News NYC, it's school system, and the public hospital system come together and sue Social Media giants.

[Amol S.]

Today Mayor Adams, announced the city will be launching a major lawsuit against social media companies for endangering not only the life's of youths in the city, but by also starting a "youth mental health crisis". The city is demanding the social media giants to pay up for medical and social costs associated with the mental crisis.

New York City files a lawsuit saying social media is fueling a youth mental health crisis

New York City, its schools and public hospital system are suing the tech giants that run Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube

abcnews.go.com

Mayor Adams ironically announced this law suit on the same day, he was told lawyers representing New Yorkers who are being elected due to scarcity of affordable housing, are suing him.

 

[Greenman]

Wouldn't the first line of defense here be parents? Then make phones that aren't capable of accessing the internet? Or require a credit card to access the platforms in question?

Or we could go full blown radical and pull the plug on all of them, make the world a better place.

 

[fskimospy]

Wouldn't the first line of defense here be parents? Then make phones that aren't capable of accessing the internet? Or require a credit card to access the platforms in question?

Or we could go full blown radical and pull the plug on all of them, make the world a better place.

Yes, this seems like a job for parents.

I think social media is addictive to a lot of people and I think it was made purposefully so by those companies. Not every bad thing is illegal or should be illegal though.

 

[ivwshane]

If a product was causing harm to its users and it was costing the government money, should the government sue the manufacturers?

I know California sued lead paint manufacturers for their refusal to clean up the issue. How is this different?

 

[Meghan54]

Yes, this seems like a job for parents.

I think social media is addictive to a lot of people and I think it was made purposefully so by those companies. Not every bad thing is illegal or should be illegal though.

True across the board. I’m 70 in a few months and I know I’m addicted as heck to Facebook’s Reels…love some animal vids…and old F1, most racing, and stupid human tricks. I’ll blow hours away scrolling…but it’s winter and just a tad cold right now to zoom around the lake.

But…I’d think there’s a secondary issue that is funding for and access to mental health Parents can only do so much, esp after the fact of online addiction. But some in politics seem to find doing just that repulsive.

 

[Greenman]

Yes, this seems like a job for parents.

I think social media is addictive to a lot of people and I think it was made purposefully so by those companies. Not every bad thing is illegal or should be illegal though.

I missed this issue as smart phones weren't common until my kids were old enough to buy their own. That said, I spend to much time on three different forums and youtube. Though my youtube viewing has decreased since they banned ad blockers.
I'm also an odd bird in that my phone is used almost exclusively as a phone and GPS, with a bit of texting.
Last week I went to make a call and discovered that the battery had been dead for three days.

 

[fskimospy]

If a product was causing harm to its users and it was costing the government money, should the government sue the manufacturers?

I know California sued lead paint manufacturers for their refusal to clean up the issue. How is this different?

First, the chain of causation between lead paint and various maladies is well established and the relationship is very clear. I suspect it would be far harder to establish that sort of link here. Second, wins like that in CA are pretty rare and center on the prevention of enjoying a public right, housing in this case. If all the houses are painted with lead paint then it can make it difficult or impossible to find a place to live that isn't toxic. Hard to see how that's the same thing as electing to download an app.

 

[mindless1]

I hope their suit fails. Schools need to get with the times and educate youth about healthy online interactions and practices, and bully resistance since that has always been around but now the exposure rate has increased.

Wait. What about adults. Can we make this a class that includes all humans? Wait. What about animals?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yes, this seems like a job for parents.

I think social media is addictive to a lot of people and I think it was made purposefully so by those companies. Not every bad thing is illegal or should be illegal though.

True, but kids are also much more susceptible to the addictive nature of social media, as well as any unrealistic presentations made by it (e.g. face filters).

Getting better privacy laws on the books would be a universal win, not just for kids. But that is via Congress, not the courts

 

[soulcougher73]

The documentary The Social Delemma on Netflix is very good at showing how addictive, and why it is addictive (built that way) to many people. Very sad, and scary.

 

[NWRMidnight]

If a product was causing harm to its users and it was costing the government money, should the government sue the manufacturers?

I know California sued lead paint manufacturers for their refusal to clean up the issue. How is this different?

So then you agree that boradcast and cable tv, you tube, streaming, basically every form of media should be gone after as well? I guess we need to start going after authors, movie producers, as well too. right?

Or maybe, just maybe we start holding people accountable, in this situation it would be the parents and the children, rather than trying to pin it on everything else. What do you think?

 

[nakedfrog]

I do find it interesting how people constantly argue against social media companies having any culpability whatsoever. All hail our corporate benefactors.

 

[fskimospy]

I do find it interesting how people constantly argue against social media companies having any culpability whatsoever. All hail our corporate benefactors.

Moral culpability? Absolutely. Social media companies are terrible. What's the legal culpability though? Again, their product is essentially first amendment protected activity.

Is the idea to use the government to punish them for making an app where people can talk to each other because kids talk to each other on it too much?

 

[dank69]

I do find it interesting how people constantly argue against social media companies having any culpability whatsoever. All hail our corporate benefactors.

Yeah it's important to determine if they knew their product was causing damage, if they tried to cover it up, or if they even actively exploited it to increase profits. Nobody is saying parents should not be responsible for their kids' well being, just that corporations should be held responsible for damage they knowingly cause. I have no idea if that is the case here or not.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wouldn't the first line of defense here be parents?

You going to raise wages so one parent can actually stay home and be a parent?

 

[ivwshane]

First, the chain of causation between lead paint and various maladies is well established and the relationship is very clear. I suspect it would be far harder to establish that sort of link here. Second, wins like that in CA are pretty rare and center on the prevention of enjoying a public right, housing in this case. If all the houses are painted with lead paint then it can make it difficult or impossible to find a place to live that isn't toxic. Hard to see how that's the same thing as electing to download an app.

So what you are saying is that it’ll be incumbent on the state to prove their case not that it doesn’t have merit.

 

[ivwshane]

So then you agree that boradcast and cable tv, you tube, streaming, basically every form of media should be gone after as well? I guess we need to start going after authors, movie producers, as well too. right?

Or maybe, just maybe we start holding people accountable, in this situation it would be the parents and the children, rather than trying to pin it on everything else. What do you think?

If you can show that there is a harmful component and that it’s costing the government money or that it’s purposefully addictive then absolutely.

Do you think drug manufacturers (including tobacco) should be allowed to market and sell to kids? Why not? Parents should certainly be able to control what their kids put into their bodies right?

 

[Jaskalas]

Moral culpability? Absolutely. Social media companies are terrible. What's the legal culpability though? Again, their product is essentially first amendment protected activity.

Is the idea to use the government to punish them for making an app where people can talk to each other because kids talk to each other on it too much?

Perhaps the idea is recognizing how damaging free speech can be.
So let's "protect the children!" while ignoring the fracturing of society amongst adults.

I digress... when it comes to kids, banning them from speech is one "solution". Another would be to recognize the problems and create training / education to help them recognize and guard themselves against the malignant darkside of social media. Either we tell teens to STFU and feed them to the wolves at age 18, or we can help guide them to become stronger and more productive members of society.

Critical thinking / dealing with (mis)information is a vital subject that needs to become a core, life long component of education.

 

[Greenman]

You going to raise wages so one parent can actually stay home and be a parent?

I no longer have employees, so no, I won't be raising wages. I did manage to get married, buy a home, send 4 kids to private school, and provide healthcare for my family, all without a degree and on one income. Perhaps you're doing it wrong?
I also find it odd that you see the problem as someone else's fault.

 

[fskimospy]

I no longer have employees, so no, I won't be raising wages. I did manage to get married, buy a home, send 4 kids to private school, and provide healthcare for my family, all without a degree and on one income. Perhaps you're doing it wrong?
I also find it odd that you see the problem as someone else's fault.

When did you buy your home?

 

[ivwshane]

Moral culpability? Absolutely. Social media companies are terrible. What's the legal culpability though? Again, their product is essentially first amendment protected activity.

Is the idea to use the government to punish them for making an app where people can talk to each other because kids talk to each other on it too much?

Do you think the sackler family should be held accountable for knowingly pushing a very addictive drug and incentivizing its distribution?

 

[nakedfrog]

Moral culpability? Absolutely. Social media companies are terrible. What's the legal culpability though? Again, their product is essentially first amendment protected activity.

Is the idea to use the government to punish them for making an app where people can talk to each other because kids talk to each other on it too much?

No. The idea is that if they tailored algorithms knowingly in ways that were likely to result in harm in exchange for increased engagement, probably they shouldn't do that.

Yeah it's important to determine if they knew their product was causing damage, if they tried to cover it up, or if they even actively exploited it to increase profits. Nobody is saying parents should not be responsible for their kids' well being, just that corporations should be held responsible for damage they knowingly cause. I have no idea if that is the case here or not.

Yes.

 

[nakedfrog]

When did you buy your home?

Classic Greenman. "I am utterly incapable of imagining anyone's life circumstances being different than mine, and I am totally bereft of empathy."

 

[Greenman]

When did you buy your home?

1990, and it was tough. Seven day work weeks were common. My longest stretch without a day off was 90 days, and that wasn't 90 days sitting in an air conditioned office.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think the sackler family should be held accountable to for knowingly pushing a very addictive drug and incentivizing its distribution?

No, I don't think they should be held accountable for either of those things. I think they should be held accountable for what they were actually held accountable for, which was purposefully lying about the effects of that very addictive drug and that they were aware of widespread illegal use of it. For example Purdue didn't just not mention Oxy's addictive qualities, it actively said it was not addictive and claimed patients exhibiting addiction symptoms were basically faking it.

The whole FDA regulated drugs vs. social media thing aside is your idea that social media companies are actively and purposefully making false statements to the public about their products? What are those statements?