Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#151

Post by caycep » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:05 PM UTC

strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

it's especially galling because he (or at least his wife) also funds neuroscience research at Stanford and elsewhere, and should have been well informed of the science behind addition, dopamine, and the reward pathways in the brain

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#152

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:06 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #103

twoodfin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine. I also hope the reasons are obvious.

Keep in mind that this case is about about a minor, not an adult. I don't think it's fair to ask children to resist social media through sheer willpower when there are legions of highly educated adults on the other side trying to increase engagement. It should be no surprise that children can be manipulated by highly intelligent adults.

And not just a minor, AIUI it's important that at the start, she was under 16

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#153

Post by nkrisc » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:06 PM UTC

cwmoore wrote: post #132

timmg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep in mind that this case is about about a minor, not an adult. This obviously means that tech is going to have no choice but to do "age verification". And I don't think there's much of a way to do that that wouldn't be uncomfortable for a lot of us.

Or assign responsibility to…parents and legal guardians…who are not children.

Meta is not blameless here. Responsibility can be shared when Meta (and others) are essentially preying on children. It’s an uphill battle for parents by Meta’s design.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#154

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

AlcherBlack wrote: post #122

pow_ext wrote: post #71

Apps like instagram and YouTube should be required at least to give an option to disable reels and shorts

For YouTube, on the mobile app: Setting -> Time Management -> Daily Limits -> Shorts Feed limit

there is no option for zero

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#155

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #145

dzink wrote: post #47

Read the book “Careless People” if you have a chance - according to the book, social media companies figured out they have real leverage with politicians since they can influence elections. As a result they are actively pushing for far right candidates to reduce their own taxation and regulation.

That book was so lame and the author leaves out how she profited millions and then only complained after she was fired. Its also funny how they “discovered” they were influencing elections after they influenced the 2008 and 2012 elections. How did the author not know this when she sought out and joined the company in like 2013! The parts about playing Settlers of Catan with Zuckerberg was funny. I wonder what his sid…

I thought she discussed her pay/stock, what a big deal it was to her and how that affected her decisions very openly.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#156

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #32

This just seems ripe for selective enforcement if not codified in law. I agree the algorithm they use can be addicting, but it's because it's simply good at providing content the user wants to consume. Besides a general 'don't be too good' I'm really not sure what companies should do about it. It just seems like it'll lead to some judges allowing rulings against companies they don't like. Television's goal was always…

Companies that sell products to the public have managed this for a hundred years. Some are good at it, some are not, some completely disregarded their obligations. This is not all that new.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#157

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #146

I think this is going to end up with a huge chunk paid out to state health departments for the foreseeable future. Kind of like how tobacco companies now pay out billions every year and its a major source of funding for states. Hopefully this means more health services available. But it will just serve like an ongoing tax.

AIUI, this particular case is a pilot for about 2,000 similar (but not similar enough to be combined into a class action) cases. They are not actions by state or local governments for damages they have received, as was the case with tobacco.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#158

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:16 PM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #28

I believe social media is on a collision course with an iceberg called Section 230. Broadly speaking, Section 230 differentiates between publishers and platforms . A platform is like Geocities (back in the day) where the platform provider isn't liable for the content as long as they staisfy certain requirements about havaing processes for taking down content when required. A bit like the Cox decision today, you're br…

Please read:

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#159

Post by bsder » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:16 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #41

strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine. I also hope the reasons are obvious.

> As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine.

The problem is that this runs directly into the evidence that is mounting from GLP-1 agonists.

A lot more things are tied to the pathways we associate with "addiction" than we thought.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#160

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 25, 2026, 9:18 PM UTC

parsimo2010 wrote: post #128

I don’t feel good about this case- on the one hand, I’m all for sticking it to big corporations. On the other hand, nobody has claimed that Meta and YouTube were doing anything illegal, so this case is different from civil suits brought after a criminal case finds someone guilty. This is a case where the jury decided they don’t like how two corporations acted, and are just giving money to one person. Why does this pl…

The case was brought under product liability law.

If I sell you gizmo, and I know, or should know, that using the gizmo could seriously harm you, and I don't tell you or do anything about it, I am liable for damages you incur.