When woke virtue signaling overrides a good argument
Meta and Google are not to blame for the misuse of their platforms and poor parental supervision.
I have watched or listened to a few of Legal Eagle's videos, so I was taken aback when I saw a video by Taylor Lorenz claiming that his video about the Meta/Google settlement regarding social media addiction was a "homophobic" moral panic. (Legal Eagle is a lawyer named Devin Stone.) I did not recall any opposition to homosexuality in previous Legal Eagle videos, so I listened to the "controversial" take. I was completely unsurprised to learn that Lorenz openly lied about Stone's take. Not only is the video not homophobic, the video has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Her "argument" is guilt by association, assigning blame to Stone for positions taken by the Heritage Foundation.
Lorenz also continually harps on the allegation that Kaley Glenn-Mills' mother was abusive, but ignores the fact that Glenn-Mills defended her mother at the trial and described their relationship as good today. Lorenz portrays the parental relationship as much more toxic than the adult plaintiff herself does today, as if Glenn-Mills has less agency as an adult than she did as a child. This dishonesty further undermines Lorenz's credibility as a so-called "journalist."
Lorenz's obsession with homosexuality and her fraudulent accusation of "homophobia" undermine her overall argument, which - to be honest - I find more compelling than Stone's argument. That is why Lorenz's dishonesty is so counterproductive. There are all kinds of places where compulsive behaviors are harmful, especially when those compulsive behaviors take away from someone's responsibilities to others. That does not mean someone else is responsible for a person's compulsive behaviors. If Meta and Google are responsible for a tween and then teenage girl spending hours a day on their platforms, then they need to show why the "defective" platform does not also cause innumerable other teens, tweens and adults to spend hours a day on those platforms.
That is where Stone's argument fails, especially the comparison to Big Tobacco. If tens of millions of people can use social media responsibly and not be obsessed with "doomscrolling" or content creation, and others get drawn into a cycle of inappropriate use, you will need to explain why the platform and the algorithm is harmful to some and not others. With cigarettes, the harm is clear: Various chemicals damage the throat and lungs while significantly increasing the risk of cancer. These harmful effects on the human body are present in everyone who smokes, not just some, and are demonstrated with scientific evidence. No such evidence exists that social media causes that harm for everyone who uses it.
I am not going to defend every aspect of Big Tech's behavior, and content moderation is especially egregious. But if someone is obsessed with social media and getting attention to their content, that is ultimately the responsibility of the user himself or herself, or (in the case of someone very young) the responsibility of the parents to limit and control the use of technology. As Lorenz herself points out, the worrying aspect of this case is that the legal precedent could be used to take away privacy and control speech. As with other panics in the past, this looks more like technophobia and scapegoating than legitimate damages for harm done.
This is a bad ruling that places blame on Big Tech itself for the irresponsible use of their products and inadequate parental supervision, and has worrying implications for the future of free speech. While Section 230 has been a bulwark against efforts to censor the Internet, this case shows more work needs to be done. Congress needs to pass legislation to further strengthen legal protections for interactive content providers and prevent the courts from abusing product liability law to enrich trial attorneys.