Hi friends,

Twenty years after Facebook introduced the News Feed, social media companies are finally being held accountable for the toxicity of their algorithmic grip on our psyches.

In a first ruling of its kind, a California jury ruled last week that Facebook’s parent company Meta and Google subsidiary YouTube are liable for trying to addict users through their negligent design choices.

In my latest piece for New York Times Opinion, (gift link), I argue that this case – one of thousands of similar cases filed across the country – could eventually lead to a consolidated settlement similar to the one the four largest cigarette makers made in 1998 for an estimated $206 billion as part of a master agreement with 46 states.

“Compensating people for the harm caused by their products is just the silver lining. The real win would be if the social media giants were finally forced to design less harmful products.” I wrote.

Why Does this Matter? For years, Big Tech has defended itself from liability by wielding the twin swords of the First Amendment and Section 230, a 1996 law that provides the companies with immunity for content users posted on their site. 

This latest case takes a different legal route: tort law, which allows users to bring individual cases alleging that social media companies designed their products in a way that caused harm. Because these lawsuits focus on product design, rather than content, they sidestep the usual First Amendment and Section 230 defenses. 

That means these cases take aim at features like infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithms that boost outrage, and beauty filters – the techniques that Big Tech uses to keep us staring at the screen for as long as possible. 

The California case is one of thousands that the courts have consolidated into what is known as a mass tort litigation. The case will very likely be appealed, while additional cases make their way through court. But  eventually there will likely be a settlement that - if tobacco is any guide - will include not just damages but changes to product design.

Does this mean Social Media Addiction is Real? Regular readers know that I am skeptical of the claims that social media is a clinical addiction akin to tobacco or other drugs.

Many scientists are also cautious about deeming “problematic smartphone use” equivalent to clinical addiction. But there is no question that overuse of social media can be harmful: recent studies have shown that intense use of social media is correlated with mental health struggles, depression and suicide in youth, especially in younger teens.

The counterargument by tech companies and others is that people who overuse social media are often compensating for other factors in their life that are causing mental health problems. And some scientists argue that the addiction framing robs people of the agency they have to change their habits and behavior.

The good news is we don't have to agree on whether social media addiction is real to know that we don’t want these companies designing their products like digital slot machines.

What’s the Downside? It’s very important to acknowledge that holding tech companies’ accountable is a tricky business because they are largely in the business of distributing speech.

Tech journalist Michael Masnick has been arguing for years that cases like this one are a slippery slope that could lead to crackdowns on beneficial features like encrypted messaging. 

I agree that we need to fight to defend encryption against governments around the world who are constantly seeking to crack it. But I just can’t really muster the same enthusiasm to protect companies ability to force feed us outrage and clickbait in an infinite scroll.

The purpose of laws is for us as a society to come together and agree on our values - and then enforce them on each other without violence. A lawless society is, of course, one where the only law is the law of force.

And truthfully, by failing to impose any legal restrictions on Big Tech – we are one of the only countries in the world with a comprehensive privacy law – we have allowed these corporations to force us to accept whatever behavior they engage in.

I, for one, am glad to see this era of tech impunity coming to an end. And I hope that we can simultaneously reach a societal consensus about protecting our digital privacy.  

As always, thanks for reading.

Best

Julia Angwin