The debate over whether children under 16 should be barred from social media platforms has exposed sharp differences among bereaved families, digital safety experts, technology companies and former industry insiders, with disagreement centered on whether outright restrictions or stronger safeguards offer the most effective protection.

Among those supporting tighter restrictions is Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna Ghey was murdered in 2023. Ghey has argued that excessive social media use contributed to her daughter’s mental health difficulties, including anxiety, body dysmorphia and social isolation.Ghey said she supports raising the minimum age for social media access, describing current platforms as posing significant risks to children under 16.

While advocating tougher limits, she also stressed that restrictions alone would not address the broader challenges facing young people online.As founder of the Brianna Ghey Legacy Project, which promotes online safety education, Ghey said digital literacy must play a central role in any policy response.

She argued that children should be equipped with the skills and emotional maturity needed to navigate online spaces responsibly when they eventually gain access to social media.Others working in online safety have taken a different view. Derek Gannon, who served on the advisory board for Australia’s age-assurance technology trial before the country introduced a social media ban for under-16s, said the United Kingdom should avoid replicating the Australian approach.

Drawing on more than two decades of experience in child protection and digital safety, Gannon said Britain had already made progress through the introduction of age-verification measures on smartphones. He argued that outright bans risk pushing young users into less regulated online spaces where parental controls and platform safeguards are absent.

According to Gannon, teenagers under 16 continue to access social media despite Australia’s restrictions, but many are now doing so outside established systems designed to provide oversight and protection. He said younger users have a legitimate desire to connect online and that policymakers should focus on building trusted environments with strong moderation and safety mechanisms rather than excluding them entirely.

Gannon also warned that bans may discourage open communication between parents and children. He said some young Australians continue to use social media platforms but are less willing to discuss their online activities because they fear admitting they are breaking the rules. In his view, the Australian model should not be regarded as a template for other governments considering similar legislation.

The technology industry has also expressed reservations about broad prohibitions. Doniya Soni-Clark, an associate director at TechUK, said there is widespread opposition within the group’s membership to a blanket social media ban for under-16s.TechUK represents a range of major technology companies, including google and spotify.

Soni-Clark said one of the main concerns is determining which services would fall within the scope of any ban. She argued that policymakers should focus on regulating harmful features rather than targeting platforms solely because they operate within the social media sector.Instead of age-based prohibitions, Soni-Clark called for universal safety standards applicable across all digital services used by children.

Under such an approach, features found to create risks for young users would be subject to regulation regardless of the platform on which they appear.The industry’s position is also reflected by meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. Meta has argued that age verification should occur when users set up smartphones or download applications, with platforms providing additional age-assurance measures once accounts are created.

The company maintains that social media services can deliver age-appropriate experiences when supported by effective verification systems and safety controls.However, critics of the industry remain skeptical. Arturo Béjar, a former senior engineer and consultant at Meta, said social media companies have failed to justify the public trust placed in them.

Béjar was involved in recent legal proceedings in the United States in which courts found Meta liable for designing addictive products and misleading consumers about platform safety.Béjar supports restrictions on access to platforms that fail to meet clear safety requirements.

Rather than a universal ban, he advocates establishing objective standards that define what constitutes a safe online environment for young people.Under his proposed approach, companies would be required to comply with those standards within a specified timeframe. Platforms that failed to do so would lose access to younger users until necessary safeguards were implemented.

The differing perspectives illustrate the complexity facing policymakers as governments seek to balance child protection, digital participation and industry accountability.

While there is broad agreement that online safety for children requires stronger safeguards, there remains significant disagreement over whether age-based bans or stricter platform standards offer the most effective path forward.

The parody political group, launched on social media over the weekend, uses the cockroach as its symbol and has gained widespread attention through memes, mock campaign messages and satirical videos targeting political institutions and government policies. By Thursday, the movement’s Instagram account had amassed more than 15 million followers, surpassing the platform following of India’s ruling party.

The movement was founded by Abhijeet Dipke, a political communications strategist and student at Boston University, who said the initiative began as an online satire project but quickly evolved into a broader expression of public frustration among younger Indians.

According to Dipke, the rapid growth of the movement reflects concerns over employment opportunities, economic pressures and dissatisfaction with political institutions. He said many young people viewed the platform as a space to express grievances through humor and digital activism.

The controversy that sparked the movement originated from remarks made by Surya Kant during a court hearing last week. Kant criticized individuals he described as attacking institutions and compared some unemployed young people and activists to cockroaches, comments that quickly circulated across social media and drew criticism from many users.

The remarks came against a backdrop of growing concerns among sections of India’s youth over unemployment and disruptions to government recruitment processes caused by examination paper leaks. Critics online interpreted the comments as dismissive of the challenges facing younger generations.

Kant later clarified that his observations were directed at individuals obtaining fraudulent academic credentials and said he had not intended to insult unemployed youth. However, the explanation did little to stem the online backlash.

The parody party subsequently adopted the cockroach as a symbol of resilience, portraying the insect as capable of surviving difficult conditions and using it as a metaphor for citizens navigating economic and social challenges.

Its social media content has focused on corruption allegations, job market difficulties, governance issues and broader political dissatisfaction, themes that have resonated with large numbers of young internet users.
While the Cockroach Janta Party has no formal political status and does not contest elections, its rapid rise highlights the growing role of digital platforms as vehicles for political expression in India, particularly among younger demographics increasingly turning to satire and online communities to voice discontent.

The clips, many circulated through social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram and Telegram, show soldiers inside damaged homes and villages handling personal belongings, damaging property and posing for videos during military operations in southern Lebanon.

One widely shared image showed an Israeli soldier placing a cigarette in the mouth of a statue of the Virgin Mary in the Christian town of Debel. The Israeli military later confirmed the soldier had been identified and said disciplinary measures would be taken, describing the conduct as inconsistent with military values.

Another video from the same town appeared to show a soldier striking a statue of Jesus with a sledgehammer, prompting criticism internationally and within Israel.Benjamin Netanyahu said he was “stunned and saddened” by the incident, while the Israeli military said it viewed the act with “great severity” and would pursue “appropriate measures.”

The controversy intensified after Israeli newspaper Haaretz⁠ published testimonies from soldiers and commanders alleging widespread looting by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.

One soldier cited in the report said theft increased after military checkpoints were removed from certain areas.Another Israeli publication, Yedioth Ahronoth⁠, quoted a reservist alleging that troops took personal items including jewelry, blankets and photographs from homes near the Lebanese border.

The reports prompted a public warning from Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir, who ordered commanders to investigate incidents involving looting and social media posts by soldiers. Zamir said such behavior damaged the reputation of the Israeli military and instructed that potential criminal violations be referred to military police.

Human rights organizations and legal analysts say the growing volume of online material shared by combatants is reshaping the documentation of alleged wartime abuses, with soldiers increasingly recording and distributing footage themselves rather than such evidence emerging solely through witness accounts or later investigations.

Under international humanitarian law, pillage and destruction of civilian property during armed conflict are prohibited. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention bans pillage, while the International Criminal Court classifies pillaging during armed conflict as a potential war crime under the Rome Statute.

The incidents come as Israeli strikes continue across parts of Lebanon despite a temporary ceasefire announced on April 17. Israel says its operations target Hezbollah fighters and infrastructure, while Lebanese officials and humanitarian groups report extensive civilian damage and displacement.

Ori Goldberg told Arab News that Israeli society was facing a broader moral and political crisis over the conduct of the war, though he predicted accountability would likely remain limited to lower-ranking personnel.Residents returning to damaged communities in southern Lebanon described feelings of humiliation and violation extending beyond physical destruction.

A Lebanese resident identified only as Ali told Arab News that the looting of personal belongings carried emotional consequences that could not easily be repaired.

conflict

London — Street artist Banksy has confirmed that a newly installed sculpture in central London, depicting a man marching forward with his face entirely covered by a large flag, is his latest work, marking another rare public intervention by the elusive artist in the British capital.

The statue appeared overnight in Waterloo Place, Westminster, an area lined with official monuments and historic memorials near St James’s and close to government buildings and ceremonial landmarks. The work was first noticed on Wednesday, with Banksy’s signature scrawled at the base of the plinth, prompting immediate speculation over its authenticity.

Banksy confirmed authorship on Thursday through a post on Instagram, where he shared a video showing the sculpture being transported through London late at night before being installed at the site. The footage included images of nearby national symbols and landmarks, including the statue of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, British flags, a Beefeater guard and a traditional black cab, suggesting a deliberate visual dialogue between the new work and established representations of British identity and state symbolism.

The sculpture itself shows a male figure stepping forward from a plinth while holding a large billowing flag that covers his entire face. The concealment of the subject’s identity appears central to the composition, contrasting with the traditional commemorative statues surrounding it, many of which celebrate named military, royal and political figures.In the video posted by Banksy, a passerby is asked for his opinion of the statue and replies, “No, I don’t like it,” a brief exchange that adds to the artist’s longstanding use of public reaction as part of the presentation of his work.

The statue has been placed in Waterloo Place, near monuments to Edward VII, Florence Nightingale and the Crimean War Memorial, an area known for its formal statuary and ceremonial significance. Its location places it within one of London’s most symbolically charged public spaces, where imperial memory and national commemoration dominate the landscape.

Banksy, whose identity remains officially unconfirmed, is best known internationally for politically charged graffiti works that appear without warning in public spaces and often address war, migration, inequality, surveillance and state power. While murals and stencil works remain his most recognisable form, he has previously installed sculptural works in London.One of his best-known earlier sculptures, “The Drinker,” was installed on Shaftesbury Avenue in London’s West End in 2004.

The work was a satirical reinterpretation of Auguste Rodin’s “The Thinker,” showing the figure slumped with a traffic cone placed on its head. It was removed shortly after installation. In 2019, Sotheby’s withdrew the sculpture from auction following concerns over its ownership and removal history.Banksy’s most recent confirmed London work before the Waterloo Place statue was a mural unveiled in December showing two children lying on their backs and looking upward.

The mural appeared near Centre Point Tower and was widely interpreted as referencing homelessness, with the tower long associated with Britain’s housing inequality and homelessness debates. The children in the mural appeared to be pointing toward the building, linking the artwork to wider concerns over urban displacement and housing insecurity.

Another work appeared in September outside the Royal Courts of Justice, where Banksy created a mural showing a judge using a gavel to strike a protester lying defenseless on the ground. The image emerged during a period of heightened arrests linked to demonstrations involving signs associated with the proscribed activist group Palestine Action. The mural was later removed.

Court authorities said they were legally required to preserve the listed character of the building and could not retain the artwork permanently.The new Westminster sculpture arrives as public interest in Banksy’s identity has again intensified following a recent Reuters investigation that reported the artist was likely Robin Gunningham, a Bristol-born figure who has long been suspected of being Banksy.

Reuters said its findings aligned with a similar investigation first published by the Mail on Sunday in 2008.Gunningham has denied being Banksy. According to Reuters, Banksy’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the artist “does not accept that many of the details contained within your inquiry are correct” and stressed that anonymity remained essential because Banksy had been “subjected to fixated, threatening and inappropriate behaviour.”The preservation of anonymity has long been central to both the artist’s legal protection and public mythology.

Banksy’s work frequently appears without official permission and often challenges institutions of power, making anonymity both a practical necessity and a core part of the artistic identity itself.The new sculpture’s use of a face hidden behind a national flag may also reinforce that theme, placing concealment, identity and public symbolism at the centre of the work.

Unlike conventional monuments that celebrate recognisable individuals, the Waterloo Place installation removes personal identity altogether, replacing portraiture with obscurity.Its proximity to Churchill’s statue is particularly notable. Churchill remains one of Britain’s most politically contested historical figures, and monuments associated with imperial history and nationalism have been the subject of repeated public debate in recent years.

By placing a faceless flag-bearer within this landscape, the work appears to invite reflection on patriotism, public memory and the politics of visibility.No official statement has been issued by Westminster authorities regarding the installation or whether it will remain permanently in place. As with many Banksy works, questions over ownership, preservation and removal are likely to follow.

Public artworks by Banksy often trigger disputes between local councils, private property owners and cultural institutions over conservation and commercial value. Several murals have been removed for protection or sale, while others have been destroyed or painted over.

For now, the Waterloo Place statue remains in place, attracting visitors and photographers in one of London’s busiest ceremonial districts. Its sudden appearance, followed by Banksy’s confirmation, has once again turned a section of the capital into an open-air site of interpretation, where the meaning of the work is shaped as much by public debate as by the sculpture itself.

Lawmakers in Turkiye have begun debating a draft law that would restrict access to major social media platforms for children under the age of 15, reflecting a broader global push to regulate digital exposure among minors.

The proposed legislation would require platforms including YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram to prevent users below the age threshold from opening accounts. Companies would also be mandated to implement age-verification systems and provide parental control tools designed to regulate children’s online activity.

The bill forms part of a wider legislative package currently under consideration in parliament, though officials have not indicated how long deliberations are expected to continue. If adopted, the law would place new compliance obligations on both social media platforms and online gaming companies operating in the country.

The government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has framed the proposal as a measure to address risks associated with children’s online engagement, including exposure to harmful content and threats to privacy. Mahinur Ozdemir Goktas, the minister for family and social services, has said the initiative prioritizes safeguarding minors from digital risks.

Under the draft, platforms would be required to respond swiftly to content deemed harmful and ensure that systems are in place to limit underage access. Online gaming companies would also need to appoint local representatives in Turkiye to ensure adherence to regulatory requirements. Enforcement mechanisms could include fines and reductions in internet bandwidth imposed by the national communications authority on companies that fail to comply.

The proposal has drawn criticism from opposition lawmakers, particularly the Republican People’s Party, who argue that restrictions alone are insufficient and advocate for policies grounded in children’s rights and digital education. Critics have also pointed to the broader context of internet governance in Turkiye, where authorities have previously imposed restrictions on online communication during periods of political tension.

In 2025, access to online platforms was curtailed during protests linked to the detention of Ekrem Imamoglu, highlighting concerns among rights groups about the potential overlap between child protection measures and broader controls on digital expression.

Turkiye’s proposal aligns with a growing international trend toward stricter regulation of minors’ access to social media. In Australia, restrictions introduced in December led to the removal of millions of accounts identified as belonging to users under 16. Similarly, Indonesia has begun enforcing rules banning children under 16 from accessing certain digital platforms associated with risks such as cyberbullying, online fraud, and harmful content.

European countries including Spain, France and the United Kingdom are also considering or implementing measures aimed at limiting children’s exposure to unregulated online environments, reflecting increasing scrutiny of the impact of social media on young users.

The Turkish legislation, if passed, would place the country among a growing group of governments seeking to impose age-based access controls on digital platforms, while also raising questions about enforcement, technological feasibility, and the balance between child protection and digital freedoms

Toupees, long associated with poor aesthetics and social stigma, are re-emerging in the form of modern “hair systems”, driven by advances in design, changing attitudes toward male grooming, and the influence of social media.

Industry data and practitioner accounts indicate rising demand for these non-surgical hair replacement options, particularly among men experiencing pattern baldness.Hairpieces have existed for millennia, with evidence of their use traced to ancient Egypt. Toupees, which differ from full wigs by covering only part of the scalp, originated in 18th-century Europe.

The term derives from the French word “toupet”, meaning a tuft of hair. Their popularity peaked in the mid-20th century, with Time magazine estimating that more than 2.5 million men in the United States wore toupees by 1970.

However, their use declined as cultural perceptions shifted, influenced in part by ridicule in popular media and the growing social acceptance of shaved heads.Despiethat decline, hair loss remains widespread.

Estimates cited in clinical practice suggest that male pattern baldness affects between 30% and 50% of men by age 50 and up to 80% over a lifetime. Fabian Martinez, a trichologist and manager at the London Hair Clinic, said that emotional responses to hair loss remain significant.

He reported that clients across professions, including law and entertainment, have expressed distress over balding and reluctance to adopt a shaved appearance. According to Martinez, there remains a “misconception” that men should accept baldness without seeking alternatives.

Recent developments in hairpiece manufacturing have altered the market. Modern hair systems are typically constructed from human or synthetic hair attached to lace or polymer-based membranes designed to replicate the appearance of scalp skin. These systems are adhered using medical-grade adhesives and can be tailored to match an individual’s natural hair colour, density and style.

Practitioners say the improved realism and durability distinguish them from earlier products, which were often criticised for their artificial appearance.Market indicators point to renewed consumer interest. Google search trends show a marked increase in queries for “hair systems” since 2025.

Aderans, a manufacturer whose subsidiary Trendco has produced hairpieces since 1965, reported a 43% year-on-year increase in male customers purchasing such systems in 2025. The company attributed this growth partly to the visibility of hair transformation content on social media platforms.

Online content has played a measurable role in shaping consumer behaviour. Posts tagged with “#toupee” on Instagram number in the hundreds of thousands, with some videos attracting millions of views. Emily Alexis Ann Cheney, a California-based stylist known online as the “Toupee Queen”, produces videos documenting client transformations from partial or advanced baldness to full hair coverage.

Viewer responses to these videos are predominantly positive, often focusing on perceived natural appearance and aesthetic improvement.Consumers cite these visual demonstrations as influential. Jon McSherry, a 46-year-old from Lincoln, said he decided to adopt a hair system after watching before-and-after videos online.

He described a mismatch between his physical appearance and how he felt, noting that his hair loss had become more pronounced in his forties. His experience reflects a broader trend of individuals seeking immediate, non-invasive solutions.Barbers and clinics have begun incorporating hair systems into their services.

Thomas Robinson, owner of Tom’s Barbers in Lincoln, said he introduced the offering two years ago after observing demand among clients with thinning hair. He currently serves around 40 customers, each paying more than £600 for a system. Robinson said improvements in product quality and affordability had contributed to uptake, describing the results as immediate and predictable.

Hair systems compete with other hair restoration methods, particularly surgical transplantation. Hair transplant procedures involve relocating follicles from one part of the scalp to another and are typically performed under local anaesthetic.

The UK’s National Health Service states that such procedures are generally safe when conducted by qualified practitioners in regulated settings, though it notes risks including infection, bleeding and allergic reactions. Costs vary widely, ranging from £1,000 to £30,000, with private sector averages reported at approximately £4,820.

Lower-cost procedures are available abroad, particularly in Turkey, where state media reports typical prices around $2,000.Greg Williams, a surgeon and spokesperson for the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, said that while complications from transplantation are uncommon, the procedure often requires repeat interventions due to the progressive nature of hair loss.

He noted that scarring, temporary numbness and infection can occur, though serious complications are rare. Williams added that patients are typically advised to use medication long-term to preserve existing hair.He also highlighted differences in outcomes between surgical and non-surgical approaches.

According to Williams, hair transplants may not achieve the same density as hair systems, particularly in cases of advanced hair loss. As a result, he said hairpieces are often discussed as part of the informed consent process, especially for patients seeking fuller coverage.Some users cite flexibility as an advantage of hair systems.

Unlike surgical interventions, they are not permanent and can be replaced or removed. Paul McCafferty, a 51-year-old from Edinburgh, said he initially adopted a hair system as a short-term solution but continued using it after achieving satisfactory results. He reported that improved products allowed longer use, with some systems lasting up to a year under proper maintenance.

Maintenance requirements include periodic cleaning, rebonding and replacement. Practitioners advise gentle washing and adherence to care guidelines to ensure durability. Robinson said his clients include individuals with active lifestyles, including those who swim, exercise regularly or participate in water sports, suggesting that properly maintained systems can withstand physical activity.

However, hair systems are not without limitations. In January, during a boxing match between Jarrell Miller and Kingsley Ibeh, Miller’s hairpiece became dislodged and was removed mid-fight. Industry practitioners attributed the incident to possible application issues or insufficient time for adhesive bonding prior to intense activity.

Despite such cases, users report growing confidence in the reliability of modern systems. McSherry said initial concerns about detachment diminished with use, adding that the system felt secure and indistinguishable from natural hair.

He attends monthly maintenance sessions, though frequency varies depending on individual needs and lifestyle.

A Los Angeles jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive digital products that contributed to harm suffered by a young user, marking the first case of its kind to reach trial and result in a verdict.

The jury awarded $6 million in damages to the plaintiff, with Meta ordered to pay 70% of the total and YouTube responsible for the remainder.The decision followed nearly nine days of deliberations after a six-week trial in Los Angeles superior court.

Jurors heard testimony from company executives, expert witnesses on addiction and social media, whistleblowers, and the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court filings as KGM.

The 12-member jury returned a 10-2 decision in favor of the plaintiff on all key questions, including whether the companies were negligent and whether their product designs were a substantial factor in causing harm.

Jurors also concluded that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings about potential risks associated with prolonged use.

KGM testified that she began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram, owned by Meta, at nine. She told the court that her use of these platforms became compulsive and had negative effects on her mental health.

According to her testimony, she experienced depression and engaged in self-harm by the age of 10.At 13, she was diagnosed by a therapist with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, conditions she attributed to her prolonged exposure to content and interactions on the platforms.

She also described strained relationships with family members and difficulties in school, which she linked to her social media usage.Her legal team argued that platform features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay functions were intentionally designed to maximize user engagement and create dependency.

During closing arguments, the plaintiff’s lawyer characterized these features as mechanisms that encourage prolonged use, likening them to engineered systems aimed at sustaining attention.

The plaintiff’s lawyers said the case reflected broader patterns affecting young users, arguing that similar harms have been reported by thousands of individuals and families. They stated that the verdict represented accountability for what they described as known risks associated with platform design.

Both Meta and YouTube said they would appeal the decision and rejected the jury’s findings. A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the verdict and maintained that teen mental health is influenced by multiple factors that cannot be attributed to a single platform.

The company said it remains confident in its efforts to protect younger users online.A spokesperson for YouTube also disputed the outcome, stating that the case mischaracterized the platform. The company described YouTube as a responsibly designed streaming service rather than a social media network and said the allegations presented in court were inaccurate.

Throughout the trial, both companies denied wrongdoing. They argued that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges were influenced by factors outside their platforms, including personal and environmental conditions. These arguments were rejected by the jury in its final determination.

The ruling comes amid increasing legal scrutiny of large technology companies over the impact of their products on younger users. The case is part of a broader set of consolidated lawsuits in California involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts.

The cases target multiple platforms, including Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap, over alleged harms linked to social media use.TikTok and Snap reached settlements in the KGM case shortly before the trial began, leaving Meta and YouTube as the remaining defendants in this proceeding.

The verdict also follows a separate ruling issued one day earlier in New Mexico, where Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in civil penalties in a case involving allegations that it misled users about platform safety and enabled harm, including child exploitation.

Together, the rulings represent the first instances in which juries have held Meta legally accountable for harms linked to its platforms.KGM’s case is the first among more than 20 planned “bellwether” trials, which are intended to test legal arguments and assess how juries respond to evidence in similar cases.

These trials are expected to influence settlement discussions and shape legal precedent in ongoing litigation against social media companies.

The next bellwether trial is scheduled for July, while a separate series of federal cases involving hundreds of plaintiffs is set to begin in San Francisco in June.

The man, identified by police as Luzian Andrin Zgraggen, was detained on Saturday after being reported over an Instagram post in which he allegedly used repeated expletives to refer to Nyepi, Bali police spokesman Ariasandy said in a statement late Sunday.

Zgraggen is being investigated for spreading hate speech online, an offence under Indonesia’s updated criminal code that carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Police said they would confiscate his iPhone as part of the inquiry and question witnesses.Ariasandy did not specify the suspect’s age, in line with common Indonesian practice where some officials use a single name.

Nyepi, observed last Thursday on the island of Bali, is a key religious observance in the Hindu-majority region. The day requires residents and visitors to remain indoors for 24 hours for self-reflection, with work, travel, entertainment and even the use of electricity largely halted.

Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, has stepped up enforcement against behavior deemed offensive or unlawful by foreign visitors.

Bali, a major tourism destination attracting millions of international tourists annually, has seen a series of high-profile incidents involving foreigners in recent months.Last week, authorities arrested two French nationals and an Italian on allegations of producing and distributing pornography, which is prohibited under Indonesian law.

Russia has already banned Facebook for restricting access to Russian media while Instagram was blocked after Meta said it would allow social media users in Ukraine to post messages urging violence against Russian President Vladimir Putin and troops Moscow sent into Ukraine on Feb. 24.

Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.