@AverageJoe1 saidBackspace is your friend.
Let me be the first to say that I don’t think they were fined enough. This of course will set the stage for all of you contrarians ,,,,,so what did you think? think?
@AverageJoe1 saidLet me be the first to say that I don’t think they were fined enough.
Let me be the first to say that I don’t think they were fined enough. This of course will set the stage for all of you contrarians ,,,,,so what did you think? think?
Well, saints be praised! We finally found something to agree on Joe. I don’t think they were fined enough either. Meta and You Tube can pull these amounts out of petty cash and not feel it. I don't believe Meta or You Tube's operating methods were designed to harm anyone; nevertheless, they need to be more careful about what they allow on their sites.
I'm surprised you support such government oversite Joe. I assumed you simply backed unbridled and unregulated capitalism.
Be careful Joe. you're starting to sound like (dare I say it) A LIBERAL! 😏
@mchill saidWel having said all this, the constitutional experts think it will be overturned.
Let me be the first to say that I don’t think they were fined enough.
Well, saints be praised! We finally found something to agree on Joe. I don’t think they were fined enough either. Meta and You Tube can pull these amounts out of petty cash and not feel it. I don't believe Meta or You Tube's operating methods were designed to harm anyone; nevertheless, they need to be mor ...[text shortened]... gulated capitalism.
Be careful Joe. you're starting to sound like (dare I say it) A LIBERAL! 😏
My reasons are personal, in that these companies get to go on with pornography and all the rest,,,,,,I think of rhe children, my life is devoted to helping children that are 'At risk'. Camps, etc, set up for kids who are in povverty and need a start in life. Meta is not exactly making it easy to raise and develop them properly. Have you ever been shown porn on the internet. It is all there, all of it. Heartbreaking that their eyes and ears are introduced to children. Damn them.
Call me a liberal, you are prob a conservative in some ways.
2 edits
@Great-Big-Stees saidOnly if their parents are good at techie stuff, and the kid's friends don't have cell phones.
I know very little about “techie stuff” but aren’t there parental things that can stop kids from, even accidentally, accessing porn?🤔
@AverageJoe1 saidA terrible decision with far ranging consequences for free speech if not overturned on appeal. Otherwise, we'll see an epidemic of "social media made me sad" lawsuits.
Let me be the first to say that I don’t think they were fined enough. This of course will set the stage for all of you contrarians ,,,,,so what did you think? think?
@AverageJoe1 saidI normally don't like to give extensive quotes from opinion articles but Elizabeth Nolan Brown's piece from the libertarian Reason Roundup puts it better than I could:
Let me be the first to say that I don’t think they were fined enough. This of course will set the stage for all of you contrarians ,,,,,so what did you think? think?
"It begins: anyone who's ever spent too much time on social media—or simply suffered any setbacks while simultaneously having social media accounts—can claim "addiction" and reasonably expect a big payout. A landmark verdict in California has paved the way for that, and worse.
After nearly two months of trial, a jury on Wednesday decided that Meta and Google are liable—to the tune of $6 million—for the psychological troubles plaguing now 20-year-old Kaley G.M.
In a civil suit, Kaley claimed that addiction to YouTube and other online platforms when she was a minor led to depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia. She originally sued four tech companies—Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snap—but the latter two settled before trial.
Her case is part of a consolidated case representing nearly 2,500 plaintiffs, and the first to come before a jury. "The trial's outcome could help spur a global settlement, though eight more bellwether trials are being prepared, with the next one scheduled to start this summer," notes Courthouse News Service.
Absolving parents (and ourselves) of blame: The implications of this verdict go way beyond Kaley, and even way beyond those thousands of current plaintiffs. This case—and one decided earlier this week in New Mexico—represent a legal and conceptual paradigm shift in how we consider social media.
Many people seem (or want) to believe that it's simply not possible to exercise restraint when it comes to smartphones and social media, or that parents bear any responsibility for controlling their kids' use and exposure. The shift showcases an embrace of powerlessness and corporate blame when it comes to tech habits, and a rejection of ideas like personal and parental responsibility. We've imbued these platforms with an almost magical status, while expecting their proprietors to perform superhuman feats of saving people from themselves.
In this case, Kaley testified to heavy use of social media from a young age. But she also suffered from school and home life problems and was exposed to domestic violence at a young age. To say that social media caused her problems is to rule out significant life stressors that can cause adolescents pain. It's to assume a causality that goes one way (heavy social media causes issues) when it could just as likely go the other way (girl turns to too much social media in the face of problems at home and school). It's to assign a massive and mystical power to smartphones and corporations, while utterly rejecting more mundane vectors or responsibility.
Tort lawyers rejoice: This could be a gold rush for personal injury lawyers. Bad personal choices? Poor parenting? Material factors? Nah—must be the Reels!
"Cases like this will likely unleash a trial lawyer bonanza via a much broader wave of (mostly frivolous) lawsuits," predicts R Street Institute policy analyst Adam Thierer. "Every tort lawyer in America is probably thinking about ripping down their 'Been in a Crash?' billboards right now and replacing them with 'Addicted to the Internet?' signs."
The Wall Street Journal editorial board has a similar take. "Using a novel product liability theory to shake down companies won't help young people and isn't a good way to make law," it says.
Kaley's lawyers pushed their product liability theory, in part, by arguing that Meta and Google designed their products to be engaging and failed to design them in a way that would limit excessive use by teenagers. But using this as a standard for negligence is a very slippery slope. Social media companies are far from unique in trying to make products that people want to use or to showcase content that people want to consume. Nor are they unique in not actively working to prevent problematic consumption.
The addiction framework on display here could be used against food companies, streaming services, TV networks, game developers, porn producers, fitness programs, and a lot more.
Treating speech as "product": These cases may be good for tort lawyers, but they're a very bad omen for the open internet and free speech.
If social media platforms are legally liable for all the troubles of adolescence, it's not long before banning teens or severely limiting their use becomes the only sensible response. And that means checking IDs or requiring biometric identification for all users—the end of anonymity online.
If social media platforms are legally liable for any and all vague harms that someone could blame on their content, serious crackdowns on all sorts of material could become warranted. That means speech around controversial issues, diet and fitness, mental health topics, sexuality, and so much more will be suppressed.
And if social media platforms are a "product," rather than a venue for speech, we open the way for so much more government regulation of what can and cannot be said online.
"Many are cheering the [California and New Mexico] decisions, likening them to landmark lawsuits against Big Tobacco," notes Ari Cohn of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) on X. But "social media platforms and the information, ideas, and entertainment they connect people to aren't tangible items that inherently and invariably have physical impacts on the human body" and "the minute we start treating speech as if it were just another physical product is the minute we hand the government the power to decide what we can read, watch, and say."
@mchill saidGovernment oversight is a good thing*, government overreach is not.
Let me be the first to say that I don’t think they were fined enough.
Well, saints be praised! We finally found something to agree on Joe. I don’t think they were fined enough either. Meta and You Tube can pull these amounts out of petty cash and not feel it. I don't believe Meta or You Tube's operating methods were designed to harm anyone; nevertheless, they need to be mor ...[text shortened]... gulated capitalism.
Be careful Joe. you're starting to sound like (dare I say it) A LIBERAL! 😏
* At least in a normal government, not a fascist government.
@AverageJoe1 saidAnd yet you still expose these "at risk" kids to Republicanism.
Wel having said all this, the constitutional experts think it will be overturned.
My reasons are personal, in that these companies get to go on with pornography and all the rest,,,,,,I think of rhe children, my life is devoted to helping children that are 'At risk'. Camps, etc, set up for kids who are in povverty and need a start in life. Meta is not exactly making ...[text shortened]... troduced to children. Damn them.
Call me a liberal, you are prob a conservative in some ways.
Your giving a damn ends when you reap the benefits.
More malleable brainpans to bend to your will is, according to you, a good thing.
@no1marauder saidThis is what we need more of on the forum. Great stuff, and all should read it to make up your own minds. It opens a lot of questions, of course.;
I normally don't like to give extensive quotes from opinion articles but Elizabeth Nolan Brown's piece from the libertarian Reason Roundup puts it better than I could:
"It begins: anyone who's ever spent too much time on social media—or simply suffered any setbacks while simultaneously having social media accounts—can claim "addiction" and reasonably expect a big payou ...[text shortened]... duct is the minute we hand the government the power to decide what we can read, watch, and say."[/b]
One would be,,,,,,,If we consider what is 'out there' which, for lack of a better way to say it, poisons minds, mindsets and visions of our children of rhe world around them, what can be done about it. To be blunt, I have seen pornography a year or so ago on a fishing trip where an MD on the trip in all seriousness, not joking around, pulled it up on his cell phone and said look at what our children are seeing. Astounding. All aspects of the deed.
So there it is. How do we deal with this, or is it going to be an acceptable facet of our society to dance around with our kids? Do we include the videos when talking about birds and bees to children, since they will see it anyway? Or try to hide it which is impossible. Horse is out of the barn.
No answer in my opinion.