I feel like this will become another polarized case, akin to the McDonalds coffee trial, you know, the one where the woman suffered third degree burns (and had to get skin grafts) and just wanted her medical covered.
The fact that e2ee bans and age verification are listed as remedies mean this isn’t the win people are saying it is
It’s a win, regardless, but the response is important.
The response should be:
- Make dark patterns illegal (highlighting options that prefer the platform over the user, making it harder to cancel, "opt inx not “opt out” to all non-core features, etc.)
- Require a clear “click through” step in account creation that underage use has been proven to be harmful, leading to anxiety and death (and then let parents make their own, informed, choices)
- Clear legal limits on data storage and retention to only include data necessary for the platform functions (i.e. mouse tracking and other invasive analytics are illegal)
- User options to delete all data, or all data older than a given rolling date window (i.e. only retain 1-year of data, up to and including deleting old posts/content)
- Clear legal limits on data analytics
- Open audits of algorithmic feeds to ensure they are reasonable and not encouraging “engagement” with harmful/controversial content at elevated levels
- No sharing of any user details with any external “partners” (advertisers), beyond very broad categories (age, location data at the 1M+ population region, gender)
- Data portability
- Require platform interoperability (i.e. alternative front ends through API or website loading through an intermediary client app)
Like, there’s nothing wrong with social media as a concept, it’s that profit seeking + network effects + regulatory capture have incentivized harmful social media.
I definitely see the similarity, at least in public response. I mean, I read that and thought, “$6 million? That’s life-changing money!” And when I read about what the victim experienced, I thought: “Addiction, anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. That’s all like, pretty common for teens these days. And often because of social media, for sure, but why is she specifically being compensated that much?”
For the McDonald’s trial, the woman tried to settle and had to get lawyers to pursue damages. Even though public response was bad, that feels like less of a cash grab.
But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik. Did she just have lawyer money and decide to? And nothing here changes, social media will remain the way it is. It definitely comes off to me as someone looking for a way to get money, even though I am happy with the ruling.
I don’t get why it feels like doing it for money in the absence of a unique situation. Should they not sue because many others suffer the same way?
Even if they sue for money, before court it becomes neutral. The negative implication from your assumption seems unwarranted.
You’re right, nothing about this woman’s experience is particularly unique, which is what makes this a huge decision. The numbers of potential future plaintiffs (individual or class action) is enormous. The precedent opens the floodgates (and on the same day when New Mexico hit Meta with $345M for what Meta called “inevitable” child exploitation on their platform).
Social media is going to have their big tobacco moment one way or another.
But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik.
Based on the article, there are supposedly hundreds of these lawsuits. While I couldn’t say what caused her to sue, the outcome opens the floodgates. If anything, it’s accountability for some of the harms these platforms have profited on if it means they can now be sued for millions per person for it.
