The Instagram Groomer Scandal That Nobody Cared About

 

 The Instagram Groomer Scandal That Nobody Cared About

How a 2019 internal Meta document exposed catastrophic child-safety failures, resurfaced in a 2025 antitrust trial, and then vanished from public outrageIn May 2025, during the closing weeks of the Federal Trade Commission’s long-running monopolization lawsuit against Meta Platforms, government lawyers introduced a document that should have detonated across every news cycle in America.The document was a June 2019 internal Meta presentation titled “Inappropriate Interactions with Children on Instagram.” Among its findings:

• Instagram’s recommendation engine was suggesting that accounts Meta itself had flagged as “groomers” (i.e., adults exhibiting predatory behavior toward children) follow minor users.
• Fully 27% of the accounts recommended to these groomer profiles belonged to children.
• Over a single three-month period in 2019, more than two million minor-held accounts were pushed to predatory adults by Instagram’s own algorithms.

For context, the baseline rate at which Instagram recommended minors to ordinary adult users was 7%. Groomers were being served child accounts at almost four times the normal rate.This was not a leak from an outside researcher or a whistle-blower. This was Meta’s own safety and integrity team reporting the numbers to senior executives — including, presumably, Mark Zuckerberg — six full years before the document saw daylight in court.Yet the revelation barely registered. A handful of technology and legal outlets (Bloomberg, The Verge, TechCrunch, The Washington Post) ran straightforward accounts. Cable news ignored it almost entirely. There were no emergency congressional hearings, no viral parent outrage on TikTok, no advertiser boycott. Even accounts that normally amplify QAnon-style “elite pedophile ring” narratives stayed strangely quiet.Two weeks later, on May 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ruled comprehensively in Meta’s favor and dismissed the FTC’s case. The groomer document was mentioned only in passing in his 97-page opinion, and then only to note that child-safety issues were outside the scope of an antitrust lawsuit.The scandal that should have ended careers evaporated in plain sight. How did we get here?1. The 2019 numbers in detailThe internal slides (first reported by Bloomberg and later corroborated by court filings) are stomach-churning when you read the raw data:

• Meta’s systems had already identified thousands of accounts as “groomers” based on behavioral signals (repeatedly attempting to contact minors, being mass-blocked or reported by teens, etc.).
• When these groomer accounts opened Instagram, the “People You May Know” and follow-suggestion surfaces fed them child accounts at a wildly disproportionate rate.
• 2,043,816 unique minor accounts were recommended to groomers in just 90 days.
• 500,000+ minors received follow requests from accounts that Meta’s own safety classifiers believed were predatory.

To be clear: Meta knew in real time that its core growth engine — the same recommendation algorithm that decides which accounts you see and which see you — was functioning as a predator-discovery tool. The company’s eventual fixes (restricting teen accounts to private-by-default in September 2024, rolling out “suspicious adult” blocks in 2021–2023, and adding parental consent requirements for under-16 setting changes) came years after the scale of the problem was documented internally.2. Why the 2025 courtroom moment fell flatThe FTC introduced the groomer document not because the antitrust trial was suddenly about child safety — it wasn’t — but to bolster a narrower argument: that Meta systematically under-invested in Instagram’s safety and integrity teams after acquiring the app in 2012, choosing instead to starve resources and prioritize growth and ad revenue.Testimony from Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom, former integrity VP Guy Rosen, and internal emails painted a consistent picture:

• Instagram’s child-safety and anti-abuse teams were kept deliberately small.
• In 2018–2019, Rosen repeatedly warned Zuckerberg that Instagram was “behind” Facebook on integrity issues and needed aggressive investment.
• Zuckerberg’s response, according to Rosen’s contemporaneous emails, was that Instagram had “another year or two” before it needed to catch up, and that resource allocation was “deliberate.”

The FTC’s theory: by refusing to fund adequate safety infrastructure, Meta preserved its monopoly — competitors who might have invested more heavily in trust and safety never got the oxygen to challenge Instagram’s dominance.Judge Boasberg was visibly uninterested. When FTC lawyers lingered on the groomer statistics, he interrupted: “Let’s move along.” In his final opinion he wrote that however “disturbing” the 2019 findings were, they were “years-old” and irrelevant to whether Meta possesses monopoly power in 2025.3. The broader collapse of public outrageSeveral converging factors explain why one of the worst corporate child-endangerment scandals in American history produced almost no sustained fury:a) Scandal fatigue and the Epstein paradox
By 2025 the American public had lived through Cambridge Analytica, Christchurch live-streaming, Myanmar genocide facilitation, Teen Vogue mental-health contagion stories, and endless whistle-blower dumps. Another document showing that a tech platform harmed children felt like old news. Paradoxically, the Epstein files and elite child-trafficking conspiracies had so thoroughly colonized the discourse that a concrete, documented, mass-scale failure by a household-name company seemed… mundane.b) The TikTok distraction
Meta successfully reframed the entire antitrust case around short-form video competition. Once Judge Boasberg accepted that Instagram Reels and TikTok are “reasonably interchangeable” in the eyes of users and advertisers, the 2019 groomer algorithm became ancient history — something that happened in a different market, on a different app, in a different era.c) Political realignment
The trial ended just as the second Trump administration was taking shape. Trump’s highly public dinner with Zuckerberg in September 2025 and his simultaneous push to preempt all state-level AI regulation (a massive favor to Meta, OpenAI, Google, and the rest of Big Tech) shifted elite attention away from historical sins and toward future deregulatory bonanzas.d) Judicial normalization of harm
Boasberg’s opinion contains a remarkable passage defending algorithmic video feeds over traditional social networking:

“They can sift through millions of videos and find the perfect one for her — and it is more likely to interest her than a humdrum update from a friend she knew in high school.”

In a single sentence the court ratified the transformation of Instagram from a tool for human connection into a slot machine — and declared the trade-off not merely acceptable but superior.4. The real story the trial accidentally toldThe FTC lost on the law, but the evidence it put into the public record is devastating:

• Meta documented, in 2019, that its recommendation engine was a predator-facilitation tool at industrial scale.
• Senior executives, including the CEO, were informed.
• The company consciously decided that fixing the problem was less urgent than continued hyper-growth.
• Six years later the primary “fix” remains opt-in teen accounts that still allow 16- and 17-year-olds to switch themselves to public with no oversight.

Meanwhile, Instagram continues to be the app where the overwhelming majority of in-person child sexual abuse material (CSAM) grooming begins, according to law-enforcement agencies and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). A 2024 NCMEC report found that 78% of minor victims who were groomed online leading to offline contact were first approached on Instagram — far ahead of Snapchat (12%) or any other platform.5. Where we are now (November 2025)Meta’s stock is near all-time highs. Instagram Reels ad revenue is growing 40%+ year-over-year. Teen daily active usage is at record levels. The company is aggressively integrating generative AI tools (Imagine, AI Studio, Llama-powered chatbots) that will make discovering and contacting strangers — including minors — even easier.Legislative efforts to impose genuine age verification, default private teen accounts with mandatory parental opt-in, or liability for algorithmic amplification of CSAM have all stalled. The most recent serious proposal — the Kids Off Social Media Act (S.3314) — died in committee in September 2025 after intense lobbying from Meta, Snap, and TikTok.And the 2019 groomer document? It is now just another unsealed exhibit in a dismissed case, gathering dust in the PACER database.The quiet burial of what should have been an era-defining scandal is, in its own way, the perfect epitaph for the Big Tech antitrust era that began with such hope in 2020 and ended, five years later, with a shrug.We learned everything we needed to know about how these platforms actually work — and then collectively decided we no longer had the political or cultural energy to do anything about it.

 

The American Exception: Why Mass Shootings Persist in the Land of Guns

By Apirate Monk

On a crisp October evening in 2017, the neon pulse of Las Vegas was shattered by gunfire. From a high-rise hotel room, a lone gunman unleashed a torrent of bullets on a crowd of 22,000 concertgoers, killing 60 and wounding over 400 in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. The nation reeled, as it had before and would again, grappling with a question that echoes across borders and generations: Why does the United States, a beacon of democracy and innovation, endure so many mass shootings?The answer, distilled through decades of research, is stark and singular: guns. The United States is an outlier not because its people are uniquely violent, its mental health care uniquely deficient, or its society uniquely fractured, but because it possesses an unparalleled arsenal of firearms—393 million civilian-owned guns, according to a 2023 estimate, enough for every man, woman, and child to be armed with one and then some. This staggering figure, coupled with permissive gun laws and a cultural reverence for firearms, creates a lethal equation that no other developed nation matches.

---

The Numbers Tell a StoryThe statistics are as chilling as they are clear. Americans, who make up roughly 4.4% of the global population, own 46% of the world’s civilian firearms. In 2023, the U.S. recorded 46,728 gun-related deaths, including 27,300 suicides and 17,927 homicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The gun death rate stood at 13.7 per 100,000 people, a slight decline from the 2021 peak of 14.8 but still among the highest in the developed world.Mass shootings, though a small fraction of these deaths, sear the national psyche. The Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as an incident where four or more people are shot (excluding the shooter), reported 656 such events in 2023, claiming 848 lives and injuring 2,800. A 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama, found that between 1966 and 2012, 31% of global mass shooters were American, despite the U.S. having a fraction of the world’s population. Adjusted for population, only Yemen, with its own high gun ownership rate, rivals the U.S. in mass shootings among nations with over 10 million people.Lankford’s research, updated in subsequent studies, reveals a striking correlation: a country’s gun ownership rate strongly predicts its likelihood of mass shootings. This holds true even when excluding the U.S. from the data, ruling out the notion that America’s violence is driven by some unique cultural defect. When controlling for homicide rates, the link between guns and mass shootings persists, suggesting that access to firearms, not a baseline propensity for violence, is the defining factor.

---

Debunking the MythsTheories about why America suffers so many mass shootings often point to factors like mental health, racial divisions, or a violent culture. Yet, these explanations crumble under scrutiny.Mental Health: The U.S. spends comparably on mental health care to other wealthy nations, with similar rates of mental health professionals and severe disorders per capita. A 2015 study estimated that only 4% of U.S. gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. Intriguingly, countries with high suicide rates, such as Japan, often have low mass shooting rates, undermining the idea that mental health crises drive such events.Racial Divisions: Some argue that America’s diversity fuels social discord, leading to violence. But European nations with varying levels of immigration show no consistent link between diversity and gun violence. In the U.S., mass shootings cut across racial lines, with shooters spanning ethnicities—69% white, 21% Black, and 8% Hispanic between 1982 and 2024, roughly proportional to population demographics.A Violent Culture: The notion that America is inherently more violent is a myth rooted in Hollywood’s gritty portrayals of urban crime. A seminal 1999 study by Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins found that U.S. crime rates are comparable to those of other developed nations; what sets America apart is the lethality of its crimes. A robbery in New York is as likely as one in London, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to die, thanks to the presence of guns.These findings converge on a single truth: guns amplify the consequences of human impulses—anger, despair, or ideology—turning fleeting moments of conflict into permanent tragedies.

---

The Global MirrorTo understand America’s anomaly, consider other nations. Switzerland, with a gun ownership rate of 27.6 per 100 people—half that of the U.S.—has a gun homicide rate of 7.7 per million, a fraction of America’s 33 per million in 2009. Swiss gun laws are stringent, requiring permits, background checks, and regular renewals, reflecting a culture that views gun ownership as a privilege earned through responsibility, not an inalienable right.Britain and Australia, both rocked by mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s, responded with sweeping reforms. After the 1987 Hungerford shooting, Britain banned semi-automatic rifles and tightened licensing. Australia, following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, enacted a buyback program that removed 650,000 firearms and imposed strict regulations. Both nations saw sharp declines in gun deaths, with Australia’s gun homicide rate dropping by 50% in the decade following reform.Contrast this with the U.S., where the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, which claimed 26 lives, including 20 children, failed to spur meaningful federal action. As British journalist Dan Hodges tweeted in 2015, “In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.” The U.S. remains one of only three countries—alongside Mexico and Guatemala—where gun ownership is presumed a right rather than a regulated privilege.China offers another lens. Between 2010 and 2012, a series of school attacks killed 25 people, mostly with knives, as guns are tightly restricted. In the same period, the U.S. saw five of its deadliest mass shootings, killing 78—12 times as deadly per capita. Japan, with just 0.6 guns per 100 people, recorded only 13 gun deaths in 2013, compared to America’s 33,888, making an American 300 times more likely to die by gun homicide or accident.

---

The Lethality of AccessThe U.S. gun ownership rate—120.5 firearms per 100 people—dwarfs that of any other nation. This abundance, paired with lax regulations, creates a landscape where deadly outcomes are not just possible but probable. A 2024 study in the Journal of Urban Health found that a 12.5% increase in state-level gun ownership correlated with a 34% rise in mass shooting fatalities, though not necessarily the number of incidents. This suggests that while the impulse to commit a mass shooting may exist anywhere, the availability of guns escalates the body count.Permissive laws exacerbate the issue. Unlike Switzerland, where gun ownership requires rigorous vetting, many U.S. states have minimal barriers to purchase. As of 2025, 27 states allow permitless concealed carry, and federal background checks often fail to flag domestic violence or mental health red flags due to incomplete databases. The result is a system where firearms are easily accessible to those who might misuse them.The economic toll is staggering. Gun violence costs the U.S. an estimated $557 billion annually, encompassing healthcare, law enforcement, and lost productivity. Yet, the human cost—families shattered, communities traumatized—defies quantification.

---

A Cultural DivideWhy does America cling to its guns? The answer lies in a cultural ethos that elevates firearms to a symbol of freedom and self-reliance. The Second Amendment, enshrined in 1791, is interpreted by many as a sacred guarantee, reinforced by a powerful gun lobby and a history of individualism. In a 2023 Pew Research survey, 71% of gun owners cited protection as their primary reason for ownership, a shift from the 1990s when recreation dominated.This belief persists despite evidence that guns often increase risk. Studies show that households with firearms are three times more likely to experience a suicide and twice as likely to face a homicide. Yet, 60% of Americans believe a gun in the home makes them safer, a figure that has doubled since 2000.Other nations weigh the trade-offs differently. Australia’s buyback program, though controversial, was embraced as a public safety necessity. Britain’s restrictions reflect a societal consensus that individual rights must bow to collective security. In the U.S., the calculus tilts toward personal liberty, even at a cost of 128 daily gun deaths.

---

The Path ForwardThe data is unequivocal: reducing gun access reduces gun deaths. A 2016 analysis of 130 studies across 10 countries found that gun control measures, such as background checks and waiting periods, correlate with lower gun homicide rates. Policies like Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), which allow temporary firearm removal from individuals deemed a risk, have shown promise in states like Connecticut and California. Community violence intervention programs, which address root causes like poverty and gang activity, have reduced shootings in cities like Oakland.Yet, resistance remains fierce. The National Rifle Association and its allies frame restrictions as an assault on constitutional rights, galvanizing a base that sees guns as integral to identity. Political polarization further stalls reform, with 2023 surveys showing 85% of Democrats supporting stricter laws versus only 30% of Republicans.The U.S. stands at a crossroads. It can continue to bear the weight of its exceptionalism—656 mass shootings in 2023 alone—or it can confront the reality that its gun culture, not its people, drives the bloodshed. The choice is not just about policy but about whether America can redefine what it means to be free.As the sun sets on another community scarred by gunfire, the question lingers: How many more must die before the nation reconsiders the cost of its guns?

---

Sources:

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2023 data
• Gun Violence Archive, 2023 mass shooting data
• Adam Lankford, 2015 study on global mass shootings
• Pew Research Center, 2023 gun ownership and policy surveys
• Small Arms Survey, 2018 and 2023 gun ownership estimates
• Journal of Urban Health, 2024 study on gun ownership and mass shootings
• Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, 1999 crime study
• Statista, 2025 gun violence and policy data
• Council on Foreign Relations, global gun policy comparisons