Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Facebook Government Social Networks The Internet Slashdot.org

Meta Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits (aol.com) 106

Posted by BeauHD from the bracing-for-the-future dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from Reuters: Meta has lobbied the U.S. Congress for legal immunity from child-harm claims tied to social media products such as Instagram, as it faces thousands of lawsuits from young users and their families, according to a source familiar with the matter and proposed legislative language reviewed by Reuters. If adopted by lawmakers and passed into law as part of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) under consideration in the U.S. Senate, such a provision could undermine thousands of lawsuits against Meta and other online platforms over harms to children. Meta and Google's YouTube face a combined $6 million in damages after they lost the first case at trial early this year. While legislators have given no indication of adopting the language, the lobbying effort shows the kind of legal protections Meta is seeking amid the biggest attempt to regulate online platforms in the U.S. since the 1990s. Meta has reportedly proposed the language in exchange for dropping its opposition to KOSA. Under the law, platforms would be required to mitigate harms to minors tied to features such as infinite scrolling, notifications, and appearance-altering filters.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits More

Meta Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits

Comments Filter:

  • How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @11:02AM (#66200410) Homepage

    Where are the usual "think of the kids!" politicians? I guess accepting kickbacks from Meta...

    • Re:How about no? (Score:5, Funny)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @11:09AM (#66200422)

      In related news Meta has agreed to paint the sickly green reflection pond in DC Meta blue. When asked for comment Mark Zuckerberg replied: Suck it plebs, I can buy justice.

      When asked for further comment Trump was quoted as saying: Nobody can ace that cognitive test better than me. I was able to circle the giraffe faster than that loser Obama.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dskoll ( 99328 )

        s/giraffe/drain/

    • In tomorrow's headlines:

      Pedophile Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits

      Oh wait, how silly of me. People who are not mega-corporations and trillionaire CEOs can't afford to spend tens of millions on lobbying [axios.com].

      Meta has knowingly (according to their own memos) harmed kids on their quest to harvest all human attention and all advertising dollars. Now they can invest a fraction of it to evade all consequences to them. There's a growing corpus of evidence that we are being slowly digested by an

    • They're onboard for this because the real goal for kosa/etc is digital id. It was never about protecting kids, it was about data collection and control.

  • Child harm? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19, 2026 @11:05AM (#66200418)

    Keep them away from republicans and the clergy. Here's a running list of abusers. https://www.dailykos.com/stori... [dailykos.com]

    • ISTM that the perps are most often social conservatives, such as leaders of regressive religions.

      If that's the case, I shudder to think what it was like in the Middle Ages. Or in certain countries today.

      • ISTM that the perps are most often social conservatives, such as leaders of regressive religions.

        If that's the case, I shudder to think what it was like in the Middle Ages. Or in certain countries today.

        In the middle ages Kings were publicly admitting they were marrying children. Though in "civilized" societies they supposedly waited to start the actual intercourse until they girl had her first period, which could range from twelve to fifteen or so. In not so civilized? It was whenever the husband/leader lost patience or got randy.

  • I hear that the National Street-level Drug Pushers Association is lobbying Congress for immunity against drug laws.

    If asked to say which one I sympathize more with - the pushers of physiological drugs or the pushers of psychological drugs - I might have to flip a coin. OTOH the street guys are at least up-front about what they're doing and their motivations, so I might be tempted to give them the pass so I could watch the likes of Zuck hanging and twisting in the wind.

    • Small difference: drugs are known to be harmful, and illegal. The harm of social media to developing children has only recently been documented

      If it is known that social media harms kids, then doesn't the state share some of the blame? Why is there no law?
      If it is not known (or only recently came to light), can you really blame the social media companies? You could blame them for trying to block relevant legislation, but not for harm done in the past.
      If the harmful effects were known to the companies

      • If it is known that social media harms kids, then doesn't the state share some of the blame? Why is there no law?

        The gears of justice grind slowly. This is by design. When you go fast, you break things. And also, no. The state didn't make them do it.

        If it is not known (or only recently came to light), can you really blame the social media companies?

        Yes, you could. But that's not the case. They know and have known. We've talked about that here a bunch. They willfully conduct psychological experiments on users and monitor the impact.

        If the harmful effects were known to the companies and they kept it quiet, then you'd have a case, morally speaking.

        That's why there's a case... no, wait, thousands of cases.

        Facebook willfully psychologically manipulates people into vulnerable emotional states in order to increase engagement, they take a

      • If adults can lose minutes at a time and forget why they pulled out their phone because of social media, then image how much of stronger effect it has on kids. It doesn't take a psychologist to come to the conclusion it's probably not healthy for kids.

        Within reason, adults can do whatever they want. We also have laws saying they have to be 21 to drink and own hand guns. They have to be 16 to 18 to get a driver's license. Kids can't even get into an R rated movie...legally. Yet many parents have no probab

  • "Does our product harm children? Yes, obviously, absolutely. But look at all the millionaires we've made! There's gotta be like 10 new actual nonpoor people now. These children are the backbone of societal growth!"

    I don't even want to know the real number.

  • Poor Meta. (Score:3)

    by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @11:51AM (#66200514)

    They missed their window of opportunity. A few months ago they could have just bribed Trump into giving them blanket immunity forever. Now that Trump is failing in so many ways that even Republicans are starting to balk at bowing to his every whim, Meta is actually going to have to play the game the old fashioned way and figure out how to bribe all of congress to get their immunity. Poor babies. They should have planned ahead. They could have saved themselves a lot of time and money.

  • Child abuser asks for immunity? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @11:56AM (#66200520) Homepage

    They got immunity for things they published and pushed on people on the grounds that others said it, they were just the promoters and publishers.

    We finally figured out how to sue them not for publishing, but for their massive and unethical attempts to push and promote what others said.

    So now they ask for immunity.

    No.

    They are the problem. They are guilty. Note, they didn't HAVE to be the problem. They could have promoted things based on truth and value rather than how much attention they got by being outrageous and dishonest.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      The entire point of Section 230 is that they don't act as publishers, but as mere platforms, which enables social media to exist at all.

      "We" meaning pearl clutchers of all persuasions could always just sue the person who actually publishes speech they don't agree with. Which they often did. It just meant that you could not hope to blackmail corporations into banning speech "we" didn't like.

      • Recent legal cases have been on the basis that the services are/were defective by design and, as a result, presented dangers which were independent of any specific post on the platform. It's not a specific post or set of content which was the issue. It's the whole system.

  • As much as I despise social media (Score:3)

    by Slashythenkilly ( 7027842 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @12:04PM (#66200532)
    This is the same argument Donald Wildman made against television (also a George Carlin bit.) Where it fails is people dont seem to understand that they have no obligation to use it. Parents have no need to give their kids smart phones which access all that garbage and why would they. People got upset because Bart Simpson set a bad example, Beavis said fire, kids are playing violent video games, and now reproducing harmful trends made by popular influencers but its all the same issue- letting technology babysit your kids and not educating them in reality. Turn that shit off, problem solved.

    • Would you make the same argument about kids using heroin, just stop using it?

      For context: one major issue with social media is that it's addictive, and Facebook in particular has made efforts to be as addictive as possible.

      • The addictions you are referring to a release of dopeamine triggering a pleasure center creating a desire to reproduce the results. The dopeamine difference between heroin and a non chemical stimulation is a factor of 100 so your argument/comparison, while well meaning, is moot. Stopping the use of heroin cold turkey is certain death but as addictive as social media might seem, quitting isnt going to kill you. The answer certainly isnt let them have more.

        • Oh I agree that the time that kids spend using Meta products needs to be reduced or eliminated. I also think that it's naive to believe it can happen without involving Meta to some extent. Just like reducing drug trafficking reduces drug consumption. The metaphor doesn't have to be 1:1, it just has to work on the point being made. Point in case: if nothing changes in what Meta offers and how it offers it, kids will find a way to access it, even if we tell them not to.

    • 'Parents have no need to give their kids smart phones which access all that garbage and why would they.'

      If you have children who have grown up recently and you resisted their getting smart phones, then you are a super hero and I am not worthy to untie your shoe laces. If you've not had to resist that pester power, then I'd encourage you to be more sympathetic.

      To be clear I've not had brats...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Friend of mine had a son who started nagging for stuff. She asked for advice. I suggested leaving a couple of brochures for military acadamies lying around. Worked like a charm.

      • This problem surfaced in the 90s when internet connections to unregulated chatrooms, porn, and unmitigated transactions started creeping into peoples homes via phone lines. Parents had three options: ignore it, put the computer in the family room for all to see or cut the cord (literally or figuratively). One job a parent has is to say no. Its hard, you feel like your hurting them because they want something they feel everyone has and are due but the truth is you protect them from harm at all costs. My moth

    • Whether you like it or not, social media is the new public square.

      We can and should regulate how the creators of social media networks take advantage of their positions of authority and control. There is absolutely, positively, and in every other way no reason why we can not or should not do that. There is no principle under which a hands-off approach makes sense.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Whether you like it or not, social media is the new public square.

        The door of some church in Wittenburg doesn't curate your theses. Nor does it algorithmically select which ones to offer you.

        These activities alone should disqualify a site from Section 230 protections.

        • These activities alone should disqualify a site from Section 230 protections.

          Removing section 230 protections isn't the fix. Once you start opening that door there's no closing it. It absolutely will be done unfairly. Algorithmically displaying content has legitimate uses. The question is, how do you regulate only the harmful ones? I like seeing what I'm looking for, so I want algorithmic content, I just don't want the algorithms to be designed to make me feel bad.

          • The OP was referring to an event in European history that has had important consequences lasting for centuries. Maybe you should do a little research on it and make another reply that addresses that event.

            • The OP was referring to an event in European history that has had important consequences lasting for centuries. Maybe you should do a little research on it and make another reply that addresses that event.

              Why? That event is irrelevant to this specifically because the situation is so different, which their own comment points out. I especially appreciated that from them because it made it clear that they (and you) are not taking that into account.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            I just don't want the algorithms to be designed to make me feel bad.

            I think Google search has a boolean to exclude truths that run counter to your world view.

            "Wisdom alone comes through suffering." -- Aeschylus

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Bigger problem here is safetyism combined with Haidt's crusade against social media. He was told early on that his work would be repurposed by "save the children from Satan/faggots/fascists/pedos" for something he specifically stated wasn't his goal. He went through with it anyway.

    • Parental responsibility is a huge part of the issues relating to social media, but there are key distinctions between it and the "TV pollutes your minds"/"chewing-gum for the eyeballs" arguments of yesteryear. The first obvious one is that TV shows weren't strictly engineered to become addictive through the weaponised use of the dopamine reward cycle. The second one would be that the parental generation(s) we're talking about here are by and large, trapped in the very same addiction - and so like many folk

  • "Please protect us from child-harm lawsuits since child harm is pretty much our business model."

  • I knew it (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @12:28PM (#66200576)

    Meta is just a front for NABMLA.

  • Regullations are evil and the government should let the market decide; except, of course, when the regulations protect them from the market.

  • Hmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @12:42PM (#66200618)

    Meta Lobbies Congress For Protection From Child-Harm Lawsuits

    Sounds like they're getting ready to (continue to) harm children.

  • Sky still blue (Score:3)

    by Wokan ( 14062 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @12:47PM (#66200628) Journal

    "Alter the law so it doesn't actually affect us and we'll stop opposing it."

    Lawmakers will probably do it as the lobbyist money will be around long after attention to the story has gone. Nobody's going to vote against their representative for this. Most of those who bother to show up on election day will just vote for their favorite team if they're super fans, and the rest will vote for who they think will win so they can tell their friends they voted for the winning side like they were betting on a football game.

  • $6 Million Damages is a Mosquito Bite (Score:3)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @12:59PM (#66200652) Homepage
    You think that paltry sum is going to change the ways of a big-tech company?

    • Actually yeah, it will.

      It is, that's why they're doing this. They've already made a bunch of quiet changes no one wants but are most certainly related, like killing E2EE in Messenger I believe it was, WhatasApp still has it.

      It they are liable in that one, they are *easily* as liable in thousands, probably more like tens of thousands more. It's an existential threat to their business.

      The critical detail isn't the amount, it is the court said Meta didn't have to have caused this kid's mental illness, but mere

    • You think that paltry sum is going to change the ways of a big-tech company?

      If it was one-and-done, the tech companies would, indeed, look at as a cost of doing business and move on. But there are potentially a huge number of these lawsuits pending, and a few million here, and a few million there, and soon it is real money.

      • But there are potentially a huge number of these lawsuits pending, and a few million here, and a few million there, and soon it is real money.

        Thank you Senator Dirksen" [wikipedia.org]. Most people today don't remember who first said that, or that the bit about "a few million here and a few million there" was added by a reporter, but even Democrats agree that this Republican was right. Thank you for reminding us that truth can come from both sides of the aisle.

  • When addiction the core business model... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cosmicl ( 1034776 ) on Friday June 19, 2026 @01:14PM (#66200676)
    and the ROI on investing peanuts (just a few $100 million) to "lobby" congress is amazing, the choice is clear. More money to be made! Especially off the lower leg of the K economy to be populated by kids who are addicted to social media will fail to develope the ability to think critically or focus for more than 2 minutes.

  • Just a thought but, perhaps it would be in the best interests of Social Media to prohibit anyone
    under the age of eighteen ( or whatever age your country considers anyone an adult ) from
    accessing their platforms.

    Would solve the whole problem of lawsuits with " think of the children " running in the background.

    Though I suppose they prefer to keep the kiddos on their platform because of the $$$$$ to be made.

    They simply want to keep the $$$$ rolling in without the risk of lawsuits eating it all up.

  • Nice try, Zuck. No one should respect this mofo, nor trust him with the care of their children.

  • Immunity?

    Get your shots first. You know, where you're lined up against a wall.

  • They're guilty, they knew it and still pushed forwards with bad policies. They don't provide ANYTHING that can't be replicated quickly of from a competitor. Sick the dogs on them and let the lawyers feast. Maybe a class action AI is the correct method ? /s

  • So if you're rich enough and suck Trump's dick enough, I guess you literally CAN just buy the law.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray

Close