Lawyers are forcing change on social media companies where governments have failed, writes IAN RITCHIE
In the online world, things can often change very quickly. Back in February I wrote about governments around the world making moves to deny young people access to social media platforms. Australia had already implemented its outright ban and others, such as France, Norway, China, and various US states, have since imposed restrictions on social media use.
China is one of the most severe, requiring a “Youth Mode” for those under 14, limiting usage to 40 minutes per day and blocking any usage between 10pm and 6am.
I argued then that outright bans were crude and ineffective and could easily be bypassed, and young people have indeed found ways around the bans. I argued instead that the social media companies should be forced to set age limits and alter their algorithms to be less harmful to those who are immature or whose mental health is unstable.
The pressure on governments to address this problem is led by those who believe their children are victims of social media. Ian Russell, the father of 14-year-old Molly, who died by suicide in 2017, has become a prominent campaigner calling for stronger regulation and controls on the industry. He argues that social media companies should be held responsible for making their products safe, because banning children outright would “punish children for the failures of technology companies.”
However, most social media companies are American, and the current US administration is not minded to impose restrictions on the huge Silicon Valley businesses – perhaps because those companies have been donating generously to MAGA causes. The UK has adopted a cautious approach and is currently conducting a consultation on the subject.
So, if governments can’t force the companies to change, who can? Two recent legal cases have suddenly forced the social media giants to take this issue much more seriously.
Last month, a court in Los Angeles found Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, and Alphabet, which owns YouTube, to be negligent and awarded $6 million to a young woman who alleged she had become addicted to their services, leading to feelings of body dysmorphia and inclinations towards self-harm. TikTok and Snapchat avoided losing this case by settling out of court before the trial.
Although $6m is a trivial amount for Meta and Alphabet it is significant by being the first time they have lost such a case, and by setting an important precedent. It has been followed by a huge wave of fresh lawsuits being filed against social media companies by individuals, schools, states and governments.
This was swiftly followed by the decision of another court case raised by the state of New Mexico which alleged Meta had failed to prevent child exploitation on Facebook and Instagram. The court has awarded $375m as compensation for violations of child safety provisions.
Even $375m is a drop in the ocean for these massive businesses – the value of Alphabet is broadly comparable to the total economy of the UK – but these companies are finally being forced to wake up to the risks they are facing unless they take drastic action to change their ways.
The key winning argument in these cases is that social media services have been deliberately designed to be addictive, harming young people by exploiting anxiety, depression, self-harm, and eating disorders, and that the companies know this but prioritise maximising engagement to increase their profit.
Many observers have compared this to the tobacco industry which had maintained for many years that its products were not harmful or addictive. Eventually, a case in 1998 between major tobacco companies and 46 US states was settled, which cost them $206bn, by far the largest legal settlement in history.
More recently, the manufacturers of opioids were found to be promoting needlessly addictive products which led to them paying compensation in excess of $80bn.
If social media were to go the same way as tobacco and opioids it could cost the companies a huge amount of money. They would undoubtedly rather choose to change their practices.
The Los Angeles case was decided by a split jury of 10 to 2 that the products are deliberately addictive, using features such as “infinite scroll” and auto-playing videos that are highly effective at keeping people on their screens. If this decision holds up on an appeal, then the companies will be forced to disclose their algorithms and be required to change them.
As it happens, social media companies don’t actually make much revenue from under-16s who generally don’t have much in the way of disposable income. So an alternative would be to work with manufacturers and governments to impose age restrictions in a way that would be more secure, and more flexible, allowing parents the ability to control their children’s usage depending on their attitudes and maturity.
It does, however, look like the companies will be forced to take measures to address the harm they have been causing, and fix their services to avoid damaging social wellbeing.
I never thought I’d say this, but thank goodness for the lawyers and the US courts.
Leave a Reply