Media giant Meta paid a $17 billion settlement to resolve persistent claims of Facebook and Instagram’s harm on younger American users. Meta also made some prominent changes in policy that may have a generational impact.
Cal Poly journalism professors Julie Lynem and Yan Shan add their two cents.
“My immediate reaction [to the suit] was, this has been building for quite some time. This wasn’t really unexpected,” Lynem said.
Meta agreed to pay out to 48 states and U.S. territories after the California judicial decision that was led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Meta also added policy changes for minors, including daily time limits, nighttime blocks and schooltime blocks, and restricting filters that represent plastic surgery or severely modifying their looks.
However, Meta did not admit to causing any harm but rather decided to pay out the costs and implement new policies.
During the ​​trial that was settled on Aug. 26, a coalition of 29 states brought forward research on the mental health effects of social media addiction. They also provided internal chat logs and employee emails, which all pointed out Meta’s intentional addictive nature among users as young as 11 or 12.
Lynem, who has taught a variety of media related courses at Cal Poly for the last 10 years, noted the relationship between ethics and technology.
“Sometimes our ethics and technology are not in tandem,” Lynem said. “Technology is moving faster than we can keep up with what we’re going to do about it — or whether the ethical framework even exists yet.”
Lynem explained that educators and mental health professionals have seen social media’s addictive impact on children worldwide.
Shan, who has taught strategic communication courses and specializes in public relations and social media, agreed and shared a similar reaction to Lynem.
“I’m not surprised, but I do think it is a turning point for us as a society,” Shan said.“I think every individual needs to talk about [the case]. If you have kids, if you have siblings, I think it needs to be part of the conversation.”
Both professors explained that the case started to pick up momentum when lawsuits stopped targeting social media content and what is being posted on the platforms, but they started specifically targeting the social media companies that allowed for the content and the algorithms used.
For years, schools have implemented rules on social media use. Beyond the United States, multiple countries have taken actions against social media platforms and their younger audiences.
“In Australia, their proposal to ban social media use for people under 16 isn’t really having the effect that they had hoped it would have, because young people are finding ways to get around it,” Lynem said.
Likewise, Shan also brought up how social media addiction is not just a national problem but is something governments and education systems worldwide have tried to tackle. Shan sees potential solutions that can start simply from the classroom.
“From an educational perspective, I do think there needs to be more media literacy classes or sessions,” Shan said.“I think [Gen Z] is much more aware of that. But other groups are not necessarily aware like the elderly, kids or teenagers, people who do not necessarily have the media literacy education. I think that’s the group that we need to protect.”
Shan goes on to explain that social media and its presence will not go away. Social media is becoming more and more advanced and will only develop further, she said. While media companies tackle creating new policies and limitations, Shan also emphasized the importance of media literacy has on its audiences.
As of now, Meta has promised to instill new policies in their social media platforms and have urged other popular media companies during the settlement to do the same.