An expert @theguardian.com quotes: the “idea that WhatsApp can selectively and retroactively access the content of [end-to-end encrypted] individual chats is a mathematical impossibility."

Here's the letter from Meta's legal counsel to Quinn Emanuel, which represents both NSO Group and individuals making these categorically false claims. As numerous experts have noted -- their suit has no evidence and they should withdraw it or face a sanctions challenge.

Opinion | A Big Social-Media Shakedown The plaintiff bar says media platforms are liable for adolescent ills.

“Social media’s association with adolescent well-being was complex and nonlinear, varying by age and sex,” [a recent] study concluded.

That’s no doubt true, and it’s one reason these cases don’t belong in court.
www.wsj.com/opinion/soci...

The headline says "Zuckerberg blocked curbs on sex-talking chatbots for minors"

But the story cites a document that says "Zuckerberg believed that AI companions should be blocked from engaging in sexually 'explicit' conversations" w young people.

Huh?!

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh, @jeffhorwitz.bsky.social!?

The documents you cite in the story itself contradict this headline.

Social media time does not increase teenagers’ mental health problems – study Research finds no evidence heavier social media use or more gaming increases symptoms of anxiety or depression

This sure seems important.

“We know families are worried, but our results do not support the idea that simply spending time on social media or gaming leads to mental health problems – the story is far more complex than that,” said the lead author Dr Qiqi Cheng.

www.theguardian.com/media/2026/j...

WhatsApp's Will Cathcart responds to Elon Musk on the categorically false claim that WhatsApp messages are not encrypted.

And in a story purportedly about reputation management, odd that there’s nary a mention of how aggressively Raul Torrez is raising money for his political campaign off the back of his Meta criticism. Speaks volumes.

And there’s more. The headline: “Meta Seeks to Bar Mentions of Mental Health” - that’s just objectively false. Unequivocally.

Absolutely gobsmacked that the sole "expert" @laurengoode.bsky.social quoted here is a lawyer who, just last year, (in)famously condemned Meta and quit representing the company. So much for dispassionate reporting, @wired.com.

The District Court’s decision to reject the FTC's arguments in this matter is correct - and it recognizes the fierce competition we face. Meta will remain focused on innovating and investing in America.

Yet again, Reuters' reporting misrepresents the facts and mischaracterizes Meta's efforts and motivation. We are aggressively combatting scam activity via a multi-layered approach. Over the last 15 months, we've seen a more than 50 percent reduction in fraud and scams on platform.

Advertiser verification is just one tool to address scam activity. It is not a silver bullet; Reuters' own reporting shows this. Regardless, in concert with other efforts, we are expanding advertiser verification and in 2025 over 70 percent of ads revenue came from verified advertisers.

We use many methods to reduce scam activity and teams do check the Ad Library to find ads not caught by our enforcement. If team members see them, they remove the ads from Facebook and Instagram. Reuters would prefer we leave the scam ads up so people on Facebook and Instagram see them??

Leave it to @reuters.com and @jeffhorwitz.bsky.social to fault Meta for removing scam ads from Facebook and Instagram. What disingenuous reporting.

Speaking of stunts, one wonders if Raul Torrez plans to raise money off sending the letter today, just as he did a few weeks ago.

And you know what? That strategic direction led the teams responsible for addressing high risk harms to step up their efforts. The teams doubled their fraud and scam reduction goal and over the last 15 months, user reports of scam ads have declined by well over 50%.

Again, @reuters.com/@jeffhorwitz.bsky.social are misconstruing and misrepresenting the facts. With respect to frauds and scams, Mark Zuckerberg's "integrity strategy pivot" was to ↑ teams' goals and instruct them to redouble efforts to fight frauds and scams globally, not just from specific markets.

Perhaps it's because this fundamental disagreement the Times gymnastically teased out isn't actually one at all. We said on our last earnings call that our teams are working together to leverage AI/LLMs to improve our recommendation systems:

Blind-sourced gossip may make for an entertaining read, but it's just that, gossip. We told @nytimes.com on record: "the conversation these anonymous sources claim happened was met with surprised-disbelief by the people who supposedly had it." Wonder why the Times didn't include it.

Reports the outlet that definitely does not, ever, write clickbait-y, SEO-optimized headlines

Nope.

bsky.app/profile/andy...

You should hear what ex-Platformers say

Oh, Casey. @jeffhorwitz.bsky.social offered the caveat that “everything here relies on plaintiffs’ context." Would encourage you to please consider the same.
bsky.app/profile/andy...

A pilot of the study ran. Researchers analyzed the results and found the study didn't overcome those expectation effects. That was the "company's disappointment" (not the reductive way you frame it in your story) and the reason the project didn't continue.

Meta researchers were concerned about this going in. They spent months trying to design a study with the specific goal of overcoming what are called “expectation effects,” the idea that beliefs and expectations influence perception.

This is a confirmation of other public research ("deactivation studies") out there that demonstrates the same effect. It makes intuitive sense but it doesn’t show anything about the actual effect of using the platform.

The study you trumpeted in your story as some kind of smoking gun? What it found was people who believed using Facebook was bad for them felt better when they stopped using it.

At the very end of this thread, Jeff, you include a caveat that “everything here relies on plaintiffs’ context.” Turns out that was burying the lede.

More Boasberg: "Taking all the evidence together, it shows that personal social networking is not a separate product market. Instead, Meta competes in the market for social media, and that market includes — at minimum — TikTok and YouTube as well."