Protect Kids, Not Meta
For the first time, a state won a lawsuit against a Big Tech company over the danger social media can often pose to children.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, was found liable for failing to protect children from sexual predators and ordered to pay $375 million in penalties — far lower than the $2.2 billion sought in New Mexico’s landmark lawsuit. The company’s market capitalization is roughly $1.5 trillion, so the penalty is a drop in the bucket, but perhaps it will cause meaningful change all the same. Tuesday’s verdict is, after all, the first time a state has prevailed against a Big Tech company in such a lawsuit.
“The safety issues that you’ve heard about in this case weren’t mistakes,” New Mexico attorney Linda Singer told the jury on Monday. “They were a product of a corporate philosophy that chose growth and engagement over children’s safety. And young people in this state and around the country have borne the cost.”
New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez agreed, saying after the verdict, “Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today, the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough.”
In the seven-week trial, the plaintiffs alleged that Facebook and Instagram did not uphold their stated minimum age of 13 for users, while at the same time making it easy for predators to target children for grooming, abuse, and even trafficking. Meta plans to appeal.
It’s a similar case to one still being deliberated by a Los Angeles jury. Our Emmy Griffin analyzed that case last month. She recounted the story of the plaintiff, referred to as “KGM,” who “believes that social media addiction led to her psychological issues, including depression, body dysmorphic disorder, and self-harm.”
However, Griffin surmised that Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act might protect companies from liability for user-generated content. It usually does, anyway, but not in New Mexico’s case.
“New Mexico’s investigation into Meta’s alleged misdeeds included a sting operation in which officials set up test accounts to probe the company’s safety standards,” according to the New York Post. “Test accounts were allegedly bombarded with adult sex content and outreach from alleged child predators, including ‘pictures and videos of genitalia’ and an offer of a six-figure payment to star in a porn video, the lawsuit claims. Local police made at least three arrests.”
Arturo Bejar, a former Meta safety researcher who became a whistleblower, testified to the jury, “The product is very good at connecting people with interests, and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls.” That tracks with how platforms treat every other subject you might find interesting on social media.
In the Los Angeles case, Meta CEO and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg testified about the lengths to which the company and its platforms go to protect kids. The problem is that the evidence I covered after his testimony shows that the platforms work very hard to keep eyeballs on their platforms. To make money, they need people using their apps — a lot.
Well, except for conservatives.
No conversation about Meta is complete without noting how thoroughly Facebook, in particular, spent the last several years squelching conservative speech. And the irony is as rich as it is infuriating. Facebook can’t really be bothered to actually root out groomers and predators, but by golly, you better not say certain political things. Facebook and the rest want to behave as publishers when it comes to political content — effectively gatekeeping what can and can’t be posted about COVID, elections, and other subjects — all while enjoying the platform protections of Section 230.
When it comes to child predators, they still want to hide behind Section 230, but they don’t want to claim any responsibility at all for the content.
Memo to Zuckerberg: Pick one.
