wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. the xfinity 10g network. made for streaming. ♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... brook: these are people who are trying to change the world. startups have this energy that energizes me. i'm thriving by helping others everyday. people who know, know bdo. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation.

and by judy and peter blum kovler fountion; pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news". >> hello. i am ben thompson. you're watching "the context" on bbc news. >> musk was already a billionaire. they didn't need to give him another $55 billion to be successful in the eyes of the judge. >> you can't justify that size. >> say that again. >> it's a huge amount of money to anybody. >> musk never ever registered a company in delaware ere the court was based. it is the biggest paid row in history. ♪

>> so how much is too much? when it's $55.8 million. a judge grants the london mosque -- elon musk the biggest payday. also tonight how to protect children online. social media firms face to grilling today on capitol hill about what they are doing to prevent the spread of indecent images. the orphans of gaza, a special report on the 20,000 children who have lost one or both parents, as the war rages on and aid agencies say they are running out of time. ny elton john, taylor swift and the beatles could soon fall silent on tiktok over payment rights on the social media platforms.

first, $55.8 billion, that was the record payday for elon musk back in 2018. but today a judge in the u.s. state of delaware said it should be scrapped. the pay deal was the biggest ever in corporate history. it propelled mr. musk to the top of the list of the world's richest people. judge mccormick said the pair was on -- was unfathomable. the figures from bloomberg and forbes suggest has net worth is between 198 billion dollars and $220 billion. the pay this time was from his electric car company, tesla. it was linked to performance targets, like tesla share price and its profitability. if you look at the measure, the company value dips sort, it is up $1 trillion in 2021 up from $50 billion when the pay deal was originally negotiated. mr. musk sold a large chunk of

tesla to buy twitter. around 30% of the electric carmaker. canceling his pay deal would mean he also misses out on more than $300 million -- 300 million tesla shares which would boost his estate. let's talk about this with a leadership expert from the uc school of management advisory board. how much is too much? does someone like mr. musk need a payday like that? >> you could take it from two perspectives, the business perspective, can you justify this through performance, and the perspective which attests that in today's society where people are having a hard time, perhaps $58 million is probably too much morally. i think the key question is how i got to the point that he even was offered this deal in the first place. and that is what the judge picked up on in terms of there was a suggestion that perhaps

the remuneration committee was not exactly transparent with shareholders. >> that talks to his power on that board. that's what the judge as you said in delaware made note of, suggesting he had too much influence on the behavior of that board. but you are right. given that it was set in 2018 linked to performance, it is fair to say that performance. but i suppose the question is, was it known at that point in 2018 that the firm would do so well? >> first of all, the concept of remuneration committees is before, and the old days, they set their own price and things got outrageous. governments around the world said you can't keep doing this and you have to have an independent committee that sets the pay, in terms of, is that performance, relative to other ceo's?

is it a challenging target the ceo has to achieve? effectively, the board knew that on the current predictions of performance, musk would get his objectives pretty easily without a problem. they did not tell the shareholders that. they applied to the shareholders mr. musk was going to have to work very hard to meet these objectives. that lack of transparency to put it suddenly, maybe -- subtly, maybe politely, the judge suggested it might be worse and that is why the shareholders agreed. they probably would not have agreed. >> that raises huge issues about trust, transparency, integrity of theoard and the way they are running this company. it comes back to that point about whether mr. musk has too much influence on the behavior and the outcome of those board meetings. >> fundamentally, that is the

problem. musk has demonstrated the fundamental weakness of remuneration committees for the most senior and powerful ceo's. have certainly been cases where as was suggested by the judge here, that you stack the remuneration committee with friends of yours and people you do business with or we have seen the reverse effect to some degree where on a remuneration committee you have two or three independent directors saying to the chief executive, you can have that level of pay for that level of performance, the targets have to be tougher. those individuals have been eased off the board so the board becomes more compliant. in the end, it's about the trust the organization and the shareholders have in that ceo and their integrity. sadly what majority -- sadly the's a majority out there that have been found to be lacking. >> i want to play people another

clip about top pay for bossters. company in the you can -- the u.k. running british gas revealed how much he earnelast year and said he could not justify it. he has been the boss since 2020. he was asked if it was right that he received 4.5 million pounds in a year, about $5.7 million. of course coming at a time when the average british wage is about 150 times smaller. at a time when many people are struggling with the cost crisis, the rising cost across the board. this was his response. >> it is a huge amount of money. i am incredibly fortunate. a number of years i have given bonuses because of the hardships that customers are facing. we put a lot of the profit center supporting customers. but you can't justify

that size. it's a huge amount of money to anybody looking. a huge amount of money. >> a rare occasion when a boss says that i simply cannot justify it. what he is right to pointut -- but he is right to point out that that was set by an independent board. he was clear he could not justify it. what he's talking about is a payday that was worth 4.5 million. i want to put the number on the screen of what elon musk's payday looked like. 56 billion dollars -- $58 million. $55.8 million. it's hard to get your head around the number that big. how does elon musk justify something like this? >> he is elon musk. he doesn't have to justify anything. [laughter] that's perhaps the perspective the judge picked upn.

>> there's a real disconnect, at all levels, but what bosses are being paid and what ordinary full working in these businesses -- folk working in these businesses, the people assembling these cars, in elon's case. >> the average ftse pay is around $400 million, 150 or however many times above your average worker. 3.9 million for ceo's versus 39 thousand dollars for a paramedic that saves lives. the issue is that it reinforces the perspective of the general population that there are corporate elites out there who are in a completely different world than who really don't care. -- and who really don't care. >> always good to talk to you. it really is fascinating. something we will keep talking

about. it really puts it in perspective when you see those sorts of numbers. really good to have you with us. with the latest on elon musk's payday which has been annulled by that judge in delaware. elsewhere the bosses of five major tech firms have been testifying at a senate hearing about what they are doing to protect children from online sexual exploitation. the five faced fiery questions today with mark zuckerberg being asked what the hell were you thinking over and instagram prompt that directed users to possible child abuse material. mr. zuckerberg and the boss of tiktok voluntarily agreed to testify. but the others, the other three, snap, x, formally twitter, and discord initially refused. they were sent subpoenas forcing them to appear. i'll have hundreds of millions of young users of course -- all have hundreds of millions of young users of course. there are explicit images being shared including those

created with artificial intelligence. in's opening remarks, lindsey graham took aim at facebook's mark zuckerberg. >> mr. zuckerberg, u.n. and the companies before us, i know you don't mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands, you have a product -- [applause] you have a product that's killing people. and i used it. we all use it, there is an upside to everything here. but the darkside has not been dealt with. it's now time to deal with the darkside because people have taken your idea and they have turned it into a nightmare for the american people. they have turned it into a nightmare for the world at large. >> you heard some of the applause there. christian b. as a social media advocate that committed suicide after being a victim of

anonymous cyber bullying. she sent social media companies were more concerned with profits than safety. >> we were looking for accountability from the social media companies, to actually follow through with what they say that they are going to do. we will hear a lot of promises today and we also see broken promises. >> what did we hear from the firms themselves? here's one of the responses, from facebook's mark in his opening remarks. >> the things that your families have suffered. this is why we invest so much and they're going to continue doing industry-leading efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the types of things that your families have had to suffer. >> let's take you left to our north america correspondent in washington. that moment we just played there , mark zuckerberg addressing some of the families in the

room, it was a really powerful moment, but one he was directed to make, was nt? -- wasn't he? reporter: that's right. he was really grilled by the republican senator josh hawley who dumpehim to get up and look at the families. then there were loads of takeaway moments in the hearing. i think from me certainly it was the presence of the families. these are people who say that they have lost their children to social media. and right from the beginning, their presence was felt. they were a real force to be reckoned with. when the ceos entered, they were hissing at them throughout their testimonies, laughing and applauding to senators. in some ways it fueled the sort of combative energy that we saw. it fueled that tension between lawmakers and the ceos. mark zuckerberg on the head of tiktok particularly coming in for the most scrutiny. that then lead to the dramatic moment that you just pyed there of mark zuckerberg turning

around and saying to those families, i apologize for your suffering, but also explaining what meta was doing to try to make the platform safer. that is what all the ceos were here to do, defend themselves and try to expend to lawmakers what measures they were taking to keep children safe, whilst also empowering children and parents. for lawmakers, it just was not good enough. they want these ceo's to endorse key bills that they want to pass in congress. >> it is a familiar allegation. we've heard it once again from a family member who lost their son to suicide. that familiar refrain, that these firms are putting profit before safety. once again, some of the numbers, the statistics that were cited in the hearing today, one report instagram's own internal study says 24% of users between the age of 30 and -- 13 at 15 have received unwanted sexual

advances in the last seven days. mark zuckerberg was asked about it and he said i don't want to answer that. that is because the allegation is that they did nothing about it. so there really under pressure -- they are really under pressure to prove that they are taking this seriously and not putting profit first. reporter: let's -- reporter: that's right. lawmakers can only prove that by endorsing some of the bills that they want passed. specifically those bills including the kids online safety act and stop child sexual abuse material, the strips away at ch companies' ability to -- sew their legal protections to allow victims to sue them. interestingly, going back to the families, the lawmakers kept saying, the family should be able to sue you. some of them said, they can't, mark zuckerberg said that we are being -- they can, marzuckerberg said that we are being sued. there's criticism that congress should be passing laws.

it's been more than a decade since one child safety law was passed and that was a pretty narrow one. so there's pressure on congress to do something. there's will to do it by the way. we have never seen democrats and republicans so united as we saw them today, that is the big question, will this year bring yield anything, will that result in any kind of concrete legislation? >> but to have you -- >> good to have you. i want to talk to the former head of child safety online policy at the nspcc end advisor at the molly rose foundation, charity focusing on suicide prevention in children. andy, thank you for being on the program. our correspondent explain some of what we heard. it was a rare opportunity to grow the bosses of the five biest social media -- grill the bosses of the five biggest social media platforms. where you are reassured by anything that you heard today? >> -- were you reassured by

anything that you heard today? >> really what we saw from the five executives was more of what we have seen from these hearings before. a trial of obfuscation and denial. we saw all five of the ceos say one after the other about how important this issue was to them. emphasizing that there -- that they were taking them seriously. three of them had to be subpoenaed to actually turn up in washington, d.c. today. we saw mark zuckerberg say in his opening remarks that he did not think there was a connection between his platform and the negative impacts on mental health -- on the mental health of teenagers and the young people. that is despite an 2018 internal email's in the company warning about probable risk of further deaths because of how algorithms work recommending self-harm content. more of the same with big tech chief executives really and denial -- in denial. >> republicans and democrats

were united was a point that was made there. is there a sense that something can change in terms of bringing in perhaps new legislation to force action on the part of the social media giants? but the issue it is -- the issue is it is cross-border. this needs a global and unified response. the e.u. has struggled to put measures in place. they are different from those in the u.s. and elsewhere around the world. explain what is being done around the world to try to present a united response to what needs to be done to prioritize child safety online. >> wearsing measures around the globe -- >> we are seeing measures around the globe to introduce legislation. much needed legislation. it's very clear that that is the only way the incentives will be there for tech companies to take children safety seriously. here in the u.k. we have seen the online safety act passed. it will impose duties to

identify and address reasonably foreseeable harms. we have seen legislation passed in the eu and further legislation specifically relating to child abuse is currently being considered. but that u.s. is the big focus here. one of the objectives was to absolutely draw attention to the scale of entirely preventable harm that we have seen children face on social networks, to try and make sure that child safety legislation on capitol hill goes to the floor. because as you say, there's a real -- there's real evidence of bipartisanship here. that is unusual in the u.s. if this goes to a floor vote in the next few months, the u.s. can pass legislation. obviously given that most of these companies are u.s.-based, that would be a massive step forward. >> briefly, how confident are you that that will happen soon? >> we absolutely can see signs

of progress around legislation. but it has to happen. it is only through regulation and legislation that we will see the dial change, otherwise we will just see more of this preventable harm affecting children and families in the u.k. and around the world. >> the to have you with us tonight, angie b., the former head of child safety and online policy at the nspcc. thank you. around the world and across t u.k., you are watching bbc news. let's bring up today with a story in the u.k. -- 44-year-old man has been charged with the murders of two teenage boys in bristol, stabbed to death on saturday night. here is somerset police. >> the prime investigation team has been leading the inquiry into their deaths and has so far made eight arrests. tonight, the persecution service

has allowed us to charge one of those two arrested with charges of murder following the evidence collected. 44-year-old antony snook will remain in custody overnight before appearing before the bristol magistrate court tomorrow morning. this is a pivotal moment in our investigation. and mason and max's families have both been informed of the development. officers are providing them what support and we continue to ask for their privacynd space to grief. -- to grieve. >> you are live with bbc news. the united states says the islamic resistance in iraq group was behind a drone strike that killed 30 soldiers in jordan. they suspended operations against u.s. forces to prevent embarrassment of the iraqi government. u.s. president joe biden has said he has now decided how

the u.s. will respond to the attack in jordan. warning it would be in a manner of our choosing. iran has warned that it would retaliate against any attack on what it called its interests. here's the u.s. national security council spokesperson, john kirby. >> we believe that the attack in jordan was planned and facilitated by an umbrella group called the islamic resistance in iraq which contains multiple groups including hezbollah. >> our security coespondent is with us, the issue here for the u.s. is, it needs to look like it is taking this sufficiently seriously and it needs to present a united front. it says it wants to strike back but at the same time does not want to spark a wider conflict in the region. how does it do that? >> you are right. it's a real dilemma for the u.s. trying to do what they call

right size this. it has retaliated in the past. with more than 160 drone attacks on its bases in syria and iraq. it's responded with airstrikes, hitting weapons stores and various iranian interests linked to the iranian revolutionary guards corps. but it has not stopped the attack. this was far more serious. three people were killed on sunday. because that drone got through the air defenses, which it seems were not activated at the u.s.-base just inside jordan that got hit. the question people are asking is why has the u.s. not responded so far? president biden said he had made up his mind 24 hours ago. there could be tactical and strategic reasons for this. the tactical reasons could be simply that they are still hunting targets. obviously those who feel they are most at risk will have scattered. they will not be hanging around waiting to be hit with an airstrike. they will have gone to ground

and possibly are hiding in private houses. weapons will have been buried and moved. it is a shifting target for the u.s. they could also be considering how seriously to take the 24-hour pledge by hezbollah, one of the groups mentioned, not to attack -- to carry out any military attacks at the time. actions speak louder than words. the u.s. might have made up its time already, taking its time, and it's going to properly try to hit certain targets across syria and iraq linked to iran, at the time of its choosing, when it feels their guard is lowered. >> that line was interesting, it has suspended operations against u.s. forces. anyone reading that, it reads like iran has the upper hand in this. u.s. will be deeply embarrassed

at that strike, the first u.s. soldiers to be killed in this conflict. that will be embarrassment about the strike with -- about that the strike was successful and i ran through his other plays in the region is managing to destabilize things to such an extent once again. >> iran calibrates its actions in the middle east quite carefully. it's been ext narrowly successful at circumnavigating some really quite draconian international sanctions, despite those sanctions which have made the economy -- which have put the economy in a bad place in iran. many international actions are not properly atoned. despite that they have been able to spread the tentacles of their military forces, or their allies, throughout the region, across iraq, syria, into lebanon, with hezbollah of course, now the houthis in yemen. >> great to have you with us with that analysis.

always good to have your insights. . are security correspondent there . headlines are coming up for you very shortly. stay with us here on "the context" on bbc narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... man: bdo. accountants and advisors. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation; pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: "usa today" calls it, "arguably the best bargn in streaming." that's because the free pbs app lets you watch the best of pbs anytime, anywhere.

♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... brook: these are people who are trying to change the world. startups have this energy that energizes me. i'm thriving by helping others everyday. people who know, know bdo. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation.