What you need to know
- A Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube guilty of “negligence” for the addictive nature of the social media app in its latest verdict.
- Kaley, who is otherwise known as KGM, claimed that from a young age, she became overly addicted to YouTube and Instagram, which led to serious mental health issues.
- 3 million dollars compensation was paid to KGM, 70% of which will be paid by Meta.
A court order has reportedly been issued regarding social media addiction that has put Meta and YouTube in the spotlight.
This afternoon (March 25), Meta and YouTube were reported to have “failed” to warn users, particularly young users, about the potential dangers of excessive social media use. CNBC The lawsuit reiterates that it is about Kaley (or KGM), the young woman who took these two companies (along with others) to court. The plaintiff, who is currently 20 years old, said that he was “addicted” to social networks since childhood. KGM added that his mental health deteriorated due to using such apps, resulting in “mental health harms,” according to CNBC.
Mental health issues highlighted during the trial included “severe body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts”. as addressed by APNewsKGM claimed that the “infinite scrolling” mechanic present in many social media apps is part of its addictive nature. Plus, the constant, steady stream of notifications didn’t help matters.
Article continues below
At one point, during the trial, it was noted that KGM started using YouTube at the age of six before joining Instagram at the age of nine. It is reported that he will remain on these programs “all day”. In their defense, Meta used therapists to say that none of them cite social media as the “cause” of their mental health problems. In addition, YouTube rejected its classification as a social media app, adding that KGM’s time on the platform decreased rapidly as he aged.
Nevertheless, the jury found both Meta and YouTube guilty of negligence and awarded KGM $3 million in damages. It was reported that Meta will cover 70% of these costs, and YouTube will cover the rest. APNews notes that the plaintiff also wants TikTok and Snap; however, the two parted ways with Meta and YouTube before reaching the courtroom.
Is there a problem here?
At sentencing, Meta made a statement “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” he said shortly afterward.
We have seen similar arguments detained overseas in Australia during the social media ban. On December 10th, Google announced that it would begin banning anyone 16 or older from their Australian accounts. Australia’s social media ban no longer excludes YouTube, so the company had no choice but to comply. Google’s counterargument stated that such a ban would not help the problem.
Instead, he encouraged parents to look at the parental control options available to put limits on their children. A question was asked by Android Central’s Jerry Hildenbrand: “Can YouTube be ‘bad’ for kids?” Jerry’s argument is yes, it can, but what it means will vary from parent to parent.
Android Central’s Take
Such a trial is interesting. I wouldn’t disagree with anyone, yes there are dangers everything on the internet. You may come across narcotic or more obnoxious (potentially harmful) content. Of course, this is the internet. But where I diverge and agree with Jerry is who should take responsibility: the parents. In this situation, as in any other, the parent is responsible for what their child watches, uses and interacts with. Because I was always interested in computers and phones, I grew up in an era where such restrictions were placed on me. Sure, maybe there should be a big red alert. “Hey! This can it’s a problem if you use it too much.” Furthermore, the role of parents is to be what their title implies: parent.
