Meta & YouTube liable for social media addiction: Jury (youtube.com)
This week in LA (which states could this happen and which would not find for the defendant?) a civil trial found Meta (Facebook and Insta) and Google (YouTube) liable (of negligence, failing to exercise care in designing a product they knew was dangerous, failing to warn parents or kids their product was addictive, that the companies believed their product was addictive).
The jury found they acted with 'malice, oppression, or fraud.'
Zuckerburg and the head of Instagram appeared, and the court found Facebook/Insta 70% liable, YouTube 30% liable. YouTube also argued successfully that it is a video streaming platform, not SM.
The girl, 'Kaley or KGM' used Insta 'intensely'. She started using YouTube at 6 and Insta at 9 and testified she was on the platforms 'all day long' as a child. The court awarded her $6m. Probably the best paycheck for negligent or poor parenting I've heard of. There are 2000 similar pending lawsuits, but after this news every parent who bought their kid a tablet instead of discipline and quality time will probably want to get their multimillion check, too.
They argued she developed social media addiction which led to severe depression, suicidal thoughts, body dysmorphia, and social phobia/strained family relationships, ie the same things teenagers had before SM.
The platforms were found to be 'defectively designed' for designing their platforms so users would like them and spend time on them, which seems to be their purpose, doesn't it? Because they have features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications which cause dopamine effects. I guess it doesn't matter that these don't force a user to stay on the platform, but since we're in an era of no personal responsibility maybe this is in line. The court seemed to find that the girl had no control over herself in the face of these apps.
The company provided internal documents (emails) that showed execs knew the platforms were 'addictive', whatever that means in this context. What is the difference between enjoyable and addictive?
This case was based on a framing of 'addiction.' And also 'product design', it seems.
This week, Meta also lost a different case in New Mexico, and was ordered to pay $375m. The New Mexico AG blamed Facebook for systemic consumer fraud and child endangerment. The prosecution created fake accounts with a reported age of 14, and found that the algos 'recommended adult predators' to them (? do they mean just that Meta automatically suggests possible friends that are friends of friends or are near them locally?), that the platform was a 'breeding ground' and 'marketplace' for CSE (?).
The AG claimed that while Meta said the platform was safe, internal documents showed execs knew they were failing to stop predators (?). There is a nominal ban on targeting ads at U13, but they still did.
The AG argued that Meta's move toward E2E was to block law enforcement from seeing the companies actions.
So a lot to disagree with. E2E is to protect users, obviously, otherwise their data is not secure, for one thing. Facebook isn't a product that offers a lot to society, but the things the AG went for (and won) are pretty dubious.
Is California basically socialist or communist, now, philosophically or psychologically? Is socialism/communism related to a systemic practice of blaming others and institutional ways to just take people's resources if you come up with a way to blame them, which doesn't have to be a very strong reason?