Social media trial shows Meta’s child safety promises were hollow words

Wednesday was a historic day when Mark Zuckerberg took the stand and faced a sworn jury to answer allegations that Meta had knowingly designed and promoted products that attracted young users, including children, despite internal warnings about the risks; this was the first time he had testified before a jury in such a case.

Although Zuckerberg’s testimony was often characterized by evasion and evasion of questions (to the point where the judge ordered him to answer directly), he is unable to work his way out of this situation. The evidence in this social media trial speaks for itself.

Plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier focused on three main themes in his questioning: 1) addictive users; 2) allowing underage users to access the platform; and 3) making business decisions that put profit over safety.

Zuckerberg was presented with an email in 2015 in which the CEO stated that his goal for 2016 was to increase the time users spent on the platform by 12%. Zuckerberg argued that Meta’s growth goals reflect its aim to give users something useful, not to keep them addicted, and stated that the company is not seeking to attract children as users.

NEARLY TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICAN VOTERS SUPPORT A SOCIAL MEDIA BAN ON CHILDREN UNDER 16, ACCORDING TO A FOX NEWS POLL.

When asked if he believed people tend to use more of something addictive, he rejected that proposition. “I don’t think that applies here,” he said.

But it’s definitely valid. Meta’s entire business model is built on user interaction. Although social media may seem “free,” the product being sold is the child’s time, attention, and data. More hours with eyes glued to the screen means more ads sold. The user is the product. The incentive is to keep users engaged as much as possible.

Addiction expert Dr. from Stanford University. According to expert testimony, social media meets the clinical criteria for addiction, as confirmed at Anna Lembke’s earlier hearing.

AFTER AUSTRALIA PASSED A SOCIAL MEDIA BAN, MPS EXAMINED WHY CONGRESS IS NOT DOING MORE TO PROTECT CHILDREN

Lanier also questioned Zuckerberg extensively about Meta’s age verification policies. In 2015, he showed an internal Meta email estimating that 4 million children under the age of 13 use Instagram; this rate is approximately 30% of U.S. children ages 10 to 12. One in three teenage children.

Zuckerberg said the company removed identified underage users and included requirements regarding age requirements during the registration process. Lanier responded, “Do you expect a 9-year-old to read all the fine print? Is that the basis for swearing that no children under 13 are allowed?”

Zuckerberg added that some children “lie about their age to get services.” During this exchange, he also said: “I don’t understand why this is so complicated… we have rules and people generally understand that.”

Artificial Intelligence Companions Are Reshaping Teens’ Emotional Bonds

Waving your hand and saying “we have rules” is not a sufficient defense. These are minors. It is the company’s responsibility to ensure that the platform is effectively age-rated; Otherwise the stated age policy has no meaning.

In practice, age verification on most social media platforms relies heavily on self-reported dates of birth. A child can enter an incorrect age, click and accept the terms and conditions, and gain access within minutes. Critics argue that without meaningful safeguards, age limits amount to little more than an honor system.

Age of access is an important issue in this essay. Plaintiff KGM, who entered Instagram at the age of 9, claims that her use of social media in her childhood and youth led to body image disorder, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, addiction and depression. The age at which he began using the app – a crucial period of brain development between the ages of 10 and 12 – is central to the harms he claims.

AUSTRALIA REMOVED 4.7 MILLION CHILDREN FROM SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS IN THE FIRST MONTH OF HISTORIC BAN

The plaintiff argued that Instagram should never have allowed the 9-year-old to appear on the platform. Whether the jury will ultimately agree remains to be seen, but the lawsuit places the blame for these decisions squarely on Meta’s leadership.

Lanier, with the help of six others, concluded her interrogation by unfurling a 15-foot collage of every selfie KGM had posted on Instagram, many with beauty filters. He asked Zuckerberg if Meta was investigating his account for unhealthy behavior. Zuckerberg did not respond.

Previously, Lanier had pressured Zuckerberg to allow beauty filters that mimic plastic surgery after 18 internal experts warned they were harmful to young girls and could contribute to body dysmorphia, according to internal documents. Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri ultimately reversed the temporary ban and allowed filters on the platform. Plaintiffs claim the decision exposes vulnerable young users to tools linked to body dysmorphia and other mental health issues.

Zuckerberg defended the decision after the ban was lifted, saying that Instagram did not create its own filters or recommend them to users. “I think a lot of times it’s oppressive to tell people they can’t express themselves that way.”

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

What a turnaround. Removing plastic surgery filters that harm young girls is, in her words, “tyrannical.” Many parents call this taking reasonable precautions.

While Zuckerberg has publicly said Meta cares about children’s safety — telling Congress in 2024, “Our job is to make sure we’re building tools that help keep people safe” and “We stand with parents everywhere who are working hard to raise their children” — internal evidence presented at the hearing suggests otherwise.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Although he did not admit in court that he knew his products were addictive or targeted at teenagers, there was no need to do so. The jury and the public can compare his answers with internal documents and decide for themselves.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CLARE MORELL