I was already working on a piece for this week about the multiple state and federal lawsuits claiming that Facebook and Instagram harm teens, cause addiction and depression etc. when I saw the headlines saying Meta had agreed to settle many of these claims (most of the state ones anyway) by paying up to $18 billion in fines, with a majority of that coming in the form of annual payments that are to be used for online safety programs for children. According to reports, 30 percent of the total amount will only be paid if TikTok and YouTube also implement controls such as strict age limits, daily usage limits, etc. which Meta has agreed to. Meta is also going to turn off default features such as auto-video plays and “like” counts (but apparently these could be turned on again by users without too much trouble). A block on night-time use by teens, which will extend from midnight to 6 am, however, can’t be disabled except by a parent. There will be an option for users to have a non-algorithmic feed, and Meta has agreed to a number of other terms, including the use of an independent auditor, and a prohibition from making “further false, misleading, or deceptive statements around its safety features.”
So that’s it then, right? Why I am I even writing about this after Meta has agreed to all that? Clearly, the company is basically admitting that it did all the things the lawsuits claim that it did – that it deliberately made its products as addictive as possible, even when it knew that this would cause harm; that it targeted children specifically, and ignored its own internal research showing that Instagram in particular causes emotional harm, depression, etc.; and that it hid or lied about that research, and deliberately made its products worse even when it knew about the harms they might cause. And this isn’t the first settlement Meta has agreed to in similar cases: earlier in August, it agreed to pay a total of almost $1 billion in a case in New Mexico, after a judge said the social media giant is a “public nuisance” akin to air pollution – the first successful state prosecution of Meta based on child safety. In March, meanwhile, a jury in California awarded a woman $6 million because she said she was addicted to Instagram since she was a child and that it caused her mental distress, including the development of a body dysmorphic disorder.
If you follow these kinds of cases, it probably won’t surprise you that Meta didn’t admit to anything in any of these settlements. It simply agreed to drop the cases in return for making payments – payments that, according to my calculations, amount to about 0.005 percent of Meta’s revenue. Even the latest $18 billion mega-settlement works out to less than one-tenth of one percent of the company’s revenue. In other words, Meta paid because it was worth it to get the cases out of the public eye, not because it actually believes any of the allegations against it are true – and because its lawyers argued there was a non-zero chance of the result being even more expensive, as much as $200 billion according to some estimates (the stock rose after the settlement news). As for the changes it has agreed to make to the ways that its apps work, they are in many cases reversible – which means they are likely to be about as effective as Australia’s social-media ban for teens has been (which is to say not at all) – and I would argue are cosmetic at best.
Note: This is a version of my Torment Nexus newsletter, which I send out via Ghost, the open-source publishing platform. You can see other issues and sign up here.
Continue reading “That $18-billion Facebook case is based mostly on vibes”























