billforJury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/24/tech/meta-new-mexico-trial-jury-deliberation
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption:
> The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversation — could make it harder for law enforcement to catch predators. Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.
The New York case has explicitly gone after their support of end-to-end encryption as a target: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warn...
Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security?
We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
> We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats
That can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?
In the sense that calling it E2EE gives people a warm fuzzy feeling and makes people send more sensitive information over the platform.
Has anyone actually audited it?
Probably their auditors? Lying about this would be tantamount to (very serious) securities fraud. Not sure what you're basing on your allegations on besides "trust me bro"
[dead]
I mean you can read it in your app and they're not just stored on your phone. E2E just means in transport from what I understand.
E2EE means end-to-end, where the ends are the participants in the chat. They can read it on your phone, but not on their servers. They need their app to separately transmit the plaintext to their servers to read it.
Which is technically possible.
> Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta
Absolutely. Particularly where they've been found to be guilty.
> but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption
Why _social media_ companies are backtracking. I'm extremely nonplussed by this outcome.
> concerns that allowing teens
Yes, because that's what we all had in mind when considering the victims and perpetrators of these crimes.
I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone.
I have 2 kids.
I have 2 kids.
The problem is all these ‘for the children’ arguments contain collateral damage.
I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.
Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.
[flagged]
Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. They take a look at the birthdate and wave me forward.
We need a way to do this online.
> Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name.
What are you talking about. Have you really never rented a car before?
Some establishments, as part of their business practice, require identification.
And many don't. Bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies.
We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too.
It honestly looks like an emotional panic. People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves.
Social media is like e-cigarettes in the sense that the shift toward nicotine salts (think Juul) around 2015 resulted in e-cigarettes becoming more dangerous and thus more age-restricted.
It's also like consumer credit cards. Remember that in 1985 Bank of America just mailed out 60,000 unsolicited credit cards to residents of Fresno, CA without application, age verification, or identity check. They just landed in people's mailboxes, including those of minors. Eventually a predatory lending industry developed and we increased the age and ID requirements. My point is that systems can, and do become more dangerous overtime. Not all, but not none.
Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.
I'm not comfortable with the idea that children's private messages would be exposed to thousands of social media workers and government employees.
I have kids. I don't want creeps and predators spying on their conversations with friends.
The correct nuance here is...
* Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent)
* Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice)
In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus.
Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that without supervision / some setting that the user agent is operated by a child intend to allow their children to interact with strangers. This tends to work out better in more controlled and limited circumstances where the adults involved have the resources to provide suitable supervision.
At the same time, any requirements should apply only to commercial products. Community (gratis / not for profit) efforts presumably reflect the needs of a given community.
> Classifying accounts as child accounts
It's ok to drive Dad's truck unless he catches you and tells you no.