A group of former Twitter investors have prevailed at a federal civil trial over Elon Musk's actions amid his $44 billion acquisition of the social platform in 2022. A jury in San Francisco found Friday that tweets made by Musk about fake accounts on the platform had defrauded investors in the company. The jury sided with Musk on other allegations in the case. 

It's not yet clear how much Musk will owe in damages as a result of the case but, as the Associated Press reports, it could amount to billions of dollars. Jurors calculated that shareholders should get "between about $3 and $8 per stock per day." 

The class action lawsuit, one of several brought against Musk in the months following his takeover of the company, cited Musk’s tweets about fake accounts on the platform. Facing a sinking Tesla share price in the days after announcing he would buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, the suit said Musk made tweets and statements that were intentionally meant to drive down Twitter's share price in an attempt to renegotiate or exit the deal. 

The suit called out Musk's May 13, 2022, tweet that claimed the Twitter deal was "temporarily on hold" due to the number of fake accounts and bots on the platform, as well as one a few days later that suggested fake accounts might account for more than 20 percent of users. Twitter's stock dropped significantly following the May 13 tweet.

During the trial, Musk said the tweets were him "speaking his mind" and maintained that Twitter executives had "lied" about the number of bots on the platform, according to KQED. Former Twitter shareholders, on the other hand, said "they sold shares at deflated prices amid Musk’s public waffling." 

Musk faced several lawsuits during and after his $44 billion takeover of the company. That includes other shareholder lawsuits related to his delay in disclosing his stake in the company, as well as one from former executives related to unpaid severance benefits (Musk later settled those claims). He also narrowly avoided a trial over his attempts to back out of the deal. 

Pinterest's CEO has thrown his support behind an Australia measure banning social media for younger teens and is calling for governments around the world to implement similar bans. "Social media, as it’s configured today, is not safe for young people under 16," Ready writes in a piece published by Time. "We need a clear standard: no social media for teens under 16, backed by real enforcement, and accountability for mobile phone operating systems and the apps that run on them."

Ready is one of the highest-profile tech CEOs to come out in favor of a broad ban on social media for teens. That may also seem like a bold stance for someone who runs a platform with a user base that's more than 50 percent Gen Z, but Ready doesn't think that ban should apply to Pinterest. Pinterest, as he notes, already bars teens under 16 from accessing messaging features and other social features. It also makes teen accounts private by default. 

A spokesperson for Pinterest confirmed the company has no plans to change its own policies regarding users under 16, and said Pinterest considers itself a "visual search platform" not social media. Pinterest, like most social media and social media-adjacent companies, doesn't allow users under 13 to sign up. 

Social media or not, Pinterest has encountered child safety-related issues in the past. In 2023, NBC News reported that Pinterest's recommendation algorithm was surfacing photos and videos of young girls to adults who were "seeking" such content. Some of those users had created Pinterest boards featuring images of young girls with titles like "sexy little girls," their investigation found. The company made profiles for teens under 16 private and "not discoverable" six months later. 

According to Ready, Pinterest's popularity with younger users is proof its policies are also good for the company's business. "Our experience shows that prioritizing safety and well-being doesn’t push young people away; it builds trust," he writes.

A little more than a year after ditching third-party fact checkers and rolling back much of its proactive content moderation, the company says it will further "transform" its approach by drastically reducing the number of human moderators in favor of AI-based systems. The company says the change will happen "over the next few years," and will allow the company to catch more issues faster than its current approach. 

Meta didn't say how much of its contract workforce might be cut as it makes this transition. The company employs thousands of contractors around the world to review content flagged by its AI systems and user reports among other tasks. The company said that as it shifts its approach humans will "play a key role" in "critical decisions" and aid in training and other tasks.

"Experts will design, train, oversee, and evaluate our AI systems, measuring performance and making the most complex, high‑impact decisions," Meta said in an update. "For example, people will continue to play a key role in how we make the highest risk and most critical decisions, such as appeals of account disablement or reports to law enforcement."

The company has been testing LLM-based systems for content moderation for a while and says that early tests have had "promising" results. Another advantage is that its AI can handle languages used by "98% of people online," compared with the 80 languages currently supported by its moderation capabilities. 

While Meta says its underlying rules aren't changing, the new approach could dramatically change users' perception of how Meta enforces its policies. The company already relies heavily on AI for certain rules, and many users believe that these systems make too many mistakes and make it difficult for their appeals to reach a set of human eyes. On the other hand, Meta, which stands to save a lot of money if it significantly downsizes its contract workforce, says its new systems make "fewer over-enforcement mistakes" and catch more of the most "severe" violations. 

In the nearer term, Meta is introducing an AI powered "support assistant" that will help users with certain types of account issues. The chatbot, which is rolling out now in the Facebook and Instagram app, will be able to help users report content and manage appeals, reset passwords and manage other account settings. It will also be able to help people who get locked out of their accounts "starting with select cases in the US and Canada."

Meta AI should soon be better at surfacing international news content thanks to a set of new deals with publishers. The company announced new agreements with international outlets and offered additional details on its recent deal with News Corp. 

The latest deals bring French newspaper Le Figaro, Spanish media company Prisa and German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung into the fold. Together, along with News Corp, which runs a number of outlets in the UK, these sources should give Meta AI better access to timely info about world events. Meta didn't disclose terms of the deals — The Wall Street Journal previously reported the News Corp arrangement was worth up to $50 million a year — but it said that it intends to link out to the relevant news sources.

"These integrations will also facilitate easier access to information by linking out to articles, allowing you to visit these partners’ websites for more details while providing value to partners, enabling them to reach new audiences," Meta wrote in an update. The company has a long and sometimes fraught history with publishers as its priorities have shifted over the years. In the past, Meta has struck deals to pay publishers to produce live video and "instant articles" only to change course as news content has become less of a priority for Facebook.

Now, with Meta struggling to compete with its AI rivals, it seems the social media company is once again interested in news content. As the company notes in its blog post, Meta AI isn't always great at surfacing accurate and timely info. I noted this in 2024 when the company's assistant was repeatedly unable to accurately answer seemingly simple questions like " who is the Speaker of the House of Representatives." 

By striking a bunch of deals with publishers, the company should be better equipped to handle these kinds of queries (and hopefully more complex ones). How much benefit publishers will see from these arrangements, however, is an open question. While Meta says it will link out to the relevant news sources, there are lots of outside data points that raise serious questions about the effect AI search tools are having on web traffic.