法院说社交媒体有毒

A court in California said Meta and YouTube must be held responsible for making users addicted.

This is the first time in history a court has ruled this way.

Let's talk about what exactly happened with this case.

First, let's talk about the main character of this case.

Her name is Kaley, and she's twenty years old.

She lives in a small city in California called Chico.

She currently works as a store associate at Walmart.

She started watching YouTube at age six.

Six years old.

Think about it — what does a six-year-old know?

By the time she graduated elementary school, she had already posted two hundred and eighty-four videos on YouTube.

At nine she started using Instagram.

What is Instagram?

It's an app where you post photos and others come to look.

If others think it looks good, they give you a like.

Kaley said at first she thought it was fun.

But later things changed.

She started caring a lot about other people's likes.

More likes made her happy.

Fewer likes made her sad.

Even during class she was thinking about it.

She would sneak into the bathroom to check her phone.

She said every time she saw new notifications she felt a "rush."

That feeling of sudden excitement.

In psychology this is called "dopamine feedback."

It means your brain thinks this thing is good.

It gives you a feeling of pleasure.

Making you want more.

Instagram also has filters.

Filters can make your photos look prettier.

Kaley used filters on almost every photo.

Gradually she started feeling her real self wasn't pretty enough.

She developed a condition called "body dysmorphic disorder."

It means constantly feeling something is wrong with your appearance.

But actually other people looked at her and thought she was perfectly normal.

She also developed depression.

She didn't want to go outside.

She didn't want to talk to her family.

She herself said: "I stopped interacting with my family because I gave all my time to social media."

So she decided to sue these companies.

This case started back in 2023.

It finally went to trial this February.

In Los Angeles.

What was the most critical thing in court?

It was Meta's own internal documents.

One document said: "If we want to win teenage users, we must start getting them when they're still in elementary school."

These words weren't made up by someone else.

They were written by people inside Meta.

Data also showed that eleven-year-old children who used Instagram were four times more likely to come back and keep using it than those who used competitors.

They knew about this.

And they kept doing it.

Mark Zuckerberg also came to court.

Yes, the boss of Meta.

He said one thing: "If people feel the experience isn't good, why would they keep using it?"

How do you interpret that?

He seems to be saying users choose to keep using it on their own.

But Kaley's lawyer said that's wrong.

He said that's exactly what addiction means.

You feel it's bad but you can't stop.

Kaley's lawyer is named Mark Lanier.

He said a famous line in court.

He said: "How can you make a child never put down the phone?

That's addiction engineering."

He meant these companies used many technical methods to make people addicted.

For example, infinite scrolling.

You open your phone and keep scrolling down.

There's no end.

Videos auto-play.

You don't need to tap anything.

The next video just comes by itself.

There's also the notification system.

Your phone keeps buzzing.

"Someone liked your post."

"Someone followed you."

"Your friend posted a new photo."

Every notification pulls you back.

None of this is accidental.

It was all designed by engineers.

The purpose is to make you spend more time.

The more time you spend, the more advertising money they make.

This case was tried over five weeks.

Doctors came to testify.

Including Kaley's former therapist.

She said Kaley's self-perception and social media were completely bound together.

The feedback on her phone could determine her mood for the day.

What did Meta say in response?

They said Kaley's problems weren't caused by social media.

They said she had family issues.

She had learning disabilities.

Her therapist never wrote in her records that social media was the cause.

Google also said YouTube isn't social media.

YouTube is just a video platform.

But the jury disagreed.

Twelve people discussed for over forty hours.

The final verdict went like this.

Both Meta and Google are responsible.

Their product design was defective.

And they did it "deliberately."

In legal terms, this is called "malicious conduct."

The damages are six million dollars.

Three million is compensation.

Three million is punishment.

Meta pays seventy percent.

Google pays thirty percent.

Six million sounds like a lot.

But for Meta it really isn't much.

Meta's annual revenue exceeds a hundred billion dollars.

Six million is just a drop in the bucket.

But this number doesn't matter.

What matters is the significance of this verdict.

There are now about two thousand similar cases waiting in line.

This verdict sent a signal to everyone.

Courts believe social media companies can be held accountable.

Legal experts say this is the tech industry's "tobacco moment."

Decades ago, cigarette companies did the same thing.

They knew cigarettes were harmful.

But they kept selling them.

Later courts said they must take responsibility.

The situation social media companies face now is pretty similar.

They know their products might harm young people.

But they keep doing it for profit.

The court says that's not acceptable.

There's one more thing worth mentioning.

Just the day before this verdict.

A court in another state, New Mexico, ordered Meta to pay three hundred and seventy-five million dollars.

Three hundred and seventy-five million.

Because Meta failed to protect minors from being contacted by bad people online.

Two verdicts in two days.

Meta is having a rough time.

Oh, and one more thing.

TikTok and Snapchat were originally defendants too.

But they settled with Kaley before the trial began.

Settling means they paid money privately.

The exact amount wasn't made public.

Meta and Google say they will appeal.

Appealing means asking a higher-level court to review it again.

So this matter isn't over yet.

But regardless of how it ends.

This case has already changed something.

More and more people are starting to ask one question.

Should we really let children use social media freely?