If your life is troubled, you’re in luck, because now you have a new scapegoat: Facebook, YouTube and social media platforms. You see, you are not responsible for your actions, or your feelings, or your psychological states. The real culprit, the true Wizard of Oz behind the curtain and engineering your distress is… Mark Zuckerberg. Indeed, Zuck figured out a way to infect your brain with an addiction to his platform, and you are a mere helpless pawn in his master plan.
Surely, you, as an autonomous human, have no control over this. You are a victim of the algorithm, don’t you know? Oh, and there is now a new way to “fix” your life. All you have to do is bring a lawsuit against Zuckerberg and a court will award you some of his “ill-gotten, obscene profits” and put them in your bank account (sarcasm alarm on full blast).
The aforementioned scenario is not some fiction. In fact, last week, a Los Angeles jury held Meta Platforms (META) and Alphabet’s (GOOGL) YouTube liable for a 20-year-old woman’s personal troubles. Yes, you read that correctly.
As the Wall Street Journal op-ed on this issue noted, “The schadenfreude will be overwhelming — nail the billionaires! But using a novel product liability theory to shake down companies won’t help young people and isn’t a good way to make law.”
The verdict in this lawsuit included an award of $6 million against the Meta and Alphabet (granted, a minute sum given their respective revenues), but this doesn’t augur well for the future of social media. In fact, there are currently more than 3,000 lawsuits pending in California courts that seek to hold social media companies liable for the struggles of America’s youth. School districts and more than 40 state Attorneys General have also sued for damages to compensate for social problems allegedly caused by the platforms.
Since this verdict was rendered, I’ve seen a lot of social media haters gleefully proclaim that this is Big Tech’s “Big Tobacco” moment. Just as a note, whenever you have someone use the adjective “Big” before the name of an industry, it’s a blatant tell that they are no friend of capitalism, markets or freedom. Ask yourself this question, how did “Big Tobacco” and “Big Tech” get so “Big”? It’s because people bought their products, and they did so in a “Big” way that led to the companies making “Big” profits.
In the current social media lawsuits, the argument is that these “Big Tech” platforms have been negligent in how they designed their sites. The plaintiffs claim that features such as “infinite scrolling” and “like” buttons harm children. And by the way, you can get away with just about any violation of freedom in this country if you simply say that you are doing it “to protect children.”
Of course, Facebook and Google aren’t acting negligently. They are acting intentionally by engineering their algorithms to produce the most engagement they can, so they can therefore deliver the most ROI for advertisers. This is called capitalism, and it’s not evil. What is evil, in my view, is blaming others for your own circumstance.
Check out what lead trial attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark Lanier, told the jury. “Addicting, brains, children.” Companies didn’t just build apps, they built traps.” I mean, who could argue with such sloganism? (more sarcasm alert).
Well, here I am to do so, right now.
Let’s look at the claims made by the 20-year-old plaintiff, who is identified as Kaley G.M. This woman said she started using YouTube at age six and Instagram when she was nine. Forget that these platforms explicitly state that users need to be at least 13 years old. So, she broke platform rules and bypassed software controls, but that’s Zuckerberg’s fault, right?
Kaley G.M. also claims that her “compulsive” use of social media made her “feel very depressed” and that unrealistic images she saw on the platforms made her feel insecure about her appearance. As the WSJ states: “But are platforms supposed to prohibit users from posting photos that might make someone feel depressed or insecure? Sorry, Californians, no posting beach photos in December.”
The WSJ then throws a bone out to the Jonathan Haidt’s of the world by saying, “There’s no doubt that increasing teen use of social media and smartphones over the last 15 years has coincided with rising levels of depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses.” The WSJ goes on to say, “But it’s hard if not impossible to prove that social media caused any given individual’s troubles, let alone apportion liability among the platforms.”
Here’s a novel thought: Even if social media causes harm in some cases (most things in life, however seemingly benign, can cause harm), does that mean we should allow anyone who claims they’ve been harmed to collect millions in damages? This is an outrageous overreach, and one that punishes companies for being too good at what they do.
Perhaps the biggest issue here, as I see it, is that this lawsuit, and those sure to follow, could result in the very pernicious outcome of treating speech as a “product.”
As Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason.com, “If social media platforms are legally liable for any and all vague harms that someone could blame on their content, serious crackdowns on all sorts of material could become warranted. That means speech around controversial issues, diet and fitness, mental health topics, sexuality and so much more will be suppressed. And if social media platforms are a ‘product,’ rather than a venue for speech, we open the way for so much more government regulation of what can and cannot be said online.”
And there you have it, what I think is the real underlying issue motivating the anti-social media forces. It’s not just about money, it’s about control.
As Ari Cohn of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) writes, “social media platforms and the information, ideas and entertainment they connect people to aren’t tangible items that inherently and invariably have physical impacts on the human body… the minute we start treating speech as if it were just another physical product is the minute we hand the government the power to decide what we can read, watch and say.”
A government with the power to decide what we can read, watch and say… that sounds like an Orwellian nightmare that we all must wake up from, if we want to wake up free.
P.S. Speaking of waking up free, today I am elated to announce that I have been confirmed as a speaker at this year’s FreedomFest! As you likely know, FreedomFest is the brainchild of Mark and Jo Ann Skousen, and I must say it is the very best gathering of free minds in the world today.
For four days in July, you get to meet and mingle with some of the brightest minds in the liberty movement. This just doesn’t happen anywhere else, and it’s yet another thing that makes the world beautiful.
Join me and my Eagle Financial Publications colleagues at FreedomFest: “Think Independent” July 8-11 at Caesars Forum Las Vegas! Claim $100 off the current Regular Attendee or VIP Full Pass rate when you register with discount code EAGLE100. Or call Hayley to register over the phone at (855) 850-3733 ext. 202.
Jim Woods’ Winners Circle members get half-price tickets! Email register@freedomfest.com for your special registration link.
I look forward to celebrating liberty with you!
~~~
Until They Throw Me in a Box
“I see all these old people who don’t have anything to do but eat, drink and sleep. I will never say ‘retired’ because that’s such a finality that I don’t want to be part of my life. I’ll work until they throw me in a box.”
–Mario Andretti
The racing great always pushed it to the limit during his driving career, and he keeps pushing things to the limit. In the quote here, Andretti basically echoes my thoughts on the subject of “retirement.” I have no plans to retire, ever, because what I have the privilege of doing each day (writing about this beautiful existence) is something that I intend to do until they “throw me in a box.”
Wisdom about money, investing and life can be found anywhere. If you have a good quote that you’d like me to share with your fellow readers, send it to me, along with any comments, questions and suggestions you have about my newsletters, seminars or anything else. Click here to ask Jim.
In the name of the best within us,
Jim Woods
