Lawyers for a now-20-year-old woman are arguing that addictive features harmed her mental health in opening statements in a landmark trial against Meta and YouTube, the first of hundreds of similar cases to go to trial.
The plaintiff — identified by her first name, Kaley, or her initials, KGM — and her mother accused the tech companies of intentionally creating addictive platforms that caused her to develop anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts. Lawyers for Meta and YouTube have indicated they will argue that a difficult family life, not social media, was responsible for her mental health challenges.
Speaking on Monday in front of a jury in state court in Los Angeles, Kaley’s lawyer Mark Lanier called social media apps like YouTube and Instagram “digital casinos,” saying the app’s “endless scroll feature” creates dopamine hits that can lead to addiction.
Can we do something about the literal fucking Nazis occupying our government first
This is the modern version of the Judas Priest backwards masking case.
How so? These companies are actively trying to make their platforms addictive. And it’s pretty well established at this point that social media is harmful to mental health, is it not? It’s a society and parenting issue as well, obviously, but that doesn’t mean these companies shouldn’t be regulated.
The Judas case was complete bullshit, however. The message was “do it”, wasn’t it? So even if it had been a purposeful subliminal message, it’s like saying Nike’s slogan is harmful. It’s silly.
“What’s the Ozman trying to say here, Nicky?”
“John, absolutely nothing. The blizzard always came straight with his messages. But wrap your minds around this, gentleman. Chicago.”
I command you in the name of Lucifer to spread the blood of the innocent!
“Whoa! Chicago kicks ass!”
This isn’t going to be a win for us
Bet they going to try to use it as an excuse to require age verification. They want to collect everyone’s selfies and IDs for online accounts.
This is literally a stepping stone to all pressing everyone and that’s why I’m not going to accept it, especially not into the phony pretense we’re given
Well considering it’s their PUBLIC BUSINESS PLAN, I don’t think you’re gonna have a hard time proving it.
This is a case where I wish we didn’t have a “jury of peers”. Most people don’t even know dompemine is a thing or it’s effects. Most people don’t know the effects a disfunctional family can cause.
No, I don’t understand them completely either. There are experts in these fields who have done valid research and run well documented studies to better understand these topics. They are who should determine this. No YouTube videos or a blog post don’t count. I mean actual real studies that stand up to scientific rigor.
I feel that YouTube/facebook played a part. But I want that to be true due to my inherit bias. I have no data or numbers to back that up. Experts probably do. There have likely been done studies about these things.
I know know there is a thing called a Skinner box but that was over 50 years ago and I’m sure we know more. That said I’d bet the average person on the street doesn’t even know that and shouldn’t be determining this case.
Ask your McDonald’s worker for something to release some dopamine after a long work day, based on their answer do you want them setting precedent on this topic?
Experts get bought, don’t forget smoking was healthy and prescribed for quite a long time
True, nothing is perfect.
If I need a life saving operation and given the choice of a Harvard graduate at random or a random person in time Square… I know who I would choose
OK the person from time square but that’s probably just my depression speaking.
I’m certainly rooting for them, I hope this might be a first step in finding a way to regulate algorithms. I doubt that hope will be rewarded but got to have some.
Reddit addicted me for 12+ years. Sue them too.
Can you sue people for being assholes?
You can sue people for any reason in the world!
