The writing on the wall for Meta first became visible in 2021 when whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before the U.S. House and Senate, and also the United Kingdom Parliament. Haugen, a former Facebook employee, was able to detail — with thousands of pages of copied confidential documents — exactly how Facebook tried to addict the young and how it knew exactly what harms it was causing by doing so, yet did not change its product.
It has, lamentably, taken almost five full years for justice to be served the company, which changed its name to Meta in 2021. Equally lamentably, it was not our federal government that acted on this knowledge to secure the safety of our nation’s children through legislation or regulation. The legislative branch of our government has been missing in action for quite some time, leaving only presidential administrations that seemed lukewarm at best to the idea of tackling the core business models of Big Tech companies.
But at least we still have the jury trial, where real Americans, and not politicians, get to decide what is right and what is wrong.
For years the legal system had seemed paralyzed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which holds that online publishers are not liable for what third parties post to their sites, as long as “efforts are made” to take down illegal content when it is identified.
But Haugen’s testimony offered a different legal approach to the question of social-media harms. And finally, earlier this year, that new approach was tested in trials in California and New Mexico. The lawyers in those cases attacked not the harms of the content provided, but the harms of the manner in which Meta and other companies provided it. The mechanisms for addiction included these companies’ algorithmic recommendations, infinite scroll of this personalized feed, and automatic video play of items in the scroll. These features amount, argued the lawyers, to addictive design. And Meta and other companies could be held strictly liable for that design.
And they were. The jury in California was shocked at the evidence presented, and found Meta and other companies guilty. The jury in New Mexico was equally shocked and found Meta guilty. A total of almost $1 billion in fines was levied in just these two cases. These were the shots over Meta’s bow before the first really big trial hit this month, in August. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, representing a coalition of 29 states, sued Meta on this same theory. The trial opened Aug. 18, with a jury to offer an advisory verdict to the judge.
Wednesday Meta announced it was settling the case out of court. It will pay almost $17 billion over 10 years to almost all the U.S. states in restitution (though it can be argued that the lives of the young people driven to suicide and harm by Meta’s addictive mechanisms can never have a price tag affixed). But the money is almost inconsequential next to the changes in Meta’s business practices that it has agreed to make.
According to the information publicly available, the settlement, which must still be approved by the judge, includes for Meta’s social-media products:
- A default daily time limit of two hours for users under 18 that can only be lifted by a parent. If other social media platforms agree to similar terms, the daily time limit will drop to one hour.
- A default nighttime block between midnight and 6 a.m. for users under 18 that can only be lifted by a parent. If other social-media platforms agree to similar terms, the nighttime block will expand to cover 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
- Default blocks on notifications to users under 18 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and during the school day (8 a.m. to 3 p.m. from August 15 to June 15).
- An enhanced mechanism for teens to report potentially harmful content and a requirement that Meta respond to 90% of those reports within six hours.
- A ban on displaying numbers of likes or reactions to users under 18.
- A ban on cosmetic procedure image filters for users under 18.
- An option for users under 18 to have a non-personalized feed, meaning a feed that doesn’t use an algorithm to target them with content aimed to keep them endlessly scrolling.
I like all of these, but three of the provisions are worth further highlight.
First, Meta says it will respond to reports about potentially harmful content within six hours. This type of accountability for takedown has been missing for far too long, and it should be extended to content reported by anyone of any age. Second, the ban on “likes” is something that parents have called for, for years. It incentivizes the worst behavior, all for the sake of “likes.”
However, most meaningful of all, in my opinion, is to finally — finally — have the option for a true non-algorithmic feed. As I have argued previously, social-media algorithms are turbocharging both addictive behavior and the stepwise procession into darker recesses of content. Human beings, whether teen or adult, should possess the absolute right to refuse algorithmic feeds for the sake of their mental health. This should be non-negotiable.
While very happy about these provisions, I cannot help but wonder: who will be determining if Meta has complied? According to the press, Meta is to bring in an independent auditor to ensure compliance. I have questions about how that will work. In my opinion, the same states that brought the lawsuit should also play a role. I exhort the states that settled the suit to establish a hotline for those consumers who can show Meta has not lived up to these promises, and to put forward an agreed-upon means of punishing Meta if that can be shown.
I also exhort the states to insist Meta offer adults the same rights as teens, particularly with reference to accountability in addressing harmful content, and also to the provision of a non-algorithmic feed to any of its customers who desire one. It’s not just teens who are harmed by social media.
This year represents a real watershed for consumer rights vis-a-vis social media. It’s Big Tech’s Big Tobacco moment, and thank goodness it has finally arrived.