Snap Settles Social media Addiction Lawsuit Ahead of Landmark Trial (bbc.com) 28
Snap has settled a social media addiction lawsuit just days before trial, while Meta, TikTok, and Alphabet remain defendants and are headed to court. "Terms of the deal were not announced as it was revealed by lawyers at a California Superior Court hearing, after which Snap told the BBC the parties were 'pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner.'" From the report: The plaintiff, a 19-year old woman identified by the initials K.G.M., alleged that the algorithmic design of the platforms left her addicted and affected her mental health. In the absence of a settlement with the other parties, the trial is scheduled to go forward against the remaining three defendants, with jury selection due to begin on January 27. Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify, and until Tuesday's settlement, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel was also set to take the stand.
Snap is still a defendant in other social media addiction cases that have been consolidated in the court. The closely watched cases could challenge a legal theory that social media companies have used to shield themselves. They have long argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects them from liability for what third parties post on their platforms. But plaintiffs argue that the platforms are designed in a way that leaves users addicted through choices that affect their algorithms and notifications. The social media companies have said the plaintiffs' evidence falls short of proving that they are responsible for alleged harms such as depression and eating disorders.
Snap is still a defendant in other social media addiction cases that have been consolidated in the court. The closely watched cases could challenge a legal theory that social media companies have used to shield themselves. They have long argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects them from liability for what third parties post on their platforms. But plaintiffs argue that the platforms are designed in a way that leaves users addicted through choices that affect their algorithms and notifications. The social media companies have said the plaintiffs' evidence falls short of proving that they are responsible for alleged harms such as depression and eating disorders.
Re:Careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One might say the same thing about beer, its packaging, and beer commercials. Can we start suing beer companies for getting you addicted?
We did the same with tobacco. The tobacco companies deliberately manipulated their product for maximum addictiveness, buried their own research on the harms, targeted advisements to children, lied to the public and Congress, and eventually got nailed to the tune of $200B for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did consumers ever see that money? It was sent to the state governments, never to be seen again.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. We're talking about punishing companies (social medial, beer, tobacco) for their actions that harm people. Compensating consumers isn't necessarily the point. The people who are harmed aren't necessarily even the consumers of the products: a drunk can kill with their vehicle, second-hand smoke harms anyone nearby, social media has fomented civil wars!
And just because states may have frittered the tobacco settlement money, I don't see that as an argument to not hold so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously advocating rewarding smokers financially?
And why shouldn't an organization directly accountable to the victims, that ends up being the one that ends up paying for much of damage, and that we pay towards (and therefore pay for the damage if the tobacco companies don't), be the recipient? The fact most voters all suck at electing competent legislators doesn't change the fact the governments are literally the only entities that can use the money in the public's best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's not though.
Alcohol is heavily regulated, on the grounds that PeRsOnAl ReSpOnSiBiLiTy alone just didn't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
How is alcohol regulated? You have to be 21 to buy it. That's not an argument against the role of perso
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations have not shifted who bears responsibility for their own decisions
It's not legal to sell more booze to someone who's already trashed. That's shifting responsibility from the buyer to the seller.
Note that we do not allow drunk drivers to use their inability to think clearly as an excuse for getting behind the wheel.
This is another argument against "personal responsibility". We don't allow the person in question to judge whether they're OK to drive. It's a hard cut off. If you're over the limit it'
Re: (Score:1)
One might say the same thing about beer, its packaging, and beer commercials. Can we start suing beer companies for getting you addicted? None of the commercials mention anything about addiction, and the warning labels do not talk about addiction as a possible side effect. It's predictable that a certain number of people are going to develop an alcohol addiction from drinking beer. Let's start the class action lawsuits now. Some lawyers need to get paid.
While I mostly agree, social media does create - or at least amplify certain issues in people. I'm not certain of the fix. I do have some FB accounts where I screw with the algorithms, but few people will do that.
In doing a bit of research on social media, I seem men and women being heavily politicised morefar left or far right than they would naturally be. The algorithms seea click on a political post, and slowly inch them further in the direction. I have a friend that started out a mid level conservativ
Re: (Score:2)
One coughs definitely say the same spot beer.
That's why alcohol sale, consumption and advertising is somewhat heavily regulated. Much more so rush social media.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see one minor change to S.230. If you run a website, and you're posting user generated content or other content that you don't want to be held responsible for, you should be required to insert an HTTP header that browsers can be configured to use to block the content, IF you want S.230 protections. If you don't want the protections, you're still fine, you just need to moderate more than you would usually. Apps would also be subject to the same rule, being required to honor an OS flag about S
Re: Careful (Score:2)
No way. Putting the burden on me to protect someone else's children is total bullshit. If I wanted to have to worry about what kids see, I would have helped make some. Let third parties create those lists and sell them to parents as a service and leave me the fuck out of it. They can use whitelisting.
Re: (Score:2)
An HTTP header that you only put when you don't control the content on your website is a burden?
I'd seriously like you to justify that. Your comment looks, right now, like an AI response that saw some key words and just posted a boilerplate response as if I'd suggested you have to make a judgement call.
There's no judgement call. You just add the header if you have content on your website submitted by users or other entities you don't have control over, and don't want to moderate it. Nobody's mentioned "prot
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment looks, right now, like an AI response
Sigh. That, sir, is the cry of a clown who is swallowing a boot.
"I enjoy your product too much, pay me" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a kid I would always see these headlines about the astronomical amounts of TV consumed by the average American
https://www.csmonitor.com/1985 [csmonitor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but how was her lack of self-control someone else's problem? Have any alcoholics successfully sued Budweiser? No? Then why settle a doomed lawsuit?
Good points, to me it is interesting how it will turn out to resolve, as candy, alcohol, tobacco, etc. producers would be next, just allowing it to proceed is a precedent (?) - would displaying "highly addictive - do not watch without self-control" be enough to avoid such lawsuits?
Re: (Score:2)
No legal precedent set because there was no judgement. For all we know the plaintiff got nothing but the ability to say they settled.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you're right about it - indeed settlement is not a precedence, however the fact that the judge decided to allow this to proceed is interesting - wouldn't it be the same as an obese person suing food producers, or any other addiction suing companies producing stuff allowing the addiction?
Re: (Score:2)
Confession by omission (Score:3)
But plaintiffs argue that the platforms are designed in a way that leaves users addicted through choices that affect their algorithms and notifications. The social media companies have said the plaintiffs' evidence falls short of proving that they are responsible for alleged harms such as depression and eating disorders.
If TFS is accurate (always a gamble on /.) notice the nuance. The companies' argument is not "we're not deliberately using addiction psyops to create neurochemical dependence on our products". It's "there's no proof that our specific instance of induced neurochemical dependence is the primary cause of the plaintiff's disease".
That's the same argument as every producer of cancer-causing chemicals in history. "Yes, 3 methyl, tetrafluorooxylate is a known carcinogen and yes our factory leaked it into the ground water, but that doesn't prove our MiracleChem[tm] was responsible for the cluster of cancers appearing in nearby residents over the subsequent 10 years. Some of them were smokers, some were heavy drinkers, some heavy meat eaters, some genetically predisposed to cancers, some had been exposed to chemicals in the military..."