It has been a bad couple of days for social media companies.
Yesterday, a jury in Los Angeles found that “the social media company Meta and the video streaming service YouTube harmed a young user with design features that were addictive and led to her mental health distress,” according to the New York Times. “Meta must pay $4.2 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages, and YouTube must pay $1.8 million.
“The bellwether case, which was brought by a now 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., had accused social media companies of creating products as addictive as cigarettes or digital casinos. Citing features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, K.G.M. sued Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and Google’s YouTube, claiming they led to anxiety and depression.
“The verdict in K.G.M.’s case — one of thousands of lawsuits filed by teenagers, school districts and state attorneys general against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat — was a major win for the plaintiffs. The finding validates a novel legal theory that social media sites or apps can cause personal injury. It is likely to factor into similar cases expected to go to trial this year, which could expose the internet giants to further financial damages and force changes to their products.”
Speaking of similar cases … the Wall Street Journal reports that “a New Mexico jury on Tuesday found that Meta Platforms, which runs Facebook and Instagram, was liable for failing to protect young people from online dangers, including sexually explicit content, solicitation and human trafficking.
“The jury found Meta liable for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and endangering children, under the state’s consumer protection laws. The jury ordered a maximum penalty for each violation, totaling $375 million in civil penalties. Meta made 160 times that amount of revenue in its most recent quarter.”
In a separate analysis, the Journal writes, “For Meta Platforms, which made $60 billion in profit last year, getting hit with legal damages of a few million dollars is ordinarily a nonevent.
“But back-to-back jury verdicts holding the company liable for harms to young people could open the way to a flood of litigation that could force it – and other social-media giants – to make significant changes to the way they design and deliver their products.”
And the Times offers this perspective: “The personal liability argument draws inspiration from a legal playbook used against Big Tobacco last century, in which lawyers argued that the companies created addictive products that harmed users. The companies have largely dodged legal threats by citing a federal shield, called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects them from liability for what their users post.
“TikTok and Snap both settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed terms before the trial (in Los Angeles) started.”
in both cases, appeals of the jury verdicts have been promised.
KC’s View:
I’m glad that the juries ruled this way, but I wish they’d hit the companies for a lot more money. These sums, as considerable as they are, amount to a cost of doing business for companies that generate the revenue numbers of these behemoth social media companies.
Let me quickly repeat something I’ve said here before: businesses that are using social media companies to target and market to young people should be vigilant, lets they find themselves on the wrong end of public opinion trends about these companies and their avaricious exploitation of younger generations.
They have the ability to age-gate their offerings, and make sure that for the most part, nobody under 18 can us social media. But they won’t do that, because their own greed and bottom lines are more important than any sort of ethical imperative to protect young people from bullying and body shaming that could result in suicidal ideation.
Shame on them.
I believe that this is just the tip of the spear when it comes to a societal backlash that will – and should – hold these giant technology companies culpable for their actions.
It was interesting that yesterday, Axios reported that Meta President Dina Powell McCormick said that humanity is undergoing a “transformation” in the AI era. Now, she also said that “the key word … is ‘humanity.’ In a period of rapidly evolving innovation that has massive implications for the workforce and world, tech can’t lose the guiding ‘soul’ behind it.”
Which was ironic, since the New York Times also reported that yesterday, Meta “laid off around 700 employees, a person with knowledge of the company said, the latest downsizing as the Silicon Valley giant shifts its priorities toward artificial intelligence.
“Less than 24 hours earlier, the company unveiled a new stock program for six top executives that could increase compensation for some of them by as much as $921 million each over the next five years. Meta said the move was a way to retain talent in the A.I. era and push it toward ambitious growth.
“The dichotomy – cutting some employees while rewarding high-ranking executives – underlines how much A.I. has changed the tech industry. In recent years, Meta has been trying to move beyond its social media and metaverse businesses. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, has declared that he is striving to create ‘superintelligence,’ or a godlike A.I. that can act as the ultimate personal companion.”
Look, I understand that AI can be a valuable tool leading to greater effectiveness and efficiency. I’m by no means a Luddite, and I thought it was interesting this week when Dave Peacock, CEO of Advantage Solutions, told Western Michigan University’s Food Marketing Conference that he rejected the notion that companies should have an AI strategy. Almost everyone has a smartphone, he said, but people don’t have smartphone strategies – it is a technology that has become a tool – ubiquitous, but just a tool. Though I would argue that too many of us have become overly dependent on that tool, and its addictive nature often requires people to work very hard to gain some level of healthy separation.
NBC News reported on a recent survey that it conducted revealing that “a majority of registered voters, 57%, said they believe the risks of AI outweigh its benefits, compared with 34% who said the opposite. What’s more, a plurality of voters view AI negatively and don’t believe either Democrats or Republicans are doing a good job handling policy related to the rapidly advancing technology.
“Just 26% of voters say they have positive feelings about AI, compared with 46% who hold negative views.”
The backlash, I believe, has begun. Businesses of all kinds – especially retailers, which are more consumer-facing than most – have to be cognizant of what is happening, respectful of consumer attitudes, as well as responsible and transparent about how they employ technologies and partner with tech companies that promise them the world, at the small, insignificant cost of their very souls.
The post Society 2, Social Media 0, As Two Juries Cast Their Votes appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
