This verdict has already been talked about on SN (#1460450, #1460237) but the linked Reason article has a nice collection of links in it.
This sounds like hyperbole. But one does wonder how far it is from reality:
anyone who's ever spent too much time on social media—or simply suffered any setbacks while simultaneously having social media accounts—can claim "addiction" and reasonably expect a big payout. A landmark verdict in California has paved the way for that, and worse.
A girl claimed that she was addicted to all the social media platforms and that this led to "depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia." Living in California, she naturally sued Google, Meta, TikTok and Snap. The latter two settled out of court. Google and Meta went to court.
They lost.
Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta [(META.O), opens new tab and Alphabet's Google negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people, in a $6 million verdict that will serve as a bellwether for numerous similar cases.
The jury found Meta liable for $4.2 million in damages and Google for $1.8 million
-Reuters
In, what is perhaps the most shocking turn of events, even Taylor Lorenz is speaking sanely about this:
Do I detect a hint of age-verification?
Kaley's lawyers pushed their product liability theory, in part, by arguing that Meta and Google designed their products to be engaging and failed to design them in a way that would limit excessive use by teenagers.
Does this mean it's open season on platforms?
"Cases like this will likely unleash a trial lawyer bonanza via a much broader wave of (mostly frivolous) lawsuits," predicts R Street Institute policy analyst Adam Thierer. "Every tort lawyer in America is probably thinking about ripping down their 'Been in a Crash?' billboards right now and replacing them with 'Addicted to the Internet?' signs."
I'm feeling more tinfoil hat than I was this morning: seems like everything is lining up nicely for kyc internet.
the ruling didn't go far enough.
repeal section 230 of telecommunications act and watch sanity return to america.
I'm curious what you think of this article:
https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/
If no section 230, do you prefer platforms being liable for user content, or some other system?
platforms being liable for content, same as how everything worked circa 1997. Just roll back the clock.
No new laws, just delete old law that didn't work. simple.
basically google should have same rules for publishing defamatory or fucked up content as new york times.
so ugc (user generated content) on commercial platforms becomes a much more scary proposition for big tech that have turned it into an dopamine and hate slot machine.
nostr and usenet should be fine because not commercial platforms. No one to sue, only full metal first amendment rules apply.
facebook and google probably survive by having enormous and costly moderation facilities.
If there were no section 230, I imagine stacker news would have to take on a heavy hand in moderation.
yes it would.
don't worry too much about stcker news having to pay for moderation. section 230 is defended by one of the most powerful and entrenched business lobbies on the planet.
Personally, I hate human moderation.
but you also hate getting 8000 dick pics in your feed.
the problem isn't who is doing the moderation (human or algo or AI).
it's is the moderation any good. and do you have any say in how it works.
with nostr and usenet you have full user agent privileges.
searchcrumb: user agent concept
very important for this conversation
Sounds like:
I don't believe it can be done better than what we've seen. That's why I'm here. Perhaps money can work better at moderation.
I don't expect, however, that courts will note the distinction.
Notice that the techdirt article doesn't even consider the possibility of publishing content without a comemecial platform. I guess nostr / usenet / or publish on a website you own, is such a niche concept it doesn't even deserve a mention in this context.
It's like we have become so dependent on big tech we lost the ability to even imagine alternatives or remember how things worked and people communicated in the living past. 1997 isn'r that long ago. We had internet and everything. (◔_◔)
It's time to recover our imagination.
If something I hate is gonna happen, might as well profit from it.
@BlokchainB, tell me which companies are best positioned to become digital identity and age verification providers!
hahahaha!! YOU (clear!)
Not a fan of Goggle or Meta but really this is ridiculous. Personal responsibility is pushed further and further to the government and big corporations. You need to be able to find a way to deal with social media whether your a teen or an adult.
Add pic of US presidents cackling with each other
Big tech have just created the greatest show on earth 🌎 only if your name's not down (KYC) YOU'RE NOT COMING IN
The only saving grace in all of this is, SN > PWA, immediately bypasses google bs verification
All of SN myriad of availabilities to stackers > massive wallet integration > protocol activation, nostr, clink etc
Lots of good stuff happening on nsite.run > a blossom server to deploy websites and rival to git (captured msn asset)
Nostr ecosystem > martii malmi running a nostr vpn on mesh networks via relays, clients improving everyday
The only real way of stopping us is cutting the isp onramps which could happen I guess
https://twiiit.com/TaylorLorenz/status/2036898562995609917