Was Jonathan Haidt right all along? Readers of this newsletter—and writers at Reason—are surely divided on this one. On Wednesday of this week, news broke that Meta had reached a humongous $17.1 billion settlement with 47 states and the District of Columbia, forced to pay damages due to child-endangerment claims stemming from its social media algorithms and platforms.
"The owner of Facebook and Instagram agreed to the financial penalties for violating federal child privacy and states' consumer protection laws, the states announced," reports The New York Times. "Meta also agreed to limit how long teenagers can spend on its platforms and to bans on features that stoke mental health issues, striking at the heart of the company's business of engagement for advertising."
"The settlement effectively ends a bellwether federal trial in the U.S. Northern District of California in Oakland, where California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey were seeking roughly $200 billion over accusations that Meta harmed children," adds the Times. Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, at times invoked a Section 230 defense, the "First Amendment of the internet" that makes it so companies don't bear liability for the posts of their users—which Reason has repeatedly defended amid a media landscape that doesn't seem to understand the value of Section 230.
"After years of being barred from suing social platforms, state prosecutors have gotten creative," wrote Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown earlier this month about the California/Colorado/Kentucky/New Jersey suit. "They're now claiming that this isn't about user-generated speech but about tech companies' product design. In this case, the states claim that providing photo filters is contributing to teens' body dysmorphia and that 'psychologically manipulative' features like displaying post 'like' counts, sending notifications, and using algorithms to curate content around a user's particular interests are what's keeping kids hooked, not the actual content on Facebook and Instagram. It's a silly claim, since clearly there could be no 'addiction' to social media if not for the content or communications contained on these platforms."
"The attorneys general and plaintiffs say that Meta's algorithms trap its users in the infinite scroll, hours of time spent staring at half-naked influencers or malnourished celebrities, images that breed body dysmorphia, anxiety and depression," reads a different Times article. This case was very explicitly built off of arguments and research found in Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation, which has enjoyed mainstream appeal. "Mr. Haidt met with some of the attorneys general on Zoom, briefing them on his research," the Times continues.
#Facebook #Social
"The owner of Facebook and Instagram agreed to the financial penalties for violating federal child privacy and states' consumer protection laws, the states announced," reports The New York Times. "Meta also agreed to limit how long teenagers can spend on its platforms and to bans on features that stoke mental health issues, striking at the heart of the company's business of engagement for advertising."
"The settlement effectively ends a bellwether federal trial in the U.S. Northern District of California in Oakland, where California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey were seeking roughly $200 billion over accusations that Meta harmed children," adds the Times. Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, at times invoked a Section 230 defense, the "First Amendment of the internet" that makes it so companies don't bear liability for the posts of their users—which Reason has repeatedly defended amid a media landscape that doesn't seem to understand the value of Section 230.
"After years of being barred from suing social platforms, state prosecutors have gotten creative," wrote Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown earlier this month about the California/Colorado/Kentucky/New Jersey suit. "They're now claiming that this isn't about user-generated speech but about tech companies' product design. In this case, the states claim that providing photo filters is contributing to teens' body dysmorphia and that 'psychologically manipulative' features like displaying post 'like' counts, sending notifications, and using algorithms to curate content around a user's particular interests are what's keeping kids hooked, not the actual content on Facebook and Instagram. It's a silly claim, since clearly there could be no 'addiction' to social media if not for the content or communications contained on these platforms."
"The attorneys general and plaintiffs say that Meta's algorithms trap its users in the infinite scroll, hours of time spent staring at half-naked influencers or malnourished celebrities, images that breed body dysmorphia, anxiety and depression," reads a different Times article. This case was very explicitly built off of arguments and research found in Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation, which has enjoyed mainstream appeal. "Mr. Haidt met with some of the attorneys general on Zoom, briefing them on his research," the Times continues.
#Facebook #Social
2 months ago
