Meta Loses Bid To Dismiss US States' Claims That Facebook, Instagram Addict Children (reuters.com) 29
A federal judge rejected Meta's bid to dismiss claims from 29 state attorneys general alleging that Facebook and Instagram were designed to addict children while concealing the harms. The judge found significant factual disputes that must be decided at trial. They also ruled that Meta failed to comply with federal parental notice and consent requirements for children under 13, "and granted summary judgement to the states on that issue," reports Reuters. From the report: In a separate statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision a "critical win" in holding Meta accountable for fueling a mental health crisis among American children. Gonzalez Rogers also oversees related multidistrict litigation by more than 2,600 individuals, school districts and local governments over whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok addict children.
The states said research has shown that children's use of Facebook and Instagram could lead to depression, anxiety, insomnia, interference with education and daily life, and self-harm including suicide. Meta countered that the attorneys general had no evidence it misled consumers about its platforms' alleged addictiveness, including in congressional testimony by Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg. The Menlo Park, California-based company said this was because "social media addiction" is not an established psychiatric condition, and therefore statements that its platforms are not addictive could not be false. Meta also said it didn't violate the children's online privacy law because it directed Facebook and Instagram to a general audience, not just children under age 13.
In a 38-page decision, Gonzalez Rogers found material factual disputes over whether Meta's social media platforms are addictive, whether Meta falsely denied it designed them that way, and whether it "partially" directed the platforms at children. "The AGs present a reasonable interpretation of [Meta's] statements that Facebook and Instagram are not designed in ways that cause teens to compulsively use the platforms to their detriment," the judge wrote. "To the extent plaintiffs' evidence shows that the platforms are in fact designed to do just that, a jury could reasonably find the statements were untrue to a reasonable person," she added. A trial over California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey's claims against Meta is scheduled for August 18, court records show. Further reading: Will Social Media Change After YouTube and Meta's Court Defeat?
The states said research has shown that children's use of Facebook and Instagram could lead to depression, anxiety, insomnia, interference with education and daily life, and self-harm including suicide. Meta countered that the attorneys general had no evidence it misled consumers about its platforms' alleged addictiveness, including in congressional testimony by Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg. The Menlo Park, California-based company said this was because "social media addiction" is not an established psychiatric condition, and therefore statements that its platforms are not addictive could not be false. Meta also said it didn't violate the children's online privacy law because it directed Facebook and Instagram to a general audience, not just children under age 13.
In a 38-page decision, Gonzalez Rogers found material factual disputes over whether Meta's social media platforms are addictive, whether Meta falsely denied it designed them that way, and whether it "partially" directed the platforms at children. "The AGs present a reasonable interpretation of [Meta's] statements that Facebook and Instagram are not designed in ways that cause teens to compulsively use the platforms to their detriment," the judge wrote. "To the extent plaintiffs' evidence shows that the platforms are in fact designed to do just that, a jury could reasonably find the statements were untrue to a reasonable person," she added. A trial over California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey's claims against Meta is scheduled for August 18, court records show. Further reading: Will Social Media Change After YouTube and Meta's Court Defeat?
"Children", they say (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just children. It's every age demographic. Maybe children might be more susceptible, but every single age group is a target.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just children. It's every age demographic. Maybe children might be more susceptible, but every single age group is a target.
Children, is merely the easiest legal avenue to gain traction on this. No one gives a shit about adult digital junkies.
And we know what social medias end goal is with this. Anything that is truly bad but profitable? Attempt to dismiss the harm by normalizing the shit out of it. When everyone is an addict, no one is. Because there is no more addiction. There is just normal.
Expect the “speculative market” to pull the same shit to avoid being called what it is; gambling that should be illega
Re:"Children", they say (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. That is part of their defense:
Meta also said it didn't violate the children's online privacy law because it directed Facebook and Instagram to a general audience, not just children under age 13.
"We harm everyone, not just kids!"
Re: (Score:2)
And now Meta gets to learn how Big Tobacco felt.
These state AGs are going to run wild on them.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll finance reports that say Social Media is good for the kids. Oh - wait
Re: (Score:2)
Always someone who has to turn an otherwise ordinary conversation into something political :|
Re: Huh... (Score:2)
Stop using "political" when what you really mean is "partisan". The topic at hand is very much political, since it concerns the public good.
Re: (Score:2)
Easiest Solution (Score:2)
Is to keep kids off of an unfiltered internet until they become adults.
( Assuming we're still thinking of the children of course )
The hard part is how to do that without the privacy nightmare that comes with
the current ideas of age verification.
Re: (Score:2)
- No 3rd parties get a scan of your ID, only the government age verification service does (and only once for every device)
- Websites don't get your identity or even an identifier, they get Kid / Adult, and nothing else.
- The government (nor anyone else) does no
Re: (Score:1)
"The government (nor anyone else) does not get to see which websites you visit."
Yeah sure... I think we already know the EU governments will track you down however they can. If they have something that issues a token then it can be logged when used (which I'm SURE is a requirement in some small text somewhere).
I would not trust the EU governments with any security related ANYTHING... Specifically because THEY are the ones who will abuse it. Just look at how many people go to jail in the UK for making unpo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it does not need to contact the central authority each time.
How does a website know if your token is valid. Still or at all? Or that it is you using it for that matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not. Or they get hold of their dad's passport, or whatever. No system is going to be proof against a curious teenager. Does it have to be?
Yes. Or it's not fit for its stated purpose.
And as you have figured out, it can't be done. Which means this is not worth doing for its stated purpose. Which means it's for a differeent reason. What do you think that reason could be?
Re: (Score:2)
Read stolen focus or watch the social dilemma
Re: (Score:2)
Let assume for a second we lived in a world truly like the one you describe.
Coca cola having cocaine in it. Beer having opiodes, Chocolate having just a bit of nicotine, etc. etc.
Then solution is to fix it, not just give up. Do not just take the money but change their behavior. Stop them from doing what they are doing.
But the truth is you have fallen for the oldest con used by lawyers. "What we are doing is no worse than anyone else." when it is in fact worse than other people. They exaggerate the iss
Endless scrolling (Score:2)
Barry did a good vid recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This needs to stop (Score:2)
If industry is going to harm society and not stop then they need regulation. It's been proven that it is harming society, and it can be directly attributed to social media. Facebook used to be a way to connect with friends, it's been a decade since it could be used for that. Now it's a way to view ads. Every metric of these companies is to waste your time and keep you glued to the screen. Most people don't realize it. The smart ones get off of the platform. These social media companies are putting a wreckin
Everything (Score:2)
Everything not prohibited is compulsory.
Send Lawyers, Campaign Contributions (Score:2)
and the text of a model bill.
Facebook's shit has hit the fan.
Apologies to Warren Zevon.
Expect Facebook to pull out all the stops and press down hard on the expression pedal on the lobbying organ. The crescendo is going to be very loud.
Congress will now introduce a bill to cut this off at the pass at the federal level. The real question is if such shitty legislation will get though congress or will the sane representatives be able to quash it.
Tell me this wasn't designed to addict kids (Score:1)