Is Big Social Media the Next Big Tobacco?

 

The issue is the direct harm to children, from self-image and spreading conspiracy theories to addictive behavior. Watching teens heading for a nearby high school in my neighborhood, I have to wonder if human heads will evolve tilted forward and down. Even when they walk, side-by-side with their classmates, the frenetic texting continues. Sure, there are a few with earbuds in position, but information, music and who knows what else are pouring into their heads. Kids vie to become social media favorites on TikTok, while others pose for Instagram photos and share visuals of every meal they eat with their peers. In short, social media is deeply embedded in the culture of growing up, pervasive and often toxic.

That toxicity is the basis for various lawsuits filed against BIG SOCIAL MEDIA, and the issue is on the verge of being decided by the US Supreme Court. Again! As states, the federal government and even local governments seek to rein in the mass of information posted on social media, much of it false, fake or highly manipulative, a reality only exacerbated by the use of artificial intelligence to make fake seem real. Parents are concerned. More than a few suicides of children also can be traced to online bullying, with social media being the convenient vehicle. Unwanted images, stalking and doxing are instruments of hate or persecution… all enabled online.

As for the platforms themselves, attempting to filter out the most obvious and dangerous misinformation, they hide behind the First Amendment and a notorious federal statute. But lawsuits are flowing. “The legal attack on social media companies may also run against the Supreme Court’s decision last May on Gonzalez v. Google, which ruled that platforms cannot be held liable for users’ content that they host under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Alexandra Sternlicht writing for the October 26th Fortune.com

The battlelines are being drawn, looking a lot like the ultimately successful litigation against Big Tobacco more than three decades ago. These purveyors of smoking, knowing for decades that they were selling cancer sticks, published volumes of false information that kept governments at bay for decades. Ultimately, they forked out over $200 billion for their poisonous efforts. “It’s not clear if the [state] attorneys general [combining to take on Big Social Media] will combine with the private personal injury suits filed by the law firms, or hire some of the leading plaintiffs’ lawyers to advise and work with the states, as was the case in the [tobacco litigation of the] 1990s. But the source close to the plaintiffs said the fact that the attorneys general have filed a concurrent suit in California, the same state as the ongoing master personal injury suit litigated by the big tobacco plaintiffs is a vote of confidence in the strategy and a sign that the states are serious about regulating social media.” Sternlicht

Even as governments and private parties take on Big Oil for its contribution to toxic climate change, Big Oil defendants do not have any particularly strong constitutional or statutory arguments. There’re no First Amendment or federal safe harbor to fend off anxious plaintiffs. Like Big Social Media. “Nearly three decades [after tobacco suits], a burgeoning legal battle looks strangely familiar—this time with the internet’s social media giants in the role of Big Tobacco.

“On Tuesday [10/24], 42 state attorneys general sued Instagram-parent company Meta for allegedly damaging children’s mental health with its social media technologies. The complaint, which is 233 pages long, mentions ‘addiction’ over 30 times, featuring evidence from the company as well as psychology experts who allege Meta has intentionally and deceptively addicted children to its technologies with the goal of maximizing profits.

“And on Friday [10/27], Northern California District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will rule on a personal injury lawsuit against YouTube, Snap, TikTok and Meta claiming that the platforms addicted youth, and spurred a mental health crisis with associated injuries. The plaintiffs leading this suit include attorneys from Lieff Cabraser and Motley Rice, two of the law firms involved in 1998’s landmark tobacco settlement. Levin Sedran & Berman, which represented plaintiffs in recent suits against JUUL that effectively made its e-cigarette products illegal in the U.S, is also involved in the case.

“For years, critics of social media have likened the feeds of viral videos, photos, and likes to digital cigarettes. Now the effort to rein in social media may be adopting the same legal playbook that anti-smoking activists used in the 1990s to hold tobacco companies accountable… A source close to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against TikTok and the other social media firms told Fortune that the tobacco litigation is an apt parallel to the current situation. In particular, the current lawsuits take a page from tobacco by focusing on how social media platforms allegedly compel kids to keep using over and over and over again.

“Representatives from TikTok and Meta did not respond to Fortune by the time of this article's publication, though Meta noted in its latest 10-Q filing that it believes the lawsuits ‘are without merit, and we are vigorously defending them.’ A YouTube spokesperson said that the allegations in the lawsuits are false. ‘Protecting kids across our platforms has always been core to our work. In collaboration with child development specialists, we have built age-appropriate experiences for kids and families on YouTube, and provide parents with robust controls.’

“A spokesperson for Snap distanced the company from its social media peers, noting that the Snapchat app opens directly to a camera rather than onto a feed that would encourage ‘passive scrolling,’ and that the app doesn't encourage perfection or popularity. ‘While we will always have more work to do, we feel good about the role Snapchat plays in helping friends feel connected, informed, happy, and prepared as they face the many challenges of adolescence.’…

“Though users addicted to social media will not experience physical withdrawal in its absence, some experts argue it is more nefarious than cigarettes in other ways. ‘[Social media algorithms] are akin to each time you smoke a cigarette, the cigarette itself increases in nicotine content,’ says Vikram Bhargava, an assistant professor at George Washington School of Business who researches ethics and technology policy. ‘Social media is vastly more sophisticated [than cigarettes] and has the ability to influence the psychologies of large populations.’” Sternlicht.

And yes, it’s about money! There’s clearly an intent to create “stickiness” (read: “addictive behavior”) to maximize advertising revenues. So, the platforms at least try to look as if they are tackling the problem. Wink-wink. As artificial intelligence may complicate the playing field, it may also provide a path to tame Big Social Media’s deflective efforts at controlling malicious content.

I’m Peter Dekom, and Houston… and every other city, town or rural tract… we have a problem… a very big problem.