We in our humble shop have our own issues with Meta — primarily its flagship social media platform, Facebook. In June 2020, Facebook began throttling Patriot Post content. Within months, our Facebook traffic was down 95%. We weren't alone, as Facebook also targeted many other conservative sites to help Joe Biden win the presidential election. It worked.
But we're not bitter, and this story about Meta's massive settlement in a case involving the protection of children has nothing to do with that.
Meta faced allegations that its platforms — Facebook and Instagram — knowingly pushed content that is harmful to children on sites and feeds made to be addictive, leading to all manner of social ills, including mental health issues and suicide. Thirty-three states sued the Big Tech giant in 2023. After various verdicts and settlements, the latest court action involved four states seeking $1.4 trillion — later adjusted to just $200 billion.
Yesterday, Meta agreed to an $18 billion settlement. According to the Associated Press, "The settlement covers 48 states, as well as Washington, D.C., and some U.S. territories. The only two states to be excluded are New Mexico, which went to trial in its case against Meta and won earlier this year, and Florida, where the attorney general said the settlement was not tough enough on Meta."
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has on multiple occasions apologized for harms to children, albeit always with an eye on protecting his own rear end. In light of that, this settlement shouldn't be that surprising.
Over the next decade, the company will pay out billions of dollars to states for mental health, school counselors, and after-school programs. California will receive the biggest sum, $1.5 billion. It may, however, amount to little more than a windfall for politicians and trial lawyers. Does anyone think California's Democrats can be trusted with that much money? Or *any* money at all?
The states knew their best chance was to take the money and claim a scalp ahead of this year's elections. Otherwise, they faced years of litigation. We often call this sort of thing winning the legal lottery.
For Meta, it's also a more desirable result than losing even more money through litigation and eventual settlements. Better to end the pain quickly. In fact, thanks to the market and public perception, Jonathan Turley argues, "Big media will be able to easily recoup these damages as did Big Tobacco" after a huge settlement in the late 1990s.
Arguably, the most meaningful part of the settlement involves changes to Meta's platforms to reduce the time children spend scrolling. Namely, Facebook and Instagram will implement a two-hour time limit — combined across both platforms — for minors, which only parents can disable. Minors cannot use the platform at all between midnight and 6 a.m. No push notifications will come during school hours or between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., "like" counts will be subject to parental controls, and the platforms pledge to upgrade their "age-appropriate" filters. Kids under 13 are already banned from Facebook and Instagram.
That's all well and good, but if you know anything about kids, you know they find ways to get around limitations. It always has been and always will be up to parents to address that.
Almost a third of Meta's settlement money, by the way, is contingent on YouTube and TikTok implementing similar changes. Said Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney, “Our new Time Limit Commitments, Night Mode features and usage limits during school hours set the right path forward for our whole industry, but this framework will only work if all our peers join us."
If nothing else, that's clever leverage on Meta's part, as it will incentivize states to impose similar limits on its competitors.
According to Pew Research Center data from fall 2025, 31% of teens ages 13-17 use Facebook, while 63% use Instagram. Even more use TikTok (68%), while a whopping 92% of teens use YouTube. As for time spent, The Wall Street Journal editorial board notes, "Twenty-one percent of teens say they use TikTok almost constantly and 17% say the same for YouTube, versus 12% for Instagram and 3% for Facebook."
That's to say nothing of Snapchat or the various AI chatbots that now command children's attention. In other words, the problem is media use, not just Instagram or Facebook. Kids simply don't have the brain development or the self-control to be turned loose with social media.
When Facebook began throttling our content, Patriot Post Advancement Director Christy Chesterton summed up our frustration: "We built Facebook." Mark Zuckerberg may have created the platform, but users like us put the content on it, making it valuable. Without us, it's an empty room. That's the positive side, but I'm reminded of the "we built Facebook" comment because social media also opened Pandora's Box. And one legal settlement won't solve the social problems that were created.
