Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 166 posts

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#21

Post by LarryMullins »

EarlKing wrote: post #12
ehhthing wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer, but this seems like the school board have no standing (in the legal sense) to be filing this lawsuit. I do not believe that social media companies have the duty of care to the school boards to maintain kids' mental health. Some of the things in the lawsuit are just stupid like arguing that social media causes them to need to do investigations into threats and such. You wouldn't be suing the USPS or…

Literally this. You'd have to twist yourself into a legal pretzel to somehow claim that because teachers act in loco parentis for children in their care that now somehow their supervisors have power of attorney over their charges. This is one of those cases where the idiots involved deserve to get hit with a huge fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit. No, not the school district, but those involved. Personally.

It's an easy pretzel for teachers/school administrators to tie themselves into, because these people are on the frontline of witnessing the ways in which parents can neglect and abuse their kids. It's easy for teachers to fall into believing themselves / the state a better steward of children than their own parents.

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#22

Post by Retric »

LarryMullins wrote: post #19
xrd wrote: post #4

So far, two comments saying this is grandstanding by the school board. If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with homeless people, wouldn't it be more typical for people to be saying that elected officials aren't doing ANYTHING! What's the difference? I have read enough to know that these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists that are attempting to make their products addictiv…

I think it would be a bit odd to see a school district suing drug dealers. Seeing as weed is legal in Seattle, could/should the Seattle public schools sue local [state-]legal weed stores for selling product that will inevitably find their way into the hands of teenagers? I suppose they could, but it would be surprising to see. This said, I have a special hatred for TikTok so I wish the Seattle schools good luck in th…

Yet, South Carolina schools suing e-cigarette manufactures:

https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/more-sc-school-distr...

Legally it kind of makes sense because schools have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of children. Thus kids vaping or checking TickTok at school is a problem for the school system. But they also list “increased security staff time spent addressing discipline and supervision issues, and increased counselor time spent speaking to addicted students about this epidemic.”

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#23

Post by mardifoufs »

xrd wrote: post #4

So far, two comments saying this is grandstanding by the school board. If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with homeless people, wouldn't it be more typical for people to be saying that elected officials aren't doing ANYTHING! What's the difference? I have read enough to know that these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists that are attempting to make their products addictiv…

The difference is that we aren't talking about drug addiction here? And I mean drawing parallels between hard drugs and social media is just a matter of opinion. Like if you replace basically any possible debate with with homeless people and drugs you would probably get people asking for something to be done, so yeah I guess?

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#24

Post by ehhthing »

shkkmo wrote: post #16
ehhthing wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer, but this seems like the school board have no standing (in the legal sense) to be filing this lawsuit. I do not believe that social media companies have the duty of care to the school boards to maintain kids' mental health. Some of the things in the lawsuit are just stupid like arguing that social media causes them to need to do investigations into threats and such. You wouldn't be suing the USPS or…

Where are you getting this "duty of care" thing? That doesn't seem remotely similar to any of the legal arguments discussed in the article. > You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the same thing, would you? Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement.

I assumed this lawsuit was a negligence one. It's not, it's under public nuisance laws. I still don't understand how the school board should get damages paid given they aren't "the public", and they didn't have any of their rights violated.

> Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement.

A school investigates all threats equally regardless of how they are communicated. Whether they are mailed, sent via SMS, called in or sent on social media should not matter.

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#25

Post by shkkmo »

charcircuit wrote: post #15

This lawsuit is an embarrassment using a compilation of anti social media arguments including misleading ones where the truth is twisted to make an argument. >Meta also delays the time it takes to load the feed. “This is because without that three-second delay, Instagram wouldn’t feel variable.” This isn't a fact. They are literally quoting speculation from Vice while making it seem like an official quote from Meta.…

> They are literally quoting speculation from Vice while making it seem like an official quote from Meta.

They literally provide the exact source of the quote. It is speculation but it isn't unreasonable since we know they've made similar types if decisions to maximize engadgement.

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#26

Post by LarryMullins »

HideousKojima wrote: post #14
xrd wrote: post #4

So far, two comments saying this is grandstanding by the school board. If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with homeless people, wouldn't it be more typical for people to be saying that elected officials aren't doing ANYTHING! What's the difference? I have read enough to know that these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists that are attempting to make their products addictiv…

How would the school board sue drug cartels or hobos? Those are only slightly more ridiculous than suing TikTok.

Seattle schools could sue the Uncle Ike's pot shop chain that operates openly and mostly legally in Seattle.

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#27

Post by danielfoster »

DueDilligence wrote: post #20

.. as a Seattle dad .. I fucking love this awkward yet clearly precedent-setting case. I know most of the board and the majority of us are fed up and taking the power we have to task and accountability. This has been in the works for over four years and we know the end game: new laws, adopted by other cities and states. .. it’s been a clearly focused project for over 4 years now. One of my friends is on the board. I…

The lawsuit is going to be dismissed due to lack of standing.

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#28

Post by rychco »

So the public schools will turn a profit from the increasingly depressed teens... and then what? Business as usual with some bonus cash for counseling services? What's the real goal here? Precedent?

I don't see the (non-monetary) benefit unless there are new laws introduced that severely restrict how social media is allowed to operate or outright ban various addictive techniques employed by their platforms (which will need to be constantly amended because they'll come with addictive ideas faster than they can possibly be proven addictive).

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#29

Post by LarryMullins »

kaptainscarlet wrote: post #8
tqi wrote: post #2

Political grandstanding by school board members eyeing higher offices is abhorrent.

No grandstanding in my opinion. Social media is a very dangerous and addictive drug that is difficult to police. It should be heavily regulated as it's destroying society.

> Social media is a very dangerous and addictive drug that is difficult to police. It should be heavily regulated as it's destroying society.

100% agree, but

> No grandstanding

It's definitely grandstanding. Even though they're right about social media, it's definitely grandstanding. A cause being just doesn't mean people aren't grandstanding about it. This is grandstanding because it's a public stunt that is very unlikely to bear any fruit besides bolstering the reputation of the people doing it.

Re: Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth mental health

#30

Post by EarlKing »

dragonwriter wrote: post #6
tedunangst wrote: post #5

Unclear why the school has standing, except they have to deal with depressed students, but doesn't everybody? Can Starbucks sue because it's become harder to find cheerful baristas?

They have standing because its a statutory tort and because and to the extent thar they allege the kind of action and injury that the statute makes compensable. You seem to be imaging the kind of analysis done for a suit that is not based on a statute providing liability, but on a conflict of laws trying to negate or enjoin a government action for violating a controlling law that does not provide a explicit right of…

Their alleged standing is predicated on a single count of violating the Washington Public Nuisance Law, RCW 7.48.010 (see page 86 of their complaint[1])[2]. So their torturous logic is that somehow not only are the defendants' services addictive, but that the addiction thereof spurs students to engage in violent and/or disruptive behaviors that interferes with the enjoyment of school property and the safety of its employees (thus violating RCW 7.48.010 et seq.), thereby giving these clowns standing to sue.

Even if we take their claims at face value that the defendants knowingly created products that are demonstrably addictive, materially contributing to the conditions that occasioned this suit, the offences named in that section are unconstitutionally vague and, to the extent that it is those vague portions are those asserted in the cause of action, should be unenforceable.

I'm having a hard time believing Seattle School District No 1 actually thinks they'll succeed on the "merits" of this case, and am inclined to agree that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt on their part to call attention to a "problem" that has a fairly clear solution: students with behavioral issues tied to use of social networking services that are disruptive to school functions can and should be expelled. Problem solved.

--

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.31...

[2] https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48

Post reply on HN