What, exactly, does a social network do? Is it a website that connects people with one another online, a digital gathering place where we can consume content posted by our friends? That’s certainly what it was in its heyday, in the two-thousands.
Facebook was where you might find out that your friend was dating someone new, or that someone had thrown a party without inviting you. In the course of the past decade, though, social media has come to resemble something more like regular media.
Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, admitted as much during more than ten hours of testimony, over three days last week, in the opening phase of the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust trial against Facebook’s parent company, Meta.
The company, Zuckerberg said, has lately been involved in “the general idea of entertainment and learning about the world and discovering what’s going on.” This under-recognized shift away from interpersonal communication has been measured by the company itself.
During the defense’s opening statement, Meta displayed a chart showing that the “percent of time spent viewing content posted by ‘friends’ ” has declined in the past two years, from twenty-two per cent to seventeen per cent on Facebook, and from eleven per cent to seven per cent on Instagram.
'Facebook is no longer the culture', says Zuckerberg on fading relevance
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has long harboured concerns about Facebook’s waning cultural influence, according to internal emails exchanged with Facebook head Tom Alison in April 2022. The emails, presented in court this week as part of the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust case against Meta, offer insight into Zuckerberg’s thoughts on the platform’s long-term viability, Business Insider reported.
In one of the emails presented, Zuckerberg acknowledged that while Facebook’s user engagement remained steady in many regions, its broader cultural presence was eroding. “Even though the FB app’s engagement is steady in many places, it feels like its cultural relevance is decreasing quickly and I worry that this may be a leading indicator of future health issues,” he wrote.
Zuckerberg indicated that even strong performances by Meta’s other platforms — Instagram and WhatsApp — would not compensate if Facebook’s relevance continued to decline.
‘Friending’ no longer resonates with users
The Meta founder also pointed to a shift in user behaviour, noting that Facebook’s traditional model of ‘friending’ had lost appeal. “First, a lot of people’s friend-graphs are stale and not filled with the people they want to hear from or connect with,” Zuckerberg wrote in one of his emails.
He admitted his own preference for following influencers on Instagram or Twitter, suggesting that Facebook’s friend-based model might be making it less attractive compared to platforms emphasising the ‘following’ approach.
Radical ideas to restore relevance
In the email exchange, Zuckerberg proposed several strategies to make Facebook more relevant, including what he described as a “crazy idea” — resetting users’ friend graphs entirely and starting anew.
He also mentioned that Facebook’s focus on fostering communities through groups needed more refinement. “I’m optimistic about community messaging, but after running at groups in FB for several years, I’m not sure how much further we’ll be able to push this,” he mentioned.
Zuckerberg defends Instagram, WhatsApp
In a major antitrust trial, Zuckerberg took a stand to defend his company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has alleged that Meta used these said takeovers to suppress competition and maintain dominance in the social media space.
Zuckerberg, testifying as the first witness, argued the acquisitions were aimed at enhancing innovation and improving the user experience. He acknowledged that while Meta has evolved toward content discovery, connections with friends and family remain central to its mission. “Over time, the ‘interest’ part of that has gotten built out more than the friend part,” he said.
FTC trial could reshape Meta’s future
The FTC’s case could potentially force Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, marking a landmark moment in tech antitrust regulation. In opening arguments, FTC attorney Daniel Matheson claimed Meta eliminated competitive threats instead of facing them, leaving users with “no reasonable alternatives”.
Meta’s legal team countered, saying the company competes with platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and iMessage, and noted regulators initially approved both acquisitions. The FTC’s case relies heavily on internal emails from Zuckerberg, which he said were taken out of context. The trial, overseen by Judge James Boasberg, will feature testimony from several top tech executives and could reshape the future of Meta.
On May 9, 2025, Moscow held a grand military parade on Red Square to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War.
Approximately 27 foreign heads of state attended the Red Square parade, highlighting Russia’s influence on the international stage and signaling a break from Western diplomatic isolation. It also reinforced Russia’s ties with friendly nations. However, the parade was not merely a response to Western sanctions and containment. More importantly, it served as a powerful historical symbol and collective memory – a tribute to the immense sacrifices made for the victory in the global anti-fascist war, and a solemn reaffirmation of that great triumph and enduring honor.
At President Putin’s invitation, President Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Russia from May 7 to 10 and attended the Victory Day events. President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia signals a shared commitment by China and Russia to promote an accurate understanding of World War II history, defend the post-war international order centered on the United Nations, and uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. At the bilateral level, the two countries will continue to deepen their partnership through high-level exchanges, using the stability of their relationship to offset global uncertainty and advancing strategic coordination to safeguard international fairness and justice.
Eighty years ago, China and the Soviet Union fought side by side in the World Anti-Fascist War (World War II), forging a deep friendship through shared sacrifice. At this year’s military parade, President Putin praised the Chinese people’s significant contributions to the victory. In a signed article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, President Xi Jinping also emphasized the decisive roles played by both countries.
Today, Western countries manipulate ideology through historical nihilism, double standards, and discursive reconstruction, deliberately downplaying, distorting, or even rewriting the historical contributions of China and the Soviet Union in World War II. By reshaping the narrative, they seek to undermine the foundations of the post-war international order and perpetuate their global dominance.
Against this backdrop, the renewed call by the Chinese and Russian leaders to “jointly uphold a correct view of WWII history” serves as a powerful rebuke to historical revisionism and falsification. It reflects a shared strategic resolve to break the West’s monopoly on historical discourse and to defend international justice and collective memory. This is not only a shared responsibility to safeguard historical truth, but also a deep convergence between China and Russia in promoting the democratization of international relations, building a fair and equitable global order, and opposing unilateral hegemony.
On May 8, China and Russia signed a series of cooperation documents, including two major joint statements. The first focuses on further deepening the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era; the second is a joint statement on global strategic stability. In addition, the two heads of state witnessed the exchange of multiple cooperation agreements in areas such as education, investment, culture, and science and technology. These documents not only ensure the continuity and stability of bilateral ties at the strategic level, but also reflect the steady deepening of practical cooperation across key sectors.
The 'Joint Statement on Further Deepening the China-Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era' not only reaffirms the two countries’ firm commitment to safeguarding the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law, but also elevates the promotion of a correct view of World War II history to a strategic element of institutionalized bilateral cooperation. Key measures include jointly organizing commemorative events, conducting research and exhibitions on the crimes of Nazi Germany and Japanese militarism, locating the remains of fallen soldiers, restoring memorial sites, and deepening cooperation on WWII historical memory in education, archives, media, and youth exchanges.
The 'Joint Statement on Maintaining Global Strategic Stability' reaffirms the two countries’ consistent stance on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, safeguarding the international arms control and disarmament system, and more.
It also systematically establishes a comprehensive dialogue and cooperation framework that includes nuclear security, strategic deterrence balance, and governance of militarization of emerging technologies. Notably, this statement marks the first time that biological security, chemical weapons control, and military ethics in artificial intelligence have been included in the global strategic stability agenda, signaling a significant breakthrough for China and Russia in shaping a new international security paradigm for the future.
At the bilateral cooperation level, President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin witnessed the exchange of 28 cooperation documents between China and Russia, covering areas such as trade, biosafety, investment protection, digital economy, scientific facilities, quarantine, media, film, and youth exchanges.
This broad agenda strengthens traditional sectors like energy and trade, while strategically positioning both countries in emerging fields like digital economy and scientific innovation, and deepening people-to-people ties through cultural, educational, and youth cooperation.
Amid unprecedented global changes, the trajectory of China-Russia relations continues to attract international attention. Some speculate about a formal alliance or potential rifts due to diverging interests. In response, China and Russia have demonstrated through deepening cooperation that they are building a new type of major-country relationship based on “highest mutual trust, coordination, and strategic value.” As President Xi has emphasized, their relationship is driven by clear historical logic, strong internal momentum, and shared civilizational heritage, not aimed at or influenced by any third party.
History is not only a repository of memories of the past, but also serves as the foundational basis for contemporary international relations, shaping value identities and acting as the spiritual pillar for a fair and just international order. The outcomes of World War II crystallized into the cornerstone of multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core, establishing the fundamental principles that govern modern international relations.
These principles, derived from the collective sacrifices of the war, have provided a framework for diplomacy, conflict resolution, and global cooperation. As the world faces new challenges, the importance of these historical lessons becomes increasingly evident – reminding us that the stability of the global order rests on our ability to respect shared values, adhere to international norms, and safeguard the multilateral system. In this context, the victory in WWII is not just a historical event, but an enduring legacy that continues to shape global governance and the international system.
As the renowned Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky once said, “Those who refuse to learn from history will ultimately pay a heavy price for their ignorance and arrogance.” China also has a saying: “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” The significance of history lies in guiding us forward. Upholding the achievements of WWII and safeguarding the international system centered on the United Nations is a shared responsibility and mission for both China and Russia.
Russia is standing alone against the West, which is waging an “existential war” against the country, President Vladimir Putin has said.
Putin made the remarks in a documentary titled ‘Russia. Kremlin. Putin. 25 years,’ filmed by Rossiya-1 broadcaster and released on Sunday. The film marks the 25-year anniversary of Putin becoming the country’s president for the first time. He inaugurated on May 7, 2000.
The documentary features conversations between Putin and journalist Pavel Zarubin on various matters, including the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, as well as a broader conflict between Moscow and the West.
“Russia is essentially standing alone against the collective West. This required a serious attitude to the possible development of the situation in this particular sense,” Putin stated.
It has been clear from the early 2000s that the West has been acting “insidiously” against Russia, speaking about one thing and doing the opposite, Putin noted. The West’s failure to hear Russia’s repeated warnings, as well as its refusal to fully recognize the country’s sovereignty and respect its national interests, has ultimately led to the ongoing crisis, the president explained.
“This ‘civilized world’ decided that Russia had weakened, historical Russia called the Soviet Union had collapsed, and the remaining parts needed to be finished off. The largest of them was the Russian Federation, and it also needed to be partitioned into 4-5 pieces. I was responsible for the future of the country. Of course, I began working to ensure that this never happened,” he said.
Moscow has repeatedly described the hostilities in Ukraine as a Western proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainians are being used as “cannon fodder.” Russian officials have argued that the US and other Western powers intentionally escalated tensions by disregarding Moscow’s security concerns over NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe and its growing military cooperation with Ukraine.
Russia and the collective West ended up locked into an “existential war,” Putin stressed, adding that many in the West have now openly admitted that. Back in March, for instance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the conflict as “frankly, a proxy war between nuclear powers – the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia” and said the West should abandon its dead-end strategy of propping up Kiev “for as long as it takes.”
It’s almost 5 a.m. on March 23 in Rafah, southern Gaza. Two Red Crescent medics are out searching for a missing ambulance crew. Driving is Asaad al-Nasasra and sitting beside him and filming is Rifaat Radwan. Both have worked with the Red Crescent for years. Rifaat worries their missing colleagues have come under attack.
They haven’t heard from them for an hour. They will soon discover that Israeli soldiers have fired on the crew, killing two of them. Before long, Rifaat will also be killed along with 12 other staff from the Red Crescent, Civil Defense and the United Nations. The New York Times obtained Rifaat’s footage and reconstructed moment by moment how this unprovoked attack unfolded.
We synchronized his video with another phone recording from the scene. We reviewed autopsy reports and photos of the bodies and we interviewed eyewitnesses. Our investigation shows how Israeli soldiers fired repeatedly on unarmed medics, closed in around them and continued shooting for more than six minutes, even as several of the crew were still alive, wearing their uniforms and praying.
Investigating itself, the I.D.F. has said there were professional failures and dismissed the deputy commander who was involved. But independent experts say that to knowingly attack medics is a breach of the laws of war. Days before the attack, Israel had broken the cease-fire in Gaza with intense airstrikes after negotiations with Hamas to release hostages broke down.
Ground forces had moved into Rafah, and on the night in question, the I.D.F. says it set up an ambush on this road ahead of an evacuation order to flush out suspected militants when people moved. Red Crescent crews were working overnight to rescue casualties from a nearby airstrike.
But when one crew goes missing, others, including Asaad and Rifaat, are sent out to find them. In the darkness, they initially don’t see the missing ambulance. It had been passing by here just an hour earlier when the Israeli unit opened fire on it.
They killed the two medics sitting in the front, Ezz al-Deen Shath and Mustafa Khafaja, and detained a third medic, Munther Abed, who survived. He told us what happened. Munther told us he was stripped and beaten.
The I.D.F. said it thought the ambulance was a Hamas vehicle, and has long contended that Hamas uses ambulances to transport weapons and fighters. Back on the road, Rifaat and Asaad pass the Israeli soldiers without incident and meet up with other medics who were also out searching. Saleh Muammar, who was driving the other ambulance, says he spotted bodies on the ground.
They ready the ambulances to return, but Saleh worries they will be attacked if they move ahead without more vehicles. A Civil Defense ambulance and fire engine joined them. And they continue on as a convoy.
Overhead, an Israeli drone is watching them. The I.D.F. later said that a drone operator told soldiers on the ground the convoy was advancing suspiciously, but they are clearly marked as emergency services. And the vehicles are flashing their lights, which soldiers could see, the I.D.F. later told us.
The medics pull in. Around 20 I.D.F. soldiers are positioned here, 100 feet off the roadside. Almost all of the first responders are clearly marked in reflective gear. They are unarmed and moving away from the I.D.F. Rifaat sees his colleagues bodies. As they rush to rescue them, they’re met by a hail of gunfire.
[gunshots] Rifaat scrambles to the driver’s side and is shielded for now by the ambulance. He begins to pray. In total, Rifaat films almost six minutes of gunfire.
We produced a condensed timeline that gives an insight into the I.D.F.’s actions. After the first barrage comes a 20-second pause. Rifaat repeats the Shahada — a declaration of faith that Muslims also say as they face death. An ambulance tries to escape. But another hail of gunfire erupts.
We hear continuous single shots. Then automatic fire. Another pause. First responders can be heard screaming. Then another barrage from multiple rifles. None of these medics are armed, and all of the fire is coming from the I.D.F. A long pause, Rifaat asks his mother’s forgiveness.
Steady gunfire, closer to Rifaat, now, for the full minute. An ambulance is shot at. Medics were still inside some of the vehicles. One of them, Ashraf Abu Labda — phones a Red Crescent dispatcher who records the call.
We synchronized Ashraf’s call with Rifaat’s video to better understand what they both were seeing. Israeli soldiers appear to approach, shouting in Hebrew, but it’s unclear what they’re saying. Both Ashraf and Rifaat see them around the same time. From Ashraf’s phone call, slow, deliberate shots are heard now. An Israeli soldier orders his troops. Ashraf hangs up. Amid the emergency vehicles, Rifaat’s phone is positioned here.
Three audio experts who analyzed his recording determined that the soldiers begin shooting up to 150 feet away. This aligns with where witnesses saw the I.D.F. positioned and where it built sand barricades. As the shooting continues, the gunfire closes in to within 60, 50 and then 40 feet of Rifaat by Minute 6 of the attack.
Drone footage the I.D.F. showed The Times confirms that the soldiers moved in. Rifaat was still alive at this time. He was shot multiple times, his autopsy showed. And inside this ambulance, Ashraf was also alive.
He was shot in the chest. A witness with a clear view of what happened, Saeed al-Bardawil, a civilian who was detained and held with the I.D.F. troops before the attack on the convoy.
Saeed says that I.D.F. reinforcements later came, and then soldiers shot first responders as they lay on the ground. Minutes after the shooting, a clearly marked United Nations vehicle happened on the scene.
The I.D.F. fired on it too, killing Kamal Shahtout, a U.N. employee who was on his way to rescue colleagues injured in another attack. Saeed says he saw the I.D.F. then bury both the bodies and vehicles.
The I.D.F. said this was not done to conceal the attack, but in The Times’s experience of reporting on its actions in Gaza, burying bodies and vehicles is not something the I.D.F. normally does.
Crushing the vehicles was an operational error, the I.D.F. told us. “Why did you hide the bodies? Why and why? They have to answer for that.” Younis Al-Khatib, the head of the Red Crescent, told us that for the next five days he begged the I.D.F. for information on the whereabouts of their missing staff. But the I.D.F. wouldn’t answer.
Finally, the U.N., Red Crescent and Civil Defense got access to the site. It took two days to recover the medics’ bodies and vehicles.
The Times reviewed autopsies and photographs of the bodies, which showed that most of the victims died from multiple gunshot wounds, including to the neck and torso. Three of the Civil Defense team were shot in the head. A Civil Defense helmet found there showed apparent bullet holes. Two bodies were missing, limbs, possibly shorn by the bulldozers burying them, and almost all of the Red Crescent and Civil Defense were wearing their uniforms in part or in whole.
Since the attack, Israel has given shifting versions of events that the evidence contradicts. It initially said the medics were advancing suspiciously, but they never posed a threat. It said that the vehicles were without headlights or emergency signals, but changed that story two weeks later when The Times published Rifaat’s video.
It said the area was a combat zone. It wasn’t until the I.D.F. declared it so hours after the attack. It named and said it killed a Hamas participant in Oct. 7. His family told us he’s alive in Gaza and he has no connection to the Red Crescent or Civil Defense. And it took weeks for the I.D.F. to admit it was detaining Asaad al-Nasasra, the medic driving alongside Rifaat, who survived. He was released after 37 days, having been denied access to a lawyer and his family.
The I.D.F. has now released the results of its own investigation. It says there was a series of operational misunderstandings that started with misidentifying the first ambulance as a Hamas vehicle, and believing the convoy were Hamas reinforcements.
It said Hamas has previously used ambulances. It said the deputy battalion commander, the most senior officer present, was the first to open fire on the convoy. He has been dismissed. But once the shooting started, the other soldiers followed procedure, the I.D.F. told us, even as they fired for six minutes unchallenged.
Experts in the laws of war, including Janina Dill of Oxford University, told us that attacking medics who pose no threat is a likely war crime. Another expert, who has long studied attacks on health care, says this is not an isolated incident.
“This incident was part of a much larger pattern where U.N. convoys, Doctors Without Borders, ambulances, humanitarian vehicles, have all been shot at multiple times with many people killed and injured.” The I.D.F. is satisfied that nothing needs to change in its orders to soldiers, which it described as excellent.
The soldiers involved in this attack were from the Golani Brigade’s elite reconnaissance unit. A recent speech made by a commander of that brigade is an example of the types of orders those soldiers may receive. Even after 50,000 people have been killed in Gaza, this attack drew international condemnation. The agencies the slain medics worked for rejected the I.D.F.’s findings, and have called for an independent investigation.
The Israeli military says it was responding to an immediate threat when it killed 15 medics and first responders in Gaza in March. But eyewitness accounts and analysis of video, audio and autopsy reports show that soldiers opened fire for six minutes on unarmed emergency workers who never posed a threat.
