Meta Removes Ads For Social Media Addiction Litigation (axios.com) 46
Meta has started removing ads from law firms seeking clients for social media addiction lawsuits, just weeks after a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in a landmark case involving harm to a young user. "Lawyers across the country now are seeking new plaintiffs, in the hopes of bringing a class action lawsuit that could result in lucrative verdicts," reports Axios. From the report: Axios has identified more than a dozen such ads that were deactivated today, some of which came from large national firms like Morgan & Morgan and Sokolove Law. Almost all of them ran on both Facebook and Instagram. Some also appeared on Threads and Messenger, plus Meta's Audience Network -- which distributes ads to thousands of third-party sites.
One such ad read: "Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren't just teenage phases -- they're symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway." A few of the ads still remain active, including some that were posted earlier today. "We're actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful."
One such ad read: "Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren't just teenage phases -- they're symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway." A few of the ads still remain active, including some that were posted earlier today. "We're actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful."
Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel really awkward, seemingly defending Meta. But, wouldn't you refuse to run ads that targeted you for lawsuits, maligned your business, and threatened your existence?
My question is; who authorized those ads in the first place? How fired is the dipshit former Meta employee that ran ads that seek to destroy Meta?
Re:Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:2)
So Meta doesn't have a defact of Monopoly (Score:2)
Now the trouble with that is we don't enforce antitrust law so Meta can just buy up any potential competitor and that's exactly what they do. Now if they can't buy a competitor they will use other means, but if you try to prove that they are a monopoly then they're going to argue that the barrier to entry in their industry is low and therefore they couldn't possibly be a monopoly.
It can be really hard t
Re: (Score:2)
Because on paper the barrier to entry for social media is very low. It's literally just a website.
On paper, the barrier to entry is staggeringly high, which is why Facebook effectively has a monopoly on text-based social media and (via Instagram) photo-based social media, and you have to include radically different things like video sharing (short-form and long-form), private messaging, and microblogging to be able to claim that it has any competition at all.
But those things are really fundamentally different types of communication that appeal to fundamentally different audiences for fundamentally diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust enforcement can't fix very easily.
Breakups that divide users into multiple pools will just result in immediate user consolidation.
Breakups by product will result in exactly the same amount of competition that we have now, because the various parts of Facebook don't really compete with each other meaningfully, and wouldn't compete meaningfully even if they were owned by different companies. They have mostly disjoint user bases, i.e. most people either use Insta or FB exclusively or at most aut
Re: (Score:2)
I feel really awkward, seemingly defending Meta. But, wouldn't you refuse to run ads that targeted you for lawsuits, maligned your business, and threatened your existence?
My question is; who authorized those ads in the first place? How fired is the dipshit former Meta employee that ran ads that seek to destroy Meta?
Optics and legal exposure. This is going to be evidence in every trial they face. At a stretch, it might even be called witness tampering.
Re: (Score:2)
Meta refusing to run ads for trial lawyers advertising litigation against Meta is not "evidence" that can be raised in a trial about social media addiction.
Optics, sure, but legal exposure? What legal exposure?
Never been in court?
It will be brought up that Meta removed anything that was related to litigation against Meta. Even if the Judge suppresses it, jurors can remember it.
Re:Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like there's a guy who's moderating the ads?
I've previously reported any amount of utterly illegal, misleading, out-right lies, etc. ads on Facebook in the past and nobody cares. They take your report and then a month later they tell you that they found no violation.
The only moderation they do for advertisers is "Enter your credit card details".
It's kind of the reason they're in this mess in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
On your question though, it's quite likely no one authorized them. Assuming yo
Re: (Score:2)
I feel really awkward, seemingly defending Meta. But, wouldn't you refuse to run ads that targeted you for lawsuits, maligned your business, and threatened your existence?
Ideally, ad platforms wouldn't exist, because the whole point of them is to lie to people so they make shitty decisions. But barring that, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to serve ads related to malfeasance similar to that of which they have been found accountable in court.
Re: (Score:2)
ad platforms wouldn't exist, because the whole point of them is to lie to people so they make shitty decisions
I disagree. I do not feel that the whole point of them is to lie. I feel that there are plenty of valid uses for advertising and its platforms that do not include misleading anyone or outright lies.
Spreading awareness of a product's existence, reminding people of products or companies(a.k.a. mindshare), keeping something front of mind for the moment that the consumer actually needs it... None of these scenarios require or even benefit from lies.
Re: Well... Wouldn't You? (Score:2)
All of that shit is like 1% of advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But yeah, regardless of one's opinion of Meta, this makes perfect sense. I'd have done the same thing. It's like that stadium that wouldn't let someone in because they kept suing the venue.
Seems fair (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a free speech issue, but not a 1A isssue (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is a free speech issue. But it's likely not a 1st amendment issue. There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point, but they are not the same thing. Free speech is the concept that people have the right to speak their minds. This is infringed because there is a limited number of big media companies that control the conversation. The first amendment is a restriction on the government to not pass laws infringing on free speech. This is a prime example of a free speech issue in the private sector as big media companies are effectively the new town square, but on private property.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No. They do not. You are interpreting the laws as you wish them to be, not as they are.
Difficult to know who the bad guy is (Score:3)
Whoever wins, we still lose.
Re: (Score:3)
Free Speech (Score:2)
If you want to present yourself as a friendly social media platform so you can digitally rape 'suckers' and monetize their data, this may not be a legal issue of free speech, but it is a PR issue of free speech.
If it works, you're showing people your platform's ability and willingness to control the message. If it doesn't, you're showing your weakness.
A legal but over-righteous stance (Score:3)
We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful.
This isn't the burn they want you to think it is. It's like saying that a bar isn't a good place to find alcoholics that need help because you might increase the bar's profits. On the other hand, bars have every right to tell people from AA to take a hike, just don't expect us to respect them for doing so.
Bad Logic (Score:4, Informative)
"We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful."
Why not? That's where all the harmed people are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads for Wegovy on Internet-connected refrigerators.
I'm impressed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the key. The law firms probably aren't paying for the higher tier now.
Ads Facebook won't touch (Score:1)
* Obvious life-imprisonment-felonies, like serious ads to recruit someone to assassinate the President of the United States
Beyond that, I've got nothing.
--
OK, I lied, they will "touch" them long enough to call the FBI and let them deal with it.
Finally... (Score:2)
we found a genre of ads that even Facebook wouldn't run. I wonder if Elmo's Xitter will follow suit.
This is why I say... (Score:3)
"When a new innovation becomes, in effect, societal infrastructure, it should be removed from private ownership and become part of the commons". It's less relevant now, but for many years it was highly inconvenient to fully participate in society without a Facebook. Everybody just expected to connect with me on FB, and a lot of events I was interested in were only posted there.
And take a look at the ad-and-spying-riddled shit-fest Google search has become - but imagine day-to-day life without search engines. FB, Google, and a host of others should have been forcefully evolved from private to public ownership a long time ago. This would have had the added benefit of slowing down the extreme concentration of wealth which has driven our societies to the precipice.
For the benefit of society, Capitalism is in need of strict limitations and strong guardrails. Without those things, we end up where we are now, with moneyed interests in control of hugely effective, psychologically manipulative propaganda machines. Social media could have been a positive benefit to society. Instead, it's a cesspool. Ditto for internet search, as well as LLMs / AI. Although with free models that can be run on personal computers, there's some chance that AI may not end up being as bad a cancer as it might otherwise become.
Re: (Score:2)
it should be removed from private ownership and become part of the commons
An interesting idea. But it seems pretty socialist. And risks alienating the Left when it is pointed out that this will guarantee the Right wing their constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.
No more: "Just go build your own social media board."
Re:This is why I say... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a leftist, and I have no objection at all to the First Amendment. I think you may be conflating leftism with snowflakery, which is in fact a problem across the entire political spectrum.
It's also worth noting that from my Canadian perspective, just now it's those Americans who brand themselves as Right Wing who are advocating for and implementing governmental interference with the freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press.
Re: (Score:2)
those Americans who brand themselves as Right Wing who are advocating for and implementing governmental interference with the freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press.
I don't see that at all. I do see a trend wherein "progressive" publications would rather shut down their editorial comment pages than to have their political positions debated. Meanwhile, several conservative sites have started (or restarted) such features (many shut down during our last administration). Leftists want to come over and debate? Fine. Just be prepared to have their heads (figuratively) handed to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't they prioritize scam ads? (Score:2)
If they are able to remove ads like this, shouldn't they remove fake celebrity endorsement ads instead? Just removing all ads for crypto and non-mainstream investments should go a long way to fix that...
Oh, so now Facebook is concerned about ads (Score:3)
Facebook says it sold $100,000 in ads to fake Russian accounts during presidential election - ABC News [go.com]
Facebook’s dark ads problem is systemic [techcrunch.com]
Facebook political ads were actually scams and malware [cnbc.com]
Facebook Reportedly Targeted LGBTQ Users with “Gay Cure” Ads [out.com]
Shadowy Facebook Ads That Pushed Trump Are Back in Alabama [thedailybeast.com]
Facebook allows job ads that discriminate against women, ACLU says [usatoday.com]
Facebook Axed Pro-Vaccine Ads From Hospitals and Health Orgs, Let Anti-Vaxxer Ads Slip Through [thedailybeast.com]
Facebook will allow UK election candidates to run false ads - CNN [cnn.com]
Facebook 'scam' posing as Trump campaign ran political ads, sought donations - CNN [cnn.com]
And all of those are prior to 2020; there are plenty more, I've just gotten tired of pasting links.