A big company called Meta, which owns Facebook and other apps, doesn't want to change some rules about how they protect kids' privacy. The people who make sure companies follow the rules (FTC) want to change those rules because they think Meta didn't do a good job before. But Meta says they already told everyone about their mistakes and spent a lot of money to fix them, so they don't need to change the rules. Read from source...

1. Inconsistency in the title and the content of the article: The title suggests that Meta is against the FTC's privacy accord update because it cites compliance efforts, while the content of the article shows that Meta is actually opposed to the modification of a 2020 privacy agreement. This creates confusion for the reader about the main point of the article and the reason behind Meta's opposition.

2. Bias in favor of Meta: The article seems to present Meta's perspective as more reasonable and justified, while downplaying or ignoring the FTC's concerns and motives for revising the 2020 privacy settlement. For example, the article does not mention any potential benefits of tightening the settlement terms, such as enhancing user protection, preventing data breaches, or holding companies accountable for their actions.

3. Irrational argument by Meta: The company claims that it has voluntarily disclosed two technical errors in the Messenger Kids app to the FTC in 2019, as if this would justify its opposition to the proposed privacy accord update. However, this argument is weak and does not address the current situation or the possible risks and challenges that the app may face in the future. Moreover, it implies that Meta has already done enough to comply with the privacy regulations, which contradicts its investment of $5.5 billion in its privacy program and related initiatives.

4. Emotional language by Meta: The company uses phrases such as "draws line" and "cites compliance efforts", which convey a sense of defiance and resistance to the FTC's authority and intentions. This creates an emotional response in the reader, rather than informing them objectively about the issue at hand. Additionally, it may influence the public opinion against the FTC and its privacy accord update, by portraying Meta as a victim of unfair scrutiny and pressure.

Overall, the article is biased, inconsistent, irrational, and emotional in its presentation of the issue between Meta and the FTC. It does not provide a balanced or accurate view of the situation, nor does it engage the reader in a meaningful discussion about the importance and implications of privacy protection and regulation in the digital age.