A California court's ruling that Google and Meta harmed the mental health of a 20-yr-old when she was a minor - she started using YouTube when she was 6 and Instagram when 9 - by design to encourage addiction could be a watershed in how lawmakers approach social media.
The trial went into elements such as infinite scrolling, algorithmic suggestions and autoplay, as well as internal company communications that indicated executives were aware of the effects of social media on children. This places the verdict in the same category of judgments that were delivered against tobacco companies in the US, which led to restrictions on advertising that eventually led to the decline of smoking.
Though significant, the penalties against Meta and Google are a single instance - although more such cases are winding their way through American courtrooms - and far removed from the enormous settlement Big Tobacco reached with the majority of US states.
Meta and Google argued they are working on improving internal systems to deny access to social media and streaming video to children. However, the genie is out of the bottle, and tech platforms will find themselves subjected to tighter scrutiny under the law. Their claims of being content-agnostic are not cutting ice with a growing segment of society, and they could find their safe harbour status under threat. Damages are token - the jury awarded the plaintiff $6 mn in damages, a molecular amount for the Big Tech duo, which will appeal. Yet, the opening salvo has been delivered.
Consumers, on their part, cannot push the entire burden of social media addiction on tech platforms. Parental oversight has been a strong counterforce to TV and gaming addiction, and can play a similar role. Extra safeguards may be needed because of the explosion of devices on which social media is consumed. Mental health in formative years is a complex interplay of familial, social and technological issues. Addressing them would need a broader response than simply restricting social media.
The trial went into elements such as infinite scrolling, algorithmic suggestions and autoplay, as well as internal company communications that indicated executives were aware of the effects of social media on children. This places the verdict in the same category of judgments that were delivered against tobacco companies in the US, which led to restrictions on advertising that eventually led to the decline of smoking.
Though significant, the penalties against Meta and Google are a single instance - although more such cases are winding their way through American courtrooms - and far removed from the enormous settlement Big Tobacco reached with the majority of US states.
Meta and Google argued they are working on improving internal systems to deny access to social media and streaming video to children. However, the genie is out of the bottle, and tech platforms will find themselves subjected to tighter scrutiny under the law. Their claims of being content-agnostic are not cutting ice with a growing segment of society, and they could find their safe harbour status under threat. Damages are token - the jury awarded the plaintiff $6 mn in damages, a molecular amount for the Big Tech duo, which will appeal. Yet, the opening salvo has been delivered.
Consumers, on their part, cannot push the entire burden of social media addiction on tech platforms. Parental oversight has been a strong counterforce to TV and gaming addiction, and can play a similar role. Extra safeguards may be needed because of the explosion of devices on which social media is consumed. Mental health in formative years is a complex interplay of familial, social and technological issues. Addressing them would need a broader response than simply restricting social media.