Big Tech companies have often been accused of promising more than they deliver, particularly when it comes to protecting user safety. Few issues illustrate this concern more starkly than the protection of children online.
A recent BBC investigation alleged that Instagram, owned by Meta, carried content depicting the sexual exploitation of children in India. Even more disturbing were allegations that paid advertisements promoting such content appeared on the platform. The investigation also reported the existence of accounts allegedly featuring child sexual abuse material (CSAM), as well as other non-consensual sexual content.
Meta has strongly denied the allegations. In response to a media query from TheNews21, the company’s communications team directed this publication to its official statement, in which Meta categorically denied that it would “knowingly and deliberately target ads featuring children to people based on an inappropriate interest in children.” The company also stated that it actively detects and removes child exploitation content using technology, specialist teams and partnerships with child safety organisations.
Nevertheless, the controversy raises a much larger question than the allegations themselves.
Can global technology companies effectively regulate themselves while simultaneously protecting vulnerable users?
The allegations have generated widespread public concern in India, prompting strong reactions from journalists, lawmakers and child safety advocates. Television journalist Arnab Goswami was among those who publicly called for stricter action against Meta following the BBC investigation.
The Government of India also responded swiftly. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reportedly directed Meta to remove the objectionable advertisements from Instagram and sought an explanation from the company. Under Indian law, the circulation of child sexual abuse material is illegal, making the allegations particularly serious if established.
The current controversy also does not exist in isolation.
Over the years, Meta has repeatedly faced criticism over issues ranging from privacy and misinformation to user safety. While the company has consistently defended its policies and investments in content moderation, the latest allegations have once again reignited the debate over whether voluntary self-regulation by Big Tech companies is sufficient when the safety of children is at stake.
The present controversy also invites a broader examination of Meta’s record on user safety.
Over the years, the company has faced repeated criticism over issues ranging from privacy and misinformation to the protection of vulnerable users. While Meta has consistently defended its policies and highlighted investments in artificial intelligence, human moderation and child safety initiatives, critics argue that these efforts have often followed public controversies rather than prevented them.
Former Meta executive Sarah Wynn-Williams, in her book Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed and Lost Idealism, offers one of the most detailed insider accounts of the company’s culture. She alleges that Facebook offered advertisers the opportunity to target teenagers aged 13 to 17 during periods when they were most emotionally vulnerable. According to her account, these included moments when young users reportedly felt “worthless”, “insecure”, “stressed”, “defeated”, “anxious”, “stupid”, “useless” and “like a failure.” These allegations first emerged publicly in 2017 and have continued to fuel debate over the ethical responsibilities of digital platforms.
Whether or not one accepts every criticism made against Meta, the latest controversy inevitably revives questions about whether commercial priorities can sometimes conflict with user welfare. Meta has consistently disputed allegations that it knowingly compromises user safety and maintains that protecting users—particularly children—remains one of its highest priorities.
Meta is not the only technology company to face such scrutiny.
Amazon, for example, was fined US$886.6 million by Luxembourg’s National Commission for Data Protection in 2021 over alleged violations of European Union data protection laws. Amazon denied wrongdoing and challenged the decision, as it has done in response to other regulatory actions over the years.
The significance of these examples lies not in suggesting that every allegation against every technology company is necessarily proven. Rather, they illustrate a growing global pattern in which regulators, courts and civil society are increasingly demanding greater accountability from companies whose platforms influence billions of people every day.
Meta’s response to the recent controversy reflects this continuing debate. In its statement, the company acknowledged that “no system is perfect” and that determined criminals continue attempting to exploit online platforms, including advertising systems.
That observation is undoubtedly true.
However, acknowledging that determined criminals exist does not entirely answer the central concern raised by critics: whether sufficient safeguards are in place to detect, prevent and remove such content before vulnerable users are exposed to it. As social media platforms continue to expand their influence across societies, public expectations regarding transparency, accountability and user safety inevitably become higher.
The controversy surrounding Meta also raises another important question: Is this problem unique to one platform, or does it reflect a wider failure of digital governance?
Retired Director General of Police Praveen Dixit believes the latter is true.
Speaking to TheNews21 during two separate conversations, Mr. Dixit argued that the circulation of child sexual abuse material, non-consensual sexual content and other forms of illegal online activity is not confined to Meta-owned platforms. According to him, similar abuse can be found across several social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), as well as encrypted messaging applications such as Telegram and Signal.
“The problem is much larger than one company,” he observed. “It is part of a global ecosystem where illegal content generates enormous financial incentives for criminal networks.”
Mr. Dixit believes governments can no longer rely solely on technology companies to regulate themselves. Instead, he suggests that law enforcement agencies should be given stronger institutional mechanisms to respond quickly when harmful content is detected.
Among his recommendations is the creation of dedicated reporting hotlines through which citizens can immediately report child sexual abuse material and other dangerous online content. He also argues that once verified requests are made by law enforcement agencies, platforms should remove such material within a clearly defined timeframe—ideally between three and six hours.
Where companies repeatedly fail to comply with lawful requests, Mr. Dixit believes governments should consider invoking existing legal provisions, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, wherever applicable.
During our second conversation, Mr. Dixit drew attention to another challenge that often receives less public discussion—the difficulty Indian law enforcement agencies face while dealing with technology companies headquartered overseas.
According to him, requests from Indian authorities frequently require lengthy coordination across jurisdictions before action is taken. While platforms sometimes respond more quickly in matters involving communal violence or gambling-related content, cooperation in other categories can often be slower. In his view, effective enforcement remains one of the biggest challenges in regulating global digital platforms.
Mr. Dixit also warned that the misuse of digital platforms extends beyond child sexual abuse material. Social media platforms and encrypted messaging applications are increasingly being exploited for radicalisation, organised crime and other forms of unlawful activity. Addressing these threats, he argued, requires stronger cooperation between governments, technology companies and international law enforcement agencies.
Not every reader may agree with all of Mr. Dixit’s recommendations. Nor should they. Public policy benefits from debate.
However, his observations reinforce a larger reality: protecting children online cannot depend exclusively on voluntary commitments by technology companies or periodic public assurances issued after controversies emerge.
The Meta controversy is therefore about far more than one investigation, one platform or one company.
It raises fundamental questions about accountability in the digital age.
Technology companies possess extraordinary technological capabilities and unprecedented global influence. With that influence comes an equally significant responsibility. Governments, regulators, law enforcement agencies and civil society all have important roles to play, but the first responsibility for keeping digital platforms safe must remain with those who design, operate and profit from them.
Ultimately, public trust will not be built through carefully worded statements or crisis management alone. It will depend upon consistent transparency, meaningful cooperation with lawful authorities, and a demonstrable commitment to protecting those who are least able to protect themselves.
If the latest controversy leads to stronger safeguards, greater accountability and a renewed commitment to child safety across the digital ecosystem, it may yet serve a purpose beyond exposing a serious problem.
About the Author: Sonali Gill is a contributing writer at TheNews21. A writer, editor and communications professional, she focuses on technology, public policy, digital governance and social issues. Her work explores the intersection of innovation, regulation and public interest, with an emphasis on evidence-based analysis and responsible journalism.
