In a bipartisan effort, a group of 33 Attorneys General is suing Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, for allegedly creating addictive features targeted at young users. The lawsuit contends that Meta specifically designed its algorithms, notifications, and the “infinite scroll” feature to ensure that young users spend prolonged periods on their platforms. It further alleges that features such as “likes” and photo filters negatively influence teens’ mental health, leading to issues like sleep deprivation, self-harm, and suicidal tendencies. The states involved in this lawsuit seek to put an end to such practices and are demanding penalties and restitution. In response, a spokesperson for Meta expressed disappointment in the Attorneys General’s choice of action and claimed that the company has introduced over 30 tools for the safety and well-being of teens online.
Drawing a parallel to past tobacco lawsuits, the Attorneys General argue that the impact of such tech platforms on the younger generation is similar to the addictive nature of cigarettes. The lawsuit emphasizes the deceptive practices of Meta in fully understanding the adverse effects on youth but continuing to promote their platforms as safe and positive. Phil Weiser, Attorney General of Colorado, and Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, emphasized the urgent need for reforms, calling for significant changes in the design and features of these platforms. They also highlighted the broader mental health crisis exacerbated by these platforms, asserting their commitment to ensuring accountability and pushing for injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties.
What do you guys think? Is this a step in the right direction or is it a little too late?
I personally think TikTok is even worse.
I want a world with more people’s conscience and with a healthy life.
I believe in some situations as business reaches people’s life is essential, but now people are addicted to a life connected to social media in a truly toxic way.
I hope one-day people will start to realise they do not need to share everything and also that entertainment is not 24/7 and they can turn off their smartphones and live the real life.
I think this is a step in the right direction! Unfortunately, I fear that any changes which may result from this will be limited to accounts held by minors; I do not anticipate any privacy/digital wellbeing requirements being instated on accounts held by adults. Of course once someone attains the age of majority personal responsibility becomes a factor, but if these platforms are indeed addictive akin to tobacco or alcohol, I would say there is a place for government to provide some form of regulation (or at the least an awareness campaign of the pitfalls of addictive algorithms) as it does with those substances, regardless of user age.
I’m right there with you! I hope that they are building a case against TikTok too, but I would imagine provided how relatively new that platform is that it may take longer to create a more ironclad legal challenge.
@kirkmahoneyphd Thanks for sharing this. I just saw a segment about this last night on NewsNation about how Meta knowingly designed its platforms to hook kids. PLUS- they don’t do anything once they know a child is under 13 & using their platform.
I had posted previously that, because of the lack of regulation, Meta can basically do whatever they want without any consequences. However, I also agree with @roberto who said that more regulation is not necessarily the best option because then we relay on the government create boundaries for us, rather than doing the right thing because WE KNOW that’s what should be done.
Honestly, I’m not sure how META should be dealt with. I have a feeling they’re like the tobacco companies, which for YEARS knew their product was addictive & caused health issues, but continued to cover it up so they can make money.
@urszula, This failed attempt (for now) is the result and will undoubtedly extend to more countries:
The Portuguese government has proposed criminalizing discrimination based on “political or ideological beliefs.” The amendments to this bill presented by the government stated that criminal punishment would be applied to discrimination against a person or group of people on various grounds, including their “political or ideological beliefs.” – in the original version from the Government, it read “political or ideological opinion” – or for their “education, economic status, social condition, or under the pretext of a collective guilt based on any of these factors.”
If the law is passed, people can be punished with actual prison sentences and possibly with perpetual banishment from the body or social network where the offense might have been published, uttered, vented, etc.