1 edit
These lawsuits against social media giants seem like a really big deal. Meta's market capital is at $1.63 trillion, earned off the backs of people who became hopelessly addicted to their product. The product was DESIGNED to be addictive and harmful, because that's what draws in the most eyeballs and dollars.
Does this remind you of tobacco?
Should they be required to compensate for the harm they have done? Especially in the context of kids who have lost their lives or suffered severe and permanent psychological damage?
This is the latest example, but there are 1,600 more cases awaiting trial and this one seems lined up as the bellwether.
https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-testifies-social-media-addiction-trial-meta/
@wildgrass saidLike tobacco use, this will not even start to disappear until we all make it socially unacceptable.
These lawsuits against social media giants seem like a really big deal. Meta's market capital is at $1.63 trillion, earned off the backs of people who became hopelessly addicted to their product. The product was DESIGNED to be addictive and harmful, because that's what draws in the most eyeballs and dollars.
Does this remind you of tobacco?
Should they be required to ...[text shortened]... lwether.
https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-testifies-social-media-addiction-trial-meta/
Any behavior, when made popular, or at least have little pushback against, will continue uninterrupted in society at least until it becomes "uncool".
@Suzianne saidThe tobacco settlement was important. It payed out $200 billion to state governments who continue to use the money as funding for medical research.
Like tobacco use, this will not even start to disappear until we all make it socially unacceptable.
Any behavior, when made popular, or at least have little pushback against, will continue uninterrupted in society at least until it becomes "uncool".
I could see a similar thing happening here. Social media conglomerates like Meta knowingly create and distribute harmful products and I think the cost of mitigating that harm should fall on the company and not taxpayers.
@wildgrass saidI fully agree.
The tobacco settlement was important. It payed out $200 billion to state governments who continue to use the money as funding for medical research.
I could see a similar thing happening here. Social media conglomerates like Meta knowingly create and distribute harmful products and I think the cost of mitigating that harm should fall on the company and not taxpayers.
This should be the cost of harming people.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidOf course, any game—and I see social media as being nothing other than a game—is designed to be an activity that people will want to spend a lot of time playing. Really good games can be addictive. The game Fortnite comes to mind. Is Facebook really much different than Fortnite? And yes, social media is psychologically toxic for youth in general. Some can handle it, but many cannot.
These lawsuits against social media giants seem like a really big deal. Meta's market capital is at $1.63 trillion, earned off the backs of people who became hopelessly addicted to their product. The product was DESIGNED to be addictive and harmful, because that's what draws in the most eyeballs and dollars.
Does this remind you of tobacco?
Should they be required to ...[text shortened]... lwether.
https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-testifies-social-media-addiction-trial-meta/
Cell phones seem to be addictive. They are devices that dish out the social media toxins. I've never really gotten into cell phones, and feel like an alien visiting from another planet when I walk about in public and see, sometimes, almost everyone with their nose glued to a cell phone. Sitting, standing, walking, and even driving—noses glued to phones. It's like being in a Twilight Zone episode. People are addicted to them. But what's to be done?
Legislation and litigation won't fix the problem. Banning cell phones in classrooms will help, and is currently trending, but it's not a cure for the addiction.
What is the problem? Clearly, wallowing in social media is an attempt to fill a void. An emptiness. Digital "connections" and parasocial attachments are increasingly being substituted for real, meaningful, two-way relationships. For youths in the US, at least, there are increasingly fewer physical places to "hang out," and helicopter parents and hysterical child safety laws have left kids with far less agency than they used to have.
Worse, a youthful indiscretion committed online, using social media, all too often becomes a de facto matter of public record in perpetuity. A foolish thing said at age 13 closes off opportunities at age 25. And AI, also toxic and unregulated, will make sure all mistakes are able to be rooted out by even a rank amateur with an efficiency that makes the Google searches of days past pale in comparison.
If the human population were not so vastly oversized, I'd recommend that we gradually return to a hunter-gatherer way of life. Hell, the way humans are destroying the environment, with the MAGA lizard people working overtime to accelerate the destruction, it may well be that in a couple centuries hunting and gathering will be precisely what humanity will be reduced to.
In more practical terms, I'd say that the solution is the democratization of economics. Yes, I mean some form of socialism. This entails collective stewardship (not to mean ownership) of all corporate entities that currently foist toxic technologies onto the populace with only the maximization of monetary profit in mind. That cannot stand. It is unsustainable, just as the capitalist need for eternal growth is unsustainable. Society must become more attentive to the developmental needs of its children, which does not mean controlling and programming their daily activities even more. There needs to be less of that, really, because micromanaging kids is not conducive to their mental health and development.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidCompensate how? By reviving the dead kids? Otherwise it's just a latter-day version of wergeld.
These lawsuits against social media giants seem like a really big deal. Meta's market capital is at $1.63 trillion, earned off the backs of people who became hopelessly addicted to their product. The product was DESIGNED to be addictive and harmful, because that's what draws in the most eyeballs and dollars.
Does this remind you of tobacco?
Should they be required to ...[text shortened]... lwether.
https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-testifies-social-media-addiction-trial-meta/
"So sorry that we helped to drive your kid to suicide -- here's a bunch of money as compensation."
@Arkturos saidThey need to do that AND much much more. They have burdened society with a dangerous product that taxpayers now are forced to clean up.
Compensate how? By reviving the dead kids? Otherwise it's just a latter-day version of wergeld.
"So sorry that we helped to drive your kid to suicide -- here's a bunch of money as compensation."
@wildgrass saidProbably a 14-year-old or younger Linux-ricer/vibe-coder of the present day could tell them: "Yeah, you should have put a muffler or a throttler on the behavior you have facilitated and enabled a long time ago.
They need to do that AND much much more. They have burdened society with a dangerous product that taxpayers now are forced to clean up.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidIf it's not the Gays, it's the Jews. (Sometimes both -- not thinking of Zukes.)
Zuckerberg is the dealer, not the addict.