| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
|
| | Social Media Platforms & Addiction |
|
<
< | It is no secret that businesses want to make money and will cater their products towards this goal. Sometimes this may result in companies promoting products or behaviors that are harmful to their consumers and may result in addiction and the consequences that come along with addiction. For example, the tobacco industry perpetuated a narrative of minimizing the harms that smoking had, “manipulating and denying both the addictive nature of their products and their marketing to children.” As technology advanced, new types of addiction developed alongside it. Social media companies like Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), which owns Instagram and Facebook, are now in the spotlight for their practices and resulting alleged harm of addiction, especially in children. |
>
> | It is no secret that businesses want to make money and will cater their products towards this goal. Sometimes this may result in companies promoting products or behaviors that are harmful to their consumers and may result in addiction and the consequences that come along with addiction. As technology advanced, new types of addiction developed alongside it. Social media companies like Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), which owns Instagram and Facebook, are now in the spotlight for their practices and resulting alleged harm of addiction, especially in children. |
| |
Current Litigation |
| | What Meta Does |
|
<
< | Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms are generally free to use for users. They make money primarily from selling advertisement space to third parties. They do this by collecting information about their users to build a personalized consumer profile. Then, advertisers can purchase advertising space based on the users’ specific preferences (i.e. targeted advertising). Because of Meta’s business models, “profits from these platforms are highly dependent on the number of users, the amount of time each user spends on the platform, and the amount of information a user provides, directly or indirectly, to the platform about themselves.”
In other words, Meta has an incentive to develop platform algorithms and features that will increase the amount of time that current and future users will spend on the platform. This incentive can cause these platforms to implement measures that may not be beneficial or may even harm its users if it helps increase the amount of time spent on their apps and therefore profit. |
>
> | Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms are generally free to use for users. They make money primarily by collecting information from users to build a consumer profile then selling advertising space based on the users’ specific preferences (i.e. targeted advertising). Because of Meta's business models, “profits from these platforms are highly dependent on the number of users, the amount of time each user spends on the platform, and the amount of information a user provides, directly or indirectly, to the platform about themselves.” The incentive to increase use and duration of its platforms can encourage Meta to implement algorithms that harm its users if it helps increase their own profit. |
| |
Alleged Design Defects |
|
<
< | The Master Complaint details many ways that the defendants’ platforms cause physical and emotional harm, including disordered eating, idealizing suicide, and encouraging social comparison. These are the most relevant alleged product defects regarding Meta’s Facebook and Instagram: |
>
> | The Master Complaint details many ways that the defendants’ platforms cause physical and emotional harm, including disordered eating, idealizing suicide, and encouraging social comparison. These are the most relevant alleged product defects regarding Meta: |
| | |
|
<
< | Endless-content: Facebook’s “News Feed’ presents a continuous feed of content (posts, advertisements, etc.) that users can scroll through, which never ends. |
| | |
|
<
< | Intermittent Variable Rewards or “IVR”: Instagram specifically designed algorithms to “strategically time when they show content in order to maximize engagement.” For example, they may delay notifications of interactions (likes and comments) on a users’ posts until there are multiple interactions so that when the user does receive the notification, there is an increased and stronger dopamine reaction. |
>
> | Intermittent Variable Rewards or “IVR”: Instagram may delay notifications of interactions (likes and comments) on a users’ posts until there are multiple interactions so that when the user does receive the notification, there is an increased and stronger dopamine reaction. |
| | Ephemeral Content: Facebook and Instagram create a sense of urgency to see content using “Stories” because there is a time limit on how long the content is available (similar to fear of missing out). |
| | Defenses: Section 230 and the First Amendment |
|
<
< | Meta has been able to shield itself from many of the alleged defects through Section 230 and First Amendment defenses. Essentially, some of the most controversial tactics, like notification timing and clustering and addictive algorithms are classified by this Court as “traditional editorial functions that are essential to publishing” because they do not change the content that is being published. Rather, they only choose how, what, and when users see this content, which is standard to publishing. Examples of these related to Meta’s Facebook and Instagram include: “failing to put ‘default protective limits on the length and frequency of sessions’... not providing a beginning and end to a user’s “Feed”...limiting content to short-form and ephemeral content…timing and clustering of notifications of third-party content in a way that promotes addiction...use of algorithms to promote addictive engagement.”
Additionally, Meta has used the First Amendment to protect the choices they have made in disseminating user-created content and speech. For example, the “timing and clustering of notifications of the defendants’ content to increase addictive use,” is classified as speech and requiring platforms to change when and how they publish speech is barred by the First Amendment. |
>
> | Meta has been able to shield itself from many of the alleged defects through Section 230 and First Amendment defenses. Essentially, some of the most controversial tactics, like notification timing and clustering and addictive algorithms are classified by this Court as “traditional editorial functions that are essential to publishing” protected under Section 230 because they do not change the content that is being published. Rather, they only choose how, what, and when users see this content, which is standard to publishing. Additionally, the “timing and clustering of notifications of the defendants’ content to increase addictive use,” is classified as speech and requiring platforms to change when and how they publish speech is barred by the First Amendment. |
| |
The Loss of Autonomy |
| | This is not new insight because there have been whistleblowers in the past that highlight how many resources Meta has put into maximizing their algorithm to keep people on their apps. This loss of autonomy is an infringement on our privacy, but is not recognized as such due to the belief that we have a choice in the matter. However, I believe that since social media plays a very different role in our lives than gambling at a casino, there should be greater protections in place to protect our autonomy when companies like Meta are specifically trying to use our own psychology to the contrary. |
|
>
> | The Protection of Privacy
There is an abundance of proposed legislation to limit Meta’s addictive algorithms affecting children; however, these propositions will likely receive pushback in lieu of Section 230 and First Amendment protections. Thus, I believe that the most effective route to curtail Meta’s addictive algorithms is for the Federal Trade Commission (“the Commission”) to bring a privacy case against Meta regarding unfair business practices. In the past decade, the Commission has brought numerous cases against Facebook for violating its users’ privacy and even issued the company the biggest privacy violation fine in American history for $5 billion dollars. The most important factor in determining unfair business practices is causation of consumer harm. Here, the substantial harm to children is clear. While these companies were protected from certain charges in the MDL due to Section 230 and First Amendment defenses, the companies were not absolved of causation regarding its algorithms and resulting harm. In the past, the Commission has received strong support for their revised Orders regarding Meta’s privacy policies that demanded substantial changes in order to protect users’ privacy. Thus, the best chance of protecting children’s privacy and autonomy of thought from Meta’s targeted algorithms is for the Commission to issue a revised Order regarding its privacy infringements. |
| | |
|
<
< |
An excellent summary of the current situation, with, as you say in conclusion, not much new insight. I think you could gain back 100 words or so by some compression editing, and you probably do actually have an insight or two to share in that space.
|
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |