

Despite Meta’s arguments, the FTC appears to be leaning heavily on Zuckerberg’s own words from more than a decade ago as part of its case. The FTC argues that it seems as though internal emails and memos appear to paint a picture of a leader worried about disruption and eager to eliminate threats early.

For example, in one 2012 exchange, Zuckerberg wrote that Instagram posed “a competitive threat” and that “buying them would neutralise that.” More recently, a 2018 memo revealed during the trial showed him considering the “extreme step” of spinning off Instagram to reduce regulatory scrutiny, though he ultimately opted for tighter app integration instead.

While such documents may show strategic foresight, they also appear to be fuelling the FTC’s central claim that Meta’s approach to competition is to “buy or bury”, and not to innovate and compete.

Politics and Power

The timing of the trial also appears to be politically charged. For example, although the case was first filed during Donald Trump’s previous term as president, it’s now being prosecuted under his second administration, with Trump ally Andrew Ferguson serving as FTC Chair.

Zuckerberg (who, with other major U.S. tech leaders, was invited to President Trump’s inauguration) has reportedly lobbied Trump directly to settle the matter, even making a number of moves that appear to court favour, such as donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund and settling a lawsuit over Trump’s account suspensions with a $25 million payment.

However, recent reports suggest political pressure may be mounting behind the scenes. Two FTC commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, were removed by Trump earlier this year, prompting legal action and accusations of interference.

“If they don’t want to do a favour for his political allies, they’re on the chopping block as well,” Slaughter said in a recent interview, warning of a chilling effect on independent regulatory bodies.

What’s at Stake for Meta and the Industry?

The implications of the case are pretty significant. If the FTC wins, Meta could be forced to spin off both Instagram and WhatsApp, a move that would strike at the heart of its business model.

Research from eMarketer suggests that Instagram alone accounts for nearly 50 per cent of Meta’s US advertising revenue. As Jasmine Enberg, principal analyst at eMarketer said: “Meta in many ways needs Instagram to keep up engagement and continue attracting advertisers”. She also pointed to Facebook’s waning popularity among younger users, predicting a 2 per cent decline in the 18-24 age bracket this year.

A forced breakup would not only hit Meta financially but could set a powerful precedent for other Big Tech firms. Google is already facing its own antitrust challenges, and a win here for the FTC could embolden further action against dominant players in the digital economy.

It would also raise serious questions for businesses that rely on Meta’s ad ecosystem. For example, a breakup might lead to fragmented platforms, potentially reducing the efficiency of ad targeting and raising costs for advertisers.

Good News for Some

However, for smaller competitors and newer entrants, a win for the FTC could be a long-awaited boost as it could open up a market that many believe has been closed off by scale, data advantages and aggressive acquisitions.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

While the final verdict is still weeks away, this trial is already casting a long shadow over the tech industry, regulators, and digital marketers alike. If the FTC succeeds in forcing Meta to break up, it would mark the most aggressive antitrust intervention in Big Tech since Microsoft’s legal battles in the early 2000s. However, unlike the desktop software era, the personal social networking space is notoriously fluid, and the lines between services are far more blurred. That makes this case especially tricky to call.

For Meta, the stakes appear to be existential. Losing Instagram and WhatsApp wouldn’t just mean waving goodbye to two of its most valuable assets, but it could also destabilise the core business that still leans heavily on advertising revenue from those platforms. Instagram alone is now the jewel in Meta’s crown, driving both user engagement and brand loyalty, particularly among younger demographics that are drifting away from Facebook. A forced divestiture would be a massive blow, not only financially but strategically, as Meta tries to maintain relevance in a landscape dominated by short-form video and mobile-first experiences.

For regulators, a win would be hugely symbolic. It would signal that acquisitions (however old) are still fair game for scrutiny if they’re found to have harmed competition. That could embolden antitrust agencies in the US, UK and beyond to look more closely at how market dominance is maintained in the digital age, not just how it’s acquired. UK regulators, such as the CMA, are already showing increased willingness to scrutinise tech deals. If Meta is forced to unwind these acquisitions, it could strengthen the hand of those arguing for a tougher approach to platform power globally.

For UK businesses, particularly those that rely on Meta’s ad tools to reach customers, the effects could be mixed. On one hand, a breakup might reduce the sophistication of cross-platform targeting and analytics, leading to higher ad costs or lower returns. On the other, increased competition in the social media space could create more choice, better service, and possibly lower pricing in the long term. Advertisers might have to adapt, but some may welcome the chance to diversify away from a single dominant ecosystem.

Consumers, too, are watching with interest. While the services themselves are unlikely to disappear, their experience could shift depending on the outcome. If spun off, Instagram and WhatsApp might pursue different strategies, perhaps with more emphasis on privacy, less cross-platform data sharing, or even new features aimed at differentiating themselves in a newly competitive market.

As for the wider tech industry, the message is that past deals aren’t necessarily safe, especially if they’ve helped a company solidify control over a market. Whether the FTC can actually prove that Meta’s dominance has harmed consumers remains to be seen, but the case has already revived debates over how we define competition in the digital age, and how much power is too much.

Video Update : Back Up Your Facebook & Instagram Data

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Once again, we continue in the theme of backing up your social-media accounts. Last week it was LinkedIn and this time it’s Facebook and Instagram. Not only is it important, it’s free.

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It’s best to download it first]

Tech News : Meta Hunting Celeb-Scams

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has revealed a new plan to combat the growing number of fake investment scheme celebrity scam ads by using facial recognition technology to weed them out.

What’s the Problem? 

Fake ads featuring celebrities, known as “celeb-bait” scams by Meta, have become a plague on social media platforms in recent years, particularly ads promoting fraudulent investments, cryptocurrency schemes, or fake product endorsements. These scams use unauthorised images and fabricated comments from popular figures like Elon Musk, financial expert Martin Lewis, and Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart to lure users into clicking through to fraudulent websites, where they are often asked to share personal information or make payments under false pretences.

Also, deepfakes have been created using artificial intelligence to superimpose celebrities’ faces onto endorsement videos, producing highly realistic content that even seasoned internet users may find convincing. For example, Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert and a frequent victim of such scams, recently told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he receives “countless” notifications about fake ads using his image, sharing that he feels “sick” over how they deceive unsuspecting audiences.

How Big Is the Problem? 

The prevalence of scams featuring celebrity endorsements has skyrocketed, reflecting a global trend in online fraud. In the UK alone, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) reported that celebrity-related scams have doubled since 2021, with these frauds costing British consumers more than £100 million annually. According to a recent study by the Fraud Advisory Panel, financial scams leveraging celebrity endorsements rose by 30 per cent in 2022 alone, a trend fuelled by increasingly sophisticated deepfake technology that makes these scams more believable than ever.

Not Just the UK 

The impact of celeb-bait scams is even more significant worldwide. In Australia, for instance, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) reported that online scams, many featuring unauthorised celebrity endorsements, cost consumers an estimated AUD 2 billion in 2023. Social media platforms, particularly Facebook and Instagram, are frequent targets for these fraudulent ads, as scammers exploit their large audiences to reach thousands of potential victims within minutes.

The US has also seen similar issues, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) noting that more than $1 billion was lost to social media fraud in 2022 alone, a figure that has increased fivefold since 2019. Fake celebrity endorsements accounted for a large proportion of these losses, with reports indicating that over 40 per cent of people who experienced fraud in the past year encountered it on a social media platform.

Identify and Block Using Facial Recognition 

In a Meta blog post about how the tech giant is testing new ways to combat scams on its platforms (Facebook and Instagram), and especially celeb-bait scams, Meta stated: “We’re testing the use of facial recognition technology.” 

According to Meta, this new approach will identify and block such ads before they reach users, offering a stronger line of defence in the ongoing battle against online scammers. The approach represents one of Meta’s most proactive attempts yet to address a persistent problem that has impacted both high-profile public figures and unsuspecting social media users alike.

How Will Meta’s Facial Recognition Work? 

Meta’s facial recognition ad-blocking approach will build on its existing AI ad review systems, which scan for potentially fraudulent or policy-violating ads, but will introduce an additional layer of facial recognition that will work to verify the identities of celebrities in the ads. If an ad appears suspicious and contains the image of a public figure, Meta’s system will compare the individual’s face in the ad to their official Facebook or Instagram profile pictures. When a match is confirmed, and the ad is verified as a scam, Meta’s technology will delete the ad in real-time.

David Agranovich, Meta’s Director of Global Threat Disruption, emphasised the importance of this shift in a recent press briefing, saying: “This process is done in real-time and is faster and much more accurate than manual human reviews, so it allows us to apply our enforcement policies more quickly and protect people on our apps from scams and celebrities.” Agranovich noted that the system has yielded “promising results” in early tests with a select group of 50,000 celebrities and public figures, who will be able to opt out of this enrolment at any time.

According to Agranovich, the swift, automated nature of the system is critical to staying ahead of scammers, who often adapt their techniques as detection methods improve. The facial recognition system is not only intended to remove existing scam ads but to prevent them from spreading before they can reach a wide audience. Agranovich has highlighted how a rapid response of this kind is essential in a digital landscape where even a brief exposure to these ads can lead to significant financial losses for unsuspecting victims.

When? 

This new measure is set to begin its rollout in December 2024.

Meta’s Track Record and Renewed Focus on Privacy 

It’s worth noting, however, that Meta’s deployment of facial recognition technology marks a return to a tool it abandoned in 2021 amid concerns over privacy, accuracy, and potential biases in AI systems. Previously, Facebook used facial recognition for suggested photo tags, a feature that drew criticism and prompted the company to step back from the technology. This time, Meta says it has implemented additional safeguards to address such concerns, including the immediate deletion of facial data generated through the scam ad detection process.

Privacy 

Privacy remains a contentious issue with facial recognition technology. Addressing privacy concerns over its new approach, Meta has stated that the data generated in making the comparison will be stored securely and encrypted, never becoming visible to other users or even to the account owner themselves. As Meta’s Agranovich says, “Any facial data generated from these ads is deleted immediately after the match test, regardless of the result.” Meta is keen to highlight how it intends to use the facial recognition technology purely for combating celeb-bait scams and aiding account recovery. In cases of account recovery, users will be asked to submit a video selfie, which Meta’s system will then compare to the profile image associated with the account. This verification method is expected to be faster and more secure than traditional identity confirmation methods, such as uploading an official ID document.

Scaling the Solution and Potential Regulatory Hurdles 

Meta’s new system is set to be tested widely among a larger group of public figures in the coming months. Celebrities enrolled in the programme will receive in-app notifications and, if desired, can opt out at any time using the Accounts Centre. This large-scale trial comes as Meta faces increasing pressure from regulators, particularly in countries like Australia and the UK, where public outcry against celeb-bait scams has surged. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently engaged in a legal dispute with Meta over its perceived failure to stop scam ads, while mining magnate Andrew Forrest has also filed a lawsuit against the company for allegedly enabling fraudsters to misuse his image.

Martin Lewis Sued Facebook 

In the UK, personal finance guru Martin Lewis previously sued Facebook for allowing fake ads featuring his image, ultimately reaching a settlement in which Meta agreed to fund a £3 million scam prevention initiative through Citizens Advice. Nevertheless, Lewis continues to push for stronger regulations, recently urging the UK government to empower Ofcom with additional regulatory authority to combat scam ads. “These scams are not only deceptive but damaging to the reputations of the individuals featured in them,” Lewis stated, highlighting the broader impact that celeb-bait scams have beyond financial loss.

Despite the New Tech, It’s Still ‘A Numbers Game’ 

Despite Meta’s new approach, the company still faces a huge challenge. For example, Agranovich has admitted that, despite robust safeguards, some scams will still evade detection, saying, “It’s a numbers game,” and that, “While we have automated detection systems that run against ad creative that’s being created, scam networks are highly motivated to keep throwing things at the wall in hopes that something gets through.” As scam networks find new ways to bypass detection, Meta acknowledges that the technology will require continuous adaptation and improvement to keep up.

What About Concerns Over AI and Bias? 

In deploying facial recognition technology, Meta has also faced scrutiny over potential biases in AI and facial recognition systems, which have been shown to have variable accuracy across different demographics. The company claims that extensive testing and review have been undertaken to minimise such biases. Also, Meta has said it will not roll out the technology in regions where it lacks regulatory approval, such as in the UK and EU, indicating a cautious approach towards compliance and accountability.

Meta says it has “vetted these measures through our robust privacy and risk review process” and is committed to “sharing our approach to inform the industry’s defences against online scammers.” The company has also pledged to engage with regulators, policymakers, and industry experts to address ongoing challenges and align on best practices for facial recognition technology’s ethical use.

What Does This Mean for Your Business? 

Meta’s latest move to integrate facial recognition technology into its anti-scam measures signals a significant shift toward tackling the complex world of celeb-bait scams. However, as Meta ventures back into using facial recognition, it’s clear the company must balance robust security with privacy, a concern that continues to shadow the rollout. While the technology holds promise, particularly in increasing detection speed and reducing the frequency of celebrity scams, it will undoubtedly be scrutinised by both users and regulators who have long questioned the use of facial recognition on such a broad scale.

For everyday Facebook and Instagram users, Meta’s new facial recognition feature could mean greater security and fewer encounters with fake ads that exploit public figures for fraudulent schemes. If successful, the initiative could lessen the risk of users falling victim to scams that impersonate well-known personalities to promote fake investments or products. The added layer of facial recognition should serve as a safeguard, reducing the frequency of these fake ads in users’ feeds and building a safer browsing experience across Meta’s platforms.

For celebrities and public figures, this development is a significant step towards reclaiming control over their public images, which are often misused without permission. The new system will help protect their reputations, preventing unauthorised use of their likenesses in fraudulent ads. Figures like Martin Lewis, who has been vocal about the damage these scams cause, could benefit as Meta finally implements more targeted measures to shield them from unauthorised endorsements.

The impact of this initiative may extend to legitimate advertisers as well. Meta’s crackdown on celeb-bait scams will likely improve ad integrity on its platforms, helping businesses that rely on Facebook and Instagram to reach audiences without the risk of association with deceptive content. A cleaner, more trustworthy advertising environment could enhance user trust and, in turn, benefit brands that promote genuine products and services. As Meta focuses on strengthening its ad review systems, legitimate advertisers may find their content reaching more engaged, security-conscious users who are less wary of the ads they encounter online. In this way, Meta’s facial recognition technology could not only shield users and celebrities from scams but also foster a more secure, credible marketplace for businesses across its platforms.

Tech Insight : New Privacy Features For Facebook and Instagram

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta has announced the start of a roll-out of default end-to-end encryption for all personal chats and calls via Messenger and Facebook, with a view to making them more private and secure.

Extra Layer Of Security and Privacy 

Meta says that despite it being an optional feature since 2016, making it the default has “taken years to deliver” but will provide an extra layer of security. Meta highlights the benefits of default end-to-end encryption saying that “messages and calls with friends and family are protected from the moment they leave your device to the moment they reach the receiver’s device” and that “nobody, including Meta, can see what’s sent or said, unless you choose to report a message to us.“  

Default end-to-end encryption will roll-out to Facebook first and then to Instagram later, after the Messenger upgrade is completed.

Not Just Security and Privacy 

Meta is also keen to highlight the other benefits of its new default version of end-to-end encryption for users which include additional functionality, such as the ability to edit messages, higher media quality, and disappearing messages. For example:

– Users can edit messages that may have been sent too soon, or that they’d simply like to change, for up to 15 minutes after the messages have been sent.

– Disappearing messages on Messenger will now last for 24 hours after being sent, and Meta says it’s improving the interface to make it easier to tell when ‘disappearing messages’ is turned on.

– To retain privacy and reduce pressure on users to feel like they need to respond to messages immediately, Meta’s new read receipt control allows users to decide if they want others to see when they’ve read their messages.

When? 

Considering that Facebook Messenger has approximately 1 billion users worldwide, the roll-out could take months.

Why Has It Taken So Long To Introduce? 

Meta says it’s taken so long (7 years) to introduce because its engineers, cryptographers, designers, policy experts and product managers have had to rebuild Messenger features from the ground up using the Signal protocol and Meta’s own Labyrinth protocol.

Also, Meta had intended to introduce default end-to-end encryption back in 2022 but had to delay its launch over concerns that it could prevent Meta detecting child abuse on its platform.

Other Messaging Apps Already Have It 

Other messaging apps that have already introduced default end-to-end encryption include Meta-owned WhatsApp (in 2016), and Signal Foundation’s Signal messaging service which has also been upgraded to guard against future encryption-breaking attacks (as much you realistically can), e.g. quantum computer encryption cracking.

Issues 

There are several issues involved with the introduction of end-to-end encryption in messaging apps. For example:

– Governments have long wanted to force tech companies to introduce ‘back doors’ to their apps using the argument that they need to monitor content for criminal activity and dangerous behaviour, including terrorism, child sexual abuse and grooming, hate speech, criminal gang communications, and more. Unfortunately, creating a ‘back door’ destroys privacy, leaves users open to other risks (e.g. hackers) and reduces trust between users and the app owners.

– Attempted legal pressure has been applied to apps like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act. The UK government wanted to have the ability to securely scan encrypted messages sent on Signal and WhatsApp as part of the law but has admitted that this can’t happen because the technology to do so doesn’t exist (yet).

There are many compelling arguments for having (default) end-to-end encryption in messaging apps, such as:

– Consumer protection, i.e. it safeguards financial information during online banking and shopping, preventing unauthorised access and misuse.

– Business security, e.g. when used in WhatsApp and VPNs, encryption protects sensitive corporate data, ensuring data privacy and reducing cybercrime risks.

– Safe Communication in conflict zones (as highlighted by Ukraine). For example, encryption can facilitate secure, reliable communication in war-torn areas, aiding in broadcasting appeals, organising relief, combating disinformation, and protecting individuals from surveillance and tracking by hostile forces.

– Ensuring the safety of journalists and activists, particularly in environments with censorship or oppressive regimes, by keeping information channels secure and private.

– However, for most people using Facebook’s Messenger app, encryption is simply more of a general reassurance.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For Meta, the roll-out of default end-to-end encryption for Facebook and Instagram has been a bit of a slog and a long time coming. However, its introduction to bring FB Messenger in line with Meta’s popular WhatsApp essentially enhances user privacy and security and helps Facebook to claw its way back a little towards positioning itself as a company that’s a strong(er) advocate for digital safety.

For UK businesses, this move offers enhanced protection for sensitive data and communication, aligning with growing demands for cyber security and providing some peace of mind. However, the move presents further challenges and frustration for law enforcement and the UK government, potentially complicating efforts to monitor criminal activities and enforce regulations like the Online Safety Act. Overall, the initiative could be said to underscore a broader trend towards prioritising user privacy and security in the digital landscape, as well as being another way for tech giants like Meta to compete with other apps like Signal. It’s also a way for Meta to demonstrate that it won’t be forced into bowing to government pressure that could destroy the integrity and competitiveness of its products and negatively affect user trust in its brand (which has taken a battering in recent years).