{"id":562379,"date":"2026-04-03T15:17:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-03T15:17:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/562379\/"},"modified":"2026-04-03T15:17:11","modified_gmt":"2026-04-03T15:17:11","slug":"a-jury-says-meta-and-google-hurt-a-kid-what-now","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/562379\/","title":{"rendered":"A jury says Meta and Google hurt a kid. What now?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today on Decoder, we\u2019re talking about the landmark social media addiction trials that just resulted in two major verdicts against Big Tech. There\u2019s one case in New Mexico<\/a> against Meta, and another in California against both companies<\/a>, which have said they plan to appeal.<\/p>\n

These are complicated cases with some huge repercussions for both how these platforms work and the very nature of speech in America, so to help us work through it all, I\u2019ve brought on two heavy hitters: my friend Casey Newton, who is founder and editor of the excellent newsletter Platformer and co-host of the Hard Fork podcast, as well as Verge senior policy reporter Lauren Feiner. Lauren was actually in that Los Angeles courtroom where executives like Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in the case of a 20-year-old woman named Kaley, who successfully argued Meta and Google negligently designed their platforms<\/a> in ways that contributed to her mental health issues.<\/p>\n

These cases, the first in a wave of injury lawsuits targeting tech companies, are about the design decisions of platforms like Instagram and YouTube. They argue that the platforms have fundamental flaws that harm users, especially teenagers, and that these companies knew about these problems and were negligent in shipping these features anyway. These cases are part of much larger set of moves that aim to fundamentally change the legal mechanisms that exist that might regulate social media platforms.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Verge subscribers, don\u2019t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free Decoder wherever you get your podcasts. Head here<\/a>. Not a subscriber? You can sign up here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

When we say harm, we\u2019re not just talking about addictive design that brings users back compulsively. It\u2019s also about features like algorithmic recommendations and camera filters that make issues like anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia worse. This emphasis on how the platforms work, as opposed to focusing solely on the content, is part of a movement that\u2019s been building for years. It focuses on the argument that social media is not and cannot be healthy \u2014 that it might in fact be defective, the same way that cigarettes, when used as designed, cause cancer.<\/p>\n

There are a lot of complex ideas, and Casey, Lauren, and I really spent some time working through them. The first of these ideas is whether there is a distinction between product features \u2014 like recommendation, auto-play video, infinite scroll \u2014 and the types of harmful yet legal speech served to young people on these platforms using these tools, like eating disorder videos or posts designed to convince young men to hate women.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s very difficult, if not unconstitutional, to force these companies to moderate this kind of content in specific ways. The First Amendment obviously prohibits the government from regulating what speech these companies promote and moderate, and private action is usually blocked by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech platforms from being held responsible for the content their users post.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s really hard to pull all these ideas apart. An algorithmic feed with no content in it simply isn\u2019t a compelling product, let alone a negligently defective one that causes harm. A lot of smart people who we\u2019ve had on this show and on The Verge these past few years have said these rulings are just an end run around 230<\/a> \u2014 just a way to make platforms liable for what, ultimately, is just speech, in a way that will cause more speech to be restricted<\/a>. You\u2019ll hear us talk a lot about that idea, and whether the growing calls to repeal Section 230 entirely have any logical connection to these cases, or whether they\u2019re just politically opportunistic.<\/p>\n

But there are many more ideas at play here and even more layers of compilation. You will hear Casey and I even crash out a few times in this episode, because we have both been covering tech regulation for so long it feels silly to act like everything is working well for regular people, who have negative experiences with social media all of the time. Section 230 is three decades old now<\/a>, and it\u2019s unclear whether the world it was designed to help create ever came into existence.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll hear Lauren talk about how the authors of Section 230 are open to changes, particularly around AI and speech online. At the same time, any changes to that law run headlong into the First Amendment and potentially open the door to government speech regulations at scale.<\/a> Like I said, it\u2019s complicated, and I\u2018m very curious to hear what you all think about this, because it\u2019s clear a lot of this is about to be up for grabs.<\/p>\n

Okay: Platformer\u2019s Casey Newton and Verge senior policy reporter Lauren Feiner on the major social media lawsuits. Here we go.<\/p>\n

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. <\/p>\n

Lauren Feiner, you\u2019re senior policy reporter here at The Verge. Casey Newton, you\u2019re founder and editor of Platformer, and I would say forever Silicon Valley editor here at The Verge.<\/p>\n

Casey Newton: I do continue to identify as the Silicon Valley editor of The Verge, so I\u2019m glad you feel the same way.<\/p>\n

You can check out, but you can never leave, buddy. Welcome, both of you, to Decoder. I want to talk about these trials that a bunch of social media companies faced in California and New Mexico. Lauren, at a high level, you were in the room for at least the trial in California. I think Snap and TikTok settled that one. They were out. YouTube and Meta just lost a jury verdict. Describe what happened in those trials and what you saw in the courtroom while you were there.<\/p>\n

Lauren Feiner: At their core, these trials were about the design decisions that social media companies make, how users are going to interact with what comes across their feeds. It was trying to get around a problem that has been going on with tech for a long time: can you separate design from content on these platforms? That\u2019s what these trials were trying to get at. And what came out at trial in the courtrooms were a lot of internal documents from these companies. In the LA case, it was Meta and YouTube. And in New Mexico, it was just Meta.<\/p>\n

We saw lots of internal documents, lots of former Meta employees turned whistleblowers take the stand to discuss the decisions they made and the things they saw. In LA, we even saw the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, and the CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, take the stand.<\/p>\n

Casey, we call these bellwether trials on The Verge. The whole industry has decided that this is a word we\u2019re going to use. Can you just quickly explain what that means? You\u2019ve been covering attempts to regulate these companies forever. And the idea that these trials are a bellwether seems particularly meaningful here.<\/p>\n

CN: Yes. As you know, Nilay, for the past 20 years, companies have been able to use Section 230 as a shield. Whenever there is any remotely content-related challenge to any of these platforms in court, they just get dismissed out of hand. The reason that these cases are bellwethers is that if they were successful, it would open up this new front for litigation and these companies could no longer just automatically use Section 230 as a shield. And that now indeed has happened and we\u2019re expecting there will now be dozens more lawsuits proceeding along exactly these same lines.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m hoping by this point Decoder listeners know Section 230, but it\u2019s the law that says the platforms are not liable for what their users post. If I put up a post on Instagram or TikTok that says, \u201cCasey Newton is horrible, Hard Fork is my sworn enemy. It should be made illegal,\u201d Casey can sue me, but you can\u2019t sue Instagram.<\/p>\n

That has always been really important because it means that whenever anyone says they\u2019re harmed by the platforms, the platforms can say, \u201cIt wasn\u2019t us, it was actually the speech that you\u2019re mad about. And our role in distributing or promoting that speech is actually the same as the speech itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

It seems like this trial did a better job of making that argument than attempts in the past. I\u2019m thinking of cases like Herrick v. Grindr. There was the famous case against Snapchat with the speedometer filter where a teenager drove too fast trying to get a screenshot or photo of himself running his car as fast as he could in Snapchat. Those cases were not bellwethers in the same way. What set these apart and why was that argument more successful this time?<\/p>\n

CN: The Lemmon v. Snap case was a really important precedent. Snapchat used to offer this filter where you could turn it on and take a video of yourself in your car and it would show how fast you were going. Plaintiffs successfully argued that this had created an incentive within the app for people to go really, really fast and do dangerous things. And indeed in this particular case, there was a dangerous crash.<\/p>\n

The reason that that was important was that all of a sudden the 230 shield wasn\u2019t absolute. There had already been a couple minor exceptions like, \u201cThe platforms have to remove terrorism and CSAM.\u201d But now we\u2019re saying, \u201cYou can\u2019t offer a filter like this because it might incentivize terrible behavior.\u201d This is what opens up the rest of the landscape for the plaintiff\u2019s attorneys.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re able to say, \u201cWhat other design features are there of these platforms and what incentives are they creating? We\u2019re not going to talk about the actual messages that are being traded back and forth on Snapchat or the actual content of the post on the Instagram feed, but we are going to ask about things like infinite scroll and autoplay video and push notifications that arrive continuously throughout the night and might disrupt your sleep.\u201d And all of a sudden they were able to find purchase because they had that initial precedent.<\/p>\n

The thing that really drives me at that is that Snapchat had made that filter. That was Snapchat\u2019s speech. They were saying, \u201cWell, if you drive fast, we\u2019ll generate a speedometer reading for you.\u201d And in this case, it\u2019s still not the platform speech. You can make an infinite scroll, you can make autoplay videos, and those are just ways that they are managing the speech of others. <\/p>\n

Did the plaintiffs have to overcome that? Because that seems like where you would hit the 230 rocks over and over again and they would say, \u201cWe\u2019re just managing the speech of others. It\u2019s still the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

CN: The plaintiffs were able to successfully argue infinite scroll is not the speech of others. There\u2019s no liability of another person that gets involved here; someone built a product and the product is defective. They were able to successfully liken these things to cars without seatbelts and it really resonated with jurors.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth taking a minute to talk about why that might be, because this is something that the people that I talk to at the social media companies never seem to understand. Everybody knows someone who has a huge problem with Instagram. This person is probably in your immediate family. They have deleted it a hundred times off their phone and they always reinstall it. They\u2019ve set the screen time limits, but they keep coming back over and over again and they hate themselves for it. This is a near universal experience in America now. When you sit a jury down and you say, \u201cThere\u2019s something wrong with Instagram,\u201d it\u2019s pretty easy to find a lot of people who say, \u201cThat sounds right to me.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of my feelings was that if any of these cases ever got to a jury, the thing Casey is describing would kick in. Everybody has these negative experiences with these social media platforms and the companies themselves always tell us that statistically these problems are small, but their user numbers are so vast that even a small percentage is many, many millions of people. I think the platforms never got their heads around that either.<\/p>\n

Did you feel the same way there, that once you put Mark Zuckerberg in front of a jury, there was just no way that the social media platforms would win a case?<\/p>\n

LF: It was really hard to know. First of all, why were these jurors selected? Were they selected because they\u2019re the sort of people who don\u2019t use social media a lot or know about a lot of good experiences with social media? That was the wild card in watching them: how are they really taking in this evidence? At the same time, it can be hard to hear some of this evidence. Anyone who knows someone who\u2019s been through a mental health issue or has struggled with just using their phone too much or being on social media too much, a lot of us know people like that if we\u2019re not those people ourselves. That\u2019s definitely going to affect them in some way on a human level.<\/p>\n

When I was watching Mark Zuckerberg on the stand, he was talking about a certain beauty filter that they had and how one of his own employees pushed back on including it and talked about, I believe, having daughters and thinking about how something like this would affect them. It\u2019s maybe that these people don\u2019t have as much experience with social media or don\u2019t have the exact same experiences that this plaintiff had, but they certainly know other people in their lives who\u2019ve probably experienced something similar.<\/p>\n

CN: It also seems relevant to say that TikTok and Snap settled before the trial. That was the moment when I said, \u201cOkay, they must be really, really scared.\u201d I was actually waiting for Meta and YouTube to settle as well. Once that happened, I think it was clear they were in a lot of trouble.<\/p>\n

The comparison here that everyone has been making is to big tobacco, to junk food, to sugar, right? We all know these things are bad for us. \u201cNicotine is awesome, so we can\u2019t stop ourselves.\u201d There should be some regulatory framework or we should make these companies at least communicate the risks. Does that framework hold for you?<\/p>\n

LF: One thing that\u2019s a big difference between this moment and that for big tobacco is that saying that there\u2019s no safe cigarette. There are a lot of studies that show that\u2019s not really the same case for social media, that some level of social media use actually has a positive or at least neutral effect on people. It\u2019s really that overuse, that compulsive use that is the main problem here and really the problem that people talk about. Social media does connect people with their friends, it lets you stay in touch with people, lets you have social connection or connection outside of your immediate community, but obviously it also has really harmful sides to it and using it too much can cut you off from real social connection.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a big difference here. When people compare this to that moment, I do think that\u2019s really something we need to think about, that these aren\u2019t really one-to-one scenarios. That said, I think the comparison is made to pull out how these companies are finally having a lot of their documents come to light in front of juries, just like what happened in the big tobacco trials. That is really the point to take away from that comparison.<\/p>\n

Casey, you and I have talked about this a lot. We owe our careers to social media in very real ways. The idea that the internet lets us bypass gatekeepers and go reach our audiences, it\u2019s very important to us. The flip side of that is, boy, a lot of bad people got to do a lot of bad things. How would you draw these lines?<\/p>\n

CN: It is very tricky and you have to articulate it with some degree of nuance. To me, I separate the internet problems from the platform problems. Really, Nilay, the internet is what gave us our careers. The internet is what knocked down the gatekeepers and let us, in my case, hang out a shingle on the internet and say, \u201cHey, I\u2019ll email you for money.\u201d That is something that did not exist in the pre-internet times.<\/p>\n

The platform problems are different. They have a lot to do with algorithmic amplification, yes. But also with these design features. This feeling that we\u2019ve been talking about: \u201cI don\u2019t want to look at TikTok as much as I\u2019m looking at it. I don\u2019t know how to stop. I have tried to stop.\u201d Or \u201cI bought some device that bricks my phone when I walk in the door.\u201d These are the problems of creating a platform whose only incentives will ever be to get you to look at it as much as humanly possible. That\u2019s why the scrutiny is finally drifting over to those things.<\/p>\n

We don\u2019t want to get rid of the internet. We don\u2019t want to get rid of your right to be able to post your opinion online. We want to get rid of this machine that increasingly seems like it\u2019s taking more and more of your time and attention in ways that make you feel bad.<\/p>\n

That is the story of the case. They went up, they lost. We\u2019ll see what happens next. The real turn here is what do they all do now? They\u2019ve been held liable for these product features. There\u2019s some conversation that we should have in the industry, that the United States of America is going to have, about the difference between free speech and product features. We\u2019ll come back to that.<\/p>\n

But in the meantime, they\u2019ve got to do something. They\u2019ve got to change something about how their products work to avoid ongoing liability from anyone else who might look at these cases and say, \u201cWe\u2019re going to sue you too.\u201d Casey, this feels like a trust and safety problem, right? This is your audience, these are the people you talk to the most. What is their reaction to this?<\/p>\n

CN: Their reaction is really negative. In particular, talking to people who still work there, and what they\u2019ll say is even if you buy the plaintiff\u2019s arguments here, fixing this is really tricky. Because again, even if you believe that this individual teenager had a horrible time looking at these platforms for too long and it made all of her problems worse, which design feature of this platform are you going to remove and how is that going to fix her problem? If Instagram and YouTube did not have autoplay video, if it didn\u2019t have infinite scroll, if it didn\u2019t have push notifications, would that have improved her mental health to a point where she no longer would have sued the company saying this is a defective product? I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

I think that the problem that we just have as a society right now is we don\u2019t know what safe social media is. We don\u2019t know what features are really the most dangerous. We have instincts. There are experiments that we should run, but it\u2019s not as simple as, well, just turn off the autoplay video and all the teenagers will go play outside again.<\/p>\n

Is it as simple as none of the teenagers in Australia should use social media<\/a>?<\/p>\n

CN: Here\u2019s the thing. As somebody who writes more about social media than anything else, I have been shocked at the degree to which I am just throwing in my lot with Jonathan Haidt. Because I also don\u2019t know. I do not know which are the features that we should get rid of that are going to make all the teenagers safe. What I can tell you is nobody who works at the platforms cares enough about any of your teenagers for me to trust your teenagers with them. So I would rather say, \u201cDon\u2019t look at it until you turn 16,\u201d because I know that\u2019s going to be better for you than looking at it.<\/p>\n

We can hear Casey who talks to the people who work at the platform companies fully crashing out about that experience. Lauren, you talk to policymakers all day long. Nominally, you are our policy reporter in DC, you cover Capitol Hill. We don\u2019t send you to courtrooms all day and all night, although that\u2019s what you\u2019ve been doing. On that side of the house, what are the policymakers doing in reaction to these verdicts?<\/p>\n

LF: So far we\u2019ve seen a big push from the lawmakers who are behind some of the biggest social media reform laws like Kids Online Safety Act saying, \u201cThis just shows that we need these new laws or we need to repeal old laws like Section 230 in order to make kids safe.\u201d That is the big push right now. It\u2019s still really early days though.<\/p>\n

I am going to be really interested to see if that is where the momentum moves or is there even a counterbalance to that that says, \u201cLet\u2019s slow down, because actually the sort of cases we thought wouldn\u2019t be able to go through the courthouse are actually moving forward and they\u2019re doing so even with Section 230 in place, even without KOSA.\u201d I\u2019m going to be really interested to see which way that argument goes and if that speeds up or slows momentum in either direction.<\/p>\n

All right. I warned you both that I was also having a crash out about all of this. And Lauren, you\u2019ve just arrived at it. The notion that those laws have anything to do with these trials, and that these trials should let the government pass what amounts to very strict speech regulations is just making me feel personally crazy.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe platforms had some design features that made them addictive, so we should pass KOSA, which will restrict the speech of marginalized groups,\u201d does not have any throughline to me. Josh Hawley is saying we should get rid of Section 230 and these trials prove it. I can\u2019t tell you why that is. I cannot make the link in my brain between \u201cthe platforms were optimized for virality and engagement and negative sentiment,\u201d and \u201cmaking them responsible for the speech in a way that will force them to take down more speech is the way to solve that problem.\u201d I cannot link those ideas together. Can either of you?<\/p>\n

CN: No. No. Truly, I have read so many of the interviews with the Republican policymakers when they get asked about this stuff, and none of them seem to understand that if they do in fact get rid of 230, platforms will over-moderate content because they will be in terror that a wide variety of things that can now be linked back to them could potentially result in legal liability. And they\u2019re going to hate it. These are the guys that hate all content moderation. And if you delete Section 230, you\u2019re going to get more of it. So no, it doesn\u2019t make any sense.<\/p>\n

Lauren, you\u2019ve covered bipartisan attempts to reform 230, bipartisan attempts to do age verification and laws like KOSA. What\u2019s the view on the Democrat side?<\/p>\n

LF: There are a lot of Democrats who support KOSA and are fully on board with those kinds of changes to the law. They definitely have acknowledged some of the critiques around that this might harm marginalized communities or make it harder to access certain kinds of content that might get politicized on the internet, but they generally just think that those have been pretty much dealt with in the language of the statute. That it\u2019s not really going to come to pass and they\u2019ve just accepted that they feel like this is the best way forward. Certainly it\u2019s not all Democrats. Obviously Ron Wyden, who co-authored Section 230, has not supported KOSA.<\/p>\n

There really is broad bipartisan support for these kinds of issues. That\u2019s going to be the challenge for some of the hardliners on Section 230 and against KOSA right now, to ask whether there\u2019s never going to be anything that changes on these issues. Or is there going to be some kind of change and we have to figure out what we can live with?<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where it gets really complicated for me, and you two are just going to help me process these feelings together as a family. I look at, okay, there\u2019s a big trial that got lost. These companies are liable for more of what happens on our platforms in a narrow way. And now there\u2019s a group of people that want to say, \u201cYou\u2019re actually responsible for everything. We\u2019re going to tear down 230 and you\u2019re responsible for the content that you\u2019re distributing and that will lead to even more liability and maybe you\u2019re going to take even more steps.\u201d<\/p>\n

And then I think, \u201cWell, that\u2019s bad. Taking down 230 is bad.\u201d I\u2019ve felt that way for 20 odd years. There\u2019s an infinite amount of coverage on The Verge about why tearing down 230 is bad. And then I sit there for one more turn and I think, \u201cWell, why?\u201d <\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all talked to Sen. Ron Wyden. Ron Wyden has been on the show<\/a>. Lauren, I think you just recently spoke to him as well. Ron Wyden\u2019s a nice guy. Chris Cox, who wrote 230 with Wyden, is a nice guy. The world that they were trying to create with Section 230 never happened. It literally does not exist. This law is 30 years old. It was written in a time when AOL and Usenet existed and were the dominant ways of communicating online.<\/p>\n

Their goal was to create a competitive marketplace of moderation: if you wanted your computer to be safe for your kids, you would literally download software and run it locally on your computer and it would sit in front of CompuServe and filter the internet for you. That just never happened. It never existed. Now I\u2019m in this place where I\u2019m required to boldly defend a 30-year-old law whose policy goals were never achieved. And I don\u2019t know why. Casey, I know you\u2019ve been wrestling with this too. How should I feel about this?<\/p>\n

CN: Yeah. I have complicated feelings too. I want Section 230 to exist so that platforms can host political speech, all sorts of speech. It creates the possibility for platforms that are very rich and vibrant and fun. At the same time, there is this 230 case that I paid a lot of attention to as a gay guy, about Grindr, you guys I\u2019m sure are familiar with this case. But basically there was this horrible ex that was like, \u201cI\u2019m going to get back at my ex by posting his photos on Grindr and I\u2019m going to send everyone his physical address and say, \u2018Go to this guy\u2019s house and he\u2019s going to indulge your craziest fantasies and give you drugs.\u2019\u201d And this gets tossed out because of Section 230, right? They sue Grindr saying like, \u201cThis is awful. You got to do something.\u201d And Grindr is like, \u201c230.\u201d And the case goes away.<\/p>\n

That seemed really awful for the victim of that case. If I were in that situation, I\u2019d be really mad at Grindr too. At the same time, why should 230 be the thing that gets that person justice? Why don\u2019t we just take online harassment and violence more seriously in this country? So this is how I square the circle, by saying Section 230 in general does still support the internet that I want. And for a lot of the harms\u2014mostly not the ones we\u2019re talking about today\u2014but for a lot of the harms that do absolutely get enabled and protected by 230, I think we can probably find other ways of addressing the harm.<\/p>\n

But here\u2019s another thought experiment. What if the brain trust over at Meta got together and said, \u201cWhat would Instagram look like if it were great for teenagers?\u201d Do you think it would look a lot like the Instagram that we have today? Or do you think it would look a lot different? I bet it\u2019d be the latter. I bet it would look really, really different. We don\u2019t live in this world, but I think that there\u2019s another world where the executives at Instagram did do that and said, \u201cYou know what? We\u2019re actually going to put out that version of Instagram for teens. And look, it\u2019s mostly educational content. It\u2019s actually not personalized to your teen at all. We\u2019ve disabled all the communication features. You can only use it during daylight hours.\u201d<\/p>\n

You can imagine a million things that would probably just make this a safe product. So on some level, yes, it\u2019s tricky to figure out what the right version of Instagram would be that would not get Meta into trouble. On the other hand, you actually could kind of sketch it out. So my curiosity is to what extent are they going to try to go down that road, because I\u2019m sure they\u2019re going to be desperate not to be sued by every teenager in America. To what extent are they just going to, I don\u2019t know, try something shady and underhanded that I haven\u2019t thought of yet?<\/p>\n

I mean, they\u2019ve announced Instagram for younger people, right, these tools for younger people and they get just dumped on for being cynical and trying to target kids. Do they have the social capital to say this product is safe anymore?<\/p>\n

CN: No. My nihilistic view on this is ultimately what solves the Meta problem is that they just get outcompeted by another company that maybe is better in certain dimensions. But I don\u2019t think the change is going to come from within with these guys because all they care about is just winning. And for them, winning looks like maximum time engaged.<\/p>\n

To be fair, Mark Zuckerberg is currently busy hiring and firing hundreds of AI researchers every week. Again, there is some goal that is yet to be defined. The idea that he\u2019s going to stop and put all of his attention on an Instagram that\u2019s safe for kids\u2014maybe only existential amounts of litigation will make him do that. But I honestly wonder if Mark Zuckerberg is the right face of teen safety in America. I think the answer is flatly no.<\/p>\n

CN: Yeah. I don\u2019t think the track record really would lead you to putting him in charge of that particular project. Again, and I think it\u2019s important to underline this for folks: for Meta, addiction looks like success. They have huge teams inside the company, cognitive scientists who work to understand the human brain so that they can get you to pick up your phone and look at it as many times as possible. And this is why I feel so bad for the people who are mad at themselves for all the time they spend looking at Instagram. You were not in a fair fight. You lost a rigged game. The reason that Meta is doing that is not because they\u2019re literally evil, it\u2019s that they feel like the incentives of their business require them to do this. So unless those incentives change, no, Nilay, Meta is not going to be the place to go to look for moral leadership on teen safety.<\/p>\n

The last piece of the puzzle, which I haven\u2019t really touched on here, but is definitely a throughline, is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. We are talking about platforms that regulate and control vast amounts of speech from almost everybody in the country all the time. When you talk about changing the limits on these platforms and what they are liable for and how their products work, you are very directly talking about how speech is amplified and distributed in this country.<\/p>\n

There are a lot of people who have built entire businesses based on understanding how Meta will make their stuff go viral. You can have a lot of feelings about what those businesses are and what they look like and what they\u2019re doing to the brains of teenagers, but there are a lot of people who have built really big businesses on the backs of these platforms.<\/p>\n

Are we just going to run headfirst in the First Amendment here? Is it impossible? Mike Masnick, who runs Techdirt \u2014 he was just on the show<\/a>, good friend \u2014 thinks it\u2019s a disaster for the First Amendment<\/a>. Taylor Lorenz, a friend, thinks this is a disaster for the First Amendment<\/a>. Their argument is you cannot separate the product from the speech. The product itself means nothing. It is the speech that the product is distributing that is the problem.<\/p>\n

So, you are just trying to backdoor your way into speech regulation by making the product liable for whatever harm. There\u2019s a part of me that buys this, but Casey, I know you think you can pull the two apart.<\/p>\n

CN: I agree that this is tricky and we should be careful and lawsuits are often not the best way to work through this stuff, because in general, I would rather have lawmakers and policymakers writing really careful versions of this. At the same time, why is infinite scroll speech? Why are streaks speech? Why is autoplay video speech? At a certain point, you can get yourself all the way to like, \u201cWhy do we make Ford put seatbelts on their cars? You\u2019re compelling speed.\u201d No, you\u2019re compelling a seatbelt. You should be able to compel product safety features once it becomes clear that you actually have a product safety issue.<\/p>\n

Now I should say, there are things that I would actually love to compel these platforms to do that are just obviously unconstitutional. I would love to compel them to show educational content to children in the same way that Congress once passed a law saying that broadcasters needed to provide at least three hours of educational programming a week.<\/p>\n

I think that was really good for society. Turned out, at least when you applied to social media, that\u2019s just obviously unconstitutional. So I do think that you have to be really careful here, but if you\u2019re going to tell me that every single product feature of every social media app is speech, you truly are caping for these platforms in a way that makes me uncomfortable.<\/p>\n

Lauren, one thing that I\u2019ve been thinking about a lot is what happens to 230 in a world where the platforms are generating more and more of the content directly with AI. Google\u2019s AI overviews, that is probably Google\u2019s speech, even though it\u2019s synthesized from the speech of millions of other people on websites. Do any of these regulatory regimes or attempts to change any of these laws contemplate that problem?<\/p>\n

LF: That\u2019s the new Wild West that we\u2019re going to be running into here with probably new lawsuits. But even Ron Wyden, who we\u2019ve discussed many times today, has said that AI outputs aren\u2019t necessarily protected by Section 230. Those will likely be treated differently. We won\u2019t really know till we see a court case come out on it, but that\u2019s going to be a big question. And the thing to remember with Section 230 is that it\u2019s really a procedural tool that stops lawsuits in their tracks, and how cases get decided in the end is based on the First Amendment. Unless you\u2019re going to get rid of the First Amendment, getting rid of Section 230 doesn\u2019t really completely get rid of the problems that some people think they would.<\/p>\n

CN: I want to ask you guys what you think about something, because I\u2019m still working through this in my own mind. We were talking earlier about what is the specific feature that leads to the mental health problems suffered by Kaley and some of the other folks in these bellwether cases? I suspect that autoplay video, infinite scroll, endless push notifications all have something to do with it. I suspect the strongest factor is algorithmic personalization. It\u2019s \u201cI searched for one video about how to get skinny and now all of a sudden I\u2019m in a nightmare wasteland of eating disorder content. And that actually does increase my depression and intensify my eating disorder.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a society, I think we want to stop that. We don\u2019t want you to get dragged down that rabbit hole. We don\u2019t want you to develop that eating disorder. Can we regulate that? This is actually the trickiest issue to me. Because on one hand, I could see Congress passing a law saying, \u201cHey, if you\u2019re 16 and younger, we just want to disable algorithmic personalization, at least at the level of the individual. Maybe we\u2019ll group you into a bucket and we\u2019ll say, \u201816-year-olds in America seem to like this kind of content and we\u2019re okay with that. But you personally know we\u2019re going to block that for you because we don\u2019t want you to get dragged down a rabbit hole.\u2019\u201d But is that constitutional under the First Amendment? I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just curious what you guys make of that.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been thinking about this a lot and I keep thinking back to Barack Obama on Decoder<\/a> and we talked about regulating AI a lot and he was talking about regulating AI with me because he felt he had failed to regulate social media and you could see the connection in his brain. It was clear as day. He was like, \u201cWe failed social media. We have to get AI right.\u201d I kept asking about the First Amendment over and over again. \u201cHow are you going to get past the First Amendment?\u201d<\/p>\n

At the end he said, \u201cLook, you just need a hook. You just need to find a hook the way that we found a hook to regulate broadcast television.\u201d In the case of broadcast television, the hook is very obvious, right. There\u2019s only so much spectrum, it\u2019s a scarce public resource, so we can make some regulations to make sure we make good use of that resource.<\/p>\n

You can immediately see the danger in that, which is that Brendan Carr has power over broadcast television<\/a>, and now we have an unrestrained speech regulator in this country. That\u2019s not good. At the same time, the idea that Barack Obama\u2019s like, \u201cYou just need a hook,\u201d is a reflection of the standard in the law, which is called strict scrutiny, and you can do a speech regulation under the First Amendment if it\u2019s narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose.<\/p>\n

These are the words and the precedent: \u201cstrict scrutiny,\u201d \u201cnarrowly tailored,\u201d \u201ccompelling government interest.\u201d I don\u2019t want a bunch of 16-year-old girls to get eating disorders. It feels like a very compelling government interest. You can attach a very narrowly tailored rule to accomplish. And I\u2019m very curious if that is the future where we\u2019re going to say, \u201cThis stuff causes harm. Here\u2019s one rule to stop this content. With the power of AI, Mark Zuckerberg, you can now detect all those GPUs, detect the eating disorder content, and get rid of those communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

I think that\u2019s just as bad. That\u2019s just as bad as Brendan Carr as an unrestrained speech regulator. That\u2019s just a bunch of government speech regulations. But if 230 prevents mass litigation against the platforms, because as Lauren\u2019s saying, it\u2019s a procedural mechanism that says \u201cYou can\u2019t sue us at all.\u201d If you have to dance through these hoops of \u201cit\u2019s product design features,\u201d but no one can identify the specific product design features, I think a bunch of state regulators are going to say, \u201cLook, there\u2019s some stuff we know is bad, and we\u2019re going to pass those laws and we\u2019re going to take those to this Supreme Court and say, \u2018These are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s how that will play out. I suspect it\u2019s going to start and I certainly don\u2019t know if that\u2019s good, but you can see that that is the next escape hatch here, because that is the standard for a law that regulates speech in this country.<\/p>\n

LF: Casey, that\u2019s exactly the right question about algorithms, because it\u2019s much easier to make the argument that it\u2019s infinite scroll or autoplay, it\u2019s not really about content. It\u2019s not really even much of a decision by the platforms, but what an algorithm or what a company chooses to program their algorithm to recommend or not recommend, those are their deliberate choices. We\u2019ve already had a Supreme Court decision saying that content moderation is basically editorial discretion. That\u2019s where it gets really tricky. You\u2019re right, that is exactly the sort of thing that people who are advocating for these changes want to see changed, but it\u2019s probably the trickiest one to do.<\/p>\n

[The Verge\u2019s] Adi Robertson wrote this for us a while back. It was just a piece on how America turned against the First Amendment<\/a>. This notion that we all care about free speech, and everyone says it and then you push on it and everyone wants a little bit more speech regulation than before. And that has only been growing over time.<\/p>\n

Even the people that are like, \u201cI love Elon,\u201d we\u2019re watching the Elon Musk-Sam Altman trial text from Mark Zuckerberg to Elon Musk<\/a>, where Zuckerberg says, \u201cI\u2019m deleting all content that identifies the people in DOGE.\u201d And Elon\u2019s like, \u201cGreat. Do you want to buy OpenAI with me?\u201d Mr. Free Speech Warrior is like, \u201cYeah, delete that stuff.\u201d And Zuckerberg is saying, \u201cI will never ever cave to the government again.\u201d And he\u2019s emailing the government employees saying, \u201cI\u2019m deleting the names of government employees.\u201d This is crazy to me.<\/p>\n

It seems like we are entering a period where there\u2019s more pressure from the government on speech than ever before. Everyone is a little more okay with it than ever before. And we are all still pretending we all care about free speech the most. Casey, that feels like a nightmare in the trust and safety context. You wrote at the beginning of Trump 2 on how trust and safety was out of favor and no one was pushing back anymore. That was a while ago. What does it feel like now?<\/p>\n

CN: I wrote this piece and the headline was, \u201cIs Anyone Left to Stand Up for Trust and Safety?\u201d<\/a> Trust and safety used to be a really vocal part of the tech industry, and they advocated for a lot of good pro-social civic values. They talked a lot about human rights. They tried to bake human rights principles into the policies that these platforms observed when they were moderating content. I had a natural affinity for them. In my view, these were the good guys.<\/p>\n

Then Trump gets swept back into power. A bunch of layoffs happen. Every platform decides almost without exception that their best move is to try to curry favor with the Trump administration<\/a>. And all of these folks just get pushed aside. The ones who were the most vocal about human rights principles disappear and all of a sudden, you have people like Joel Kaplan at Meta running the policy operation<\/a>. His main job is essentially to get Donald Trump to like Mark Zuckerberg and try to ensure that they get whatever they want.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s been hugely effective for them, by the way. Mark Zuckerberg has gotten an insane number of things from Donald Trump, and I\u2019m sure he\u2019ll get more as the years go on. I got a lot of pushback from the trust and safety community when I wrote this piece because I was essentially calling them out just being like, \u201cHey, where are you guys? Are you actually going to get on a microphone anywhere and say, \u2018Hey, it\u2019s really bad what is happening to our industry\u2019?\u201d And what they told me very justifiably was, \u201cWe do not have the power that you think we have. When we do speak up and when people do know our names, we get death threats, and we get hounded to the ends of the earth and it\u2019s really scary. You\u2019re asking us to sacrifice maybe even our lives to speak out in favor of these principles. It\u2019s a big ask.\u201d All of that is fair.<\/p>\n

And yet, fast-forward to almost a year later now, and I think the question still stands. What happened when these people stopped speaking out was they just gave free rein to the oligarchs to run these platforms as they see fit. That\u2019s a really scary thing to me, that trust and safety is no longer meaningful at any of these platforms except as a compliance function to keep them in line with various regulations. The result is now you just have a bunch of oligarchs trading favors over Signal.<\/p>\n

Lauren, I want to end with you. Obviously the regulatory side of this is just in full throttle right now, right? They have something that at least shows that Meta is bad, that YouTube is bad, and you can make some moves. What do you think happens next on that side of things?<\/p>\n

LF: We\u2019re going to see a lot of discussion in Congress about whether to pass these new laws to repeal Section 230. But where we\u2019ve seen most of the action has been in the states. We\u2019ll probably continue to see that move forward. In the courts, we\u2019ll see these cases be appealed. And at the same time, we\u2019re going to see new cases brought. There\u2019s still, in the LA case, over 1,500 cases behind that. There are several more bellwether trials just in that set of cases that are already scheduled. The next one is going to be in a few months. There\u2019s a totally different set of bellwether trials in a federal version of these cases with the first one kicking off in June.<\/p>\n

There are school districts, state AGs, individual plaintiffs. This is not going to slow down at all. If nothing else, what these trials have done is bring to light a lot of this information about how these companies work. You just brought more awareness among the general public about what to be thinking about and aware of when their kids are using social media.<\/p>\n

It does feel like a perfect description of the experience of being in America right now. They\u2019re going to set a mishmash of policies across the country until everyone pays enough money to the lobbyists to get a law passed that solves the problem. That feels at once the most nihilistic, cynical thing I can say, and also just how everything works all the time. Do either of you see an off-ramp from that?<\/p>\n

CN: Recent history would suggest that, no, there\u2019s not really an off-ramp, because again, all the incentives are for these companies to get you to look at their app for as long as they can get you to do that. Until the pain of those incentives is worse than the benefits of the revenue that brings in and what it does to their stock price, I don\u2019t see a big change coming.<\/p>\n

Lauren, do policymakers sense that they\u2019re trapped in this doom loop?<\/p>\n

LF: Yeah. The policymakers who\u2019ve decided that KOSA is the way, repealing Section 230 is the way, that is their focus. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s this new discussion about how exactly we should do this. We have seen some newer approaches with things like app store age verification and there are different variations on how that could potentially work, whether it\u2019s real verification or assurance.<\/p>\n

Policymakers have chosen what they think the solution is, and that\u2019s how this conversation is going forward. If people want to change what the mechanisms of that conversation are, they\u2019re really going to have to inject new solutions or think differently about the incentives here.<\/p>\n

Here are my three ideas just to end with. I\u2019m curious about your thoughts. One, I think a federal privacy law is long overdue. That doesn\u2019t feel like it insults the First Amendment. Two, Casey, to your point about algorithmic personalization, I think just requiring algorithmic transparency would go a long, long way. Show us why you are showing us the things you\u2019re showing us. Make your algorithm transparent.<\/p>\n

And then third, require them to do the research. Publish it so there\u2019s not this incredible negative incentive to avoid knowing anything ever. I look at all that and I\u2019m like, \u201cOh, that\u2019s the European approach.\u201d I\u2019m just describing Europe. Have any of those things worked in Europe yet or is it just too early to tell?<\/p>\n

CN: It\u2019s too early to tell. Some of the transparency requirements that they\u2019ve implemented have been good. There\u2019s now some kind of database that you can go to where they have to essentially file a lot of the moderation decisions that they\u2019ve made that\u2019s accessible to the public. I think these are good things. What we haven\u2019t seen yet is consensus on the specific problem we\u2019re trying to solve and the exact right mechanisms for solving it. Again, it\u2019s because it gets so mixed up in these speech issues.<\/p>\n

We need to continue to try to narrow in on what the exact problem we\u2019re trying to solve is. And then from there, try to build some consensus around what we can really say in an empirical way is going to protect the teens from having horrible outcomes. We have to keep driving at those things or otherwise we\u2019re just going to continue to spin our wheels.<\/p>\n

Casey writes Platformer. He podcasts with Kevin Roose at Hard Fork, which is wonderful. Although they\u2019re my sworn enemies, and I think they should be illegal. Lauren\u2019s work is all over The Verge. Lauren, you\u2019ve been on Decoder so much recently. Thank you for coming on yet again.<\/p>\n

Let us know what you think. I\u2019m dying for feedback on this episode because unlike so many Decoder episodes, I think you can feel none of us quite know what\u2019s going to happen next, or maybe more troubling, what should happen.<\/p>\n

Questions or comments about this episode? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!<\/p>\n

Decoder with Nilay Patel<\/p>\n

A podcast from The Verge about big ideas and other problems.<\/p>\n

SUBSCRIBE NOW!<\/a>Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Nilay PatelClose\"Nilay<\/p>\n

Nilay Patel<\/p>\n

Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All by Nilay Patel<\/a><\/p>\n

DecoderClose<\/p>\n

Decoder<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Decoder<\/a><\/p>\n

FacebookClose<\/p>\n

Facebook<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Facebook<\/a><\/p>\n

GoogleClose<\/p>\n

Google<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Google<\/a><\/p>\n

InstagramClose<\/p>\n

Instagram<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Instagram<\/a><\/p>\n

MetaClose<\/p>\n

Meta<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Meta<\/a><\/p>\n

PodcastsClose<\/p>\n

Podcasts<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Podcasts<\/a><\/p>\n

Social MediaClose<\/p>\n

Social Media<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Social Media<\/a><\/p>\n

StreamingClose<\/p>\n

Streaming<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Streaming<\/a><\/p>\n

TechClose<\/p>\n

Tech<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Tech<\/a><\/p>\n

YouTubeClose<\/p>\n

YouTube<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All YouTube<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Today on Decoder, we\u2019re talking about the landmark social media addiction trials that just resulted in two major…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":562380,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[9266,10414,168,97,4136,259,260,1282,2294,108,7382,172,9280],"class_list":{"0":"post-562379","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-mental-health","8":"tag-decoder","9":"tag-facebook","10":"tag-google","11":"tag-health","12":"tag-instagram","13":"tag-mental-health","14":"tag-mentalhealth","15":"tag-meta","16":"tag-podcasts","17":"tag-social-media","18":"tag-streaming","19":"tag-tech","20":"tag-youtube"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562379","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=562379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562379\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/562380"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=562379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=562379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}