First we have Missouri v. Biden, which involves the government’s right to threaten companies such as Facebook if they don’t block information the government doesn’t like. The ruling is actually pretty narrow:

Various federal agencies and the White House directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with the government’s preferred policies and messaging on topics ranging from covid policy and election integrity to gender ideology and foreign policy. These egregious First Amendment violations silenced not only the plaintiffs in our case but tends of thousands of other Americans. …

…[T]he government cannot take actions, formal or informal, correctly or indirectly – except as authorized by law – to threaten Social-Media Companies with some form of punishment (i.e., an adverse legal, regulatory, or economic government sanction) unless they remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. …

This prohibition does not extend to providing Social-Media Companies with information that the companies are free to use as they wish. Nor does it extend to statements by government officials that posts on Social Media Companies’ are inaccurate, wrong, or contrary to the Administration’s views, unless those statements are otherwise coupled with a threat of punishment within the meaning of the above provision.

In other words, government can comment on the speech of others on social media but can’t threaten the companies if they don’t actively suppress the speech in question. The ruling only gives this relief to the plaintiffs in this particular case, but it sets a precedent.

But the damage is done, and the damage is considerable. It very much helped elect Joe Biden, for example. It sowed much distrust of the government, and that has encouraged many people to believe the government always lies, and to place more stock than ever in wild and destructive conspiracies (more about that in another post).

Also, it ignores the fact that, even without direct threats to such companies, when the federal government tells companies that something they’re allowing to be published is wrong, the company could assume that allowing it to be aired on their platforms would incur some sort of government retribution even without a direct threat being issued by the government.

But it’s still a victory.

Then there is the recent California case in which YouTube and Facebook were sued for fostering social media addiction in vulnerable children:

The jury awarded $3 million to the plaintiff, a young woman identified as KGM, and her mother, according to NPR, which noted Facebook parent company Meta would be responsible for about 70% of that amount and that the companies could face future penalties as well. The family had accused the platforms of willfully making their products addictive and targeting teens, despite internal research showing it could damage their mental health.

The Los Angeles Superior Court decision is among the first in a wave of hundreds of suits by schools, attorneys general, and others, making personal injury claims about major tech companies’ alleged recklessness.

A New Mexico jury recently found Meta liable on similar claims and the company was ordered to pay $375 million in damages. Meta said it would appeal that decision. Meanwhile, a case is also ongoing in a federal court based in California.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal,” José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson, said in a statement. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

It is no accident that the case involve minors. The law has traditionally allowed more restrictions regarding content or practices aimed at them. The idea is that the companies purposely tried to get kids addicted and that it harms their mental health and that the companies knew this.

I have some trouble with these rulings. I think that the “addiction” model is being overused, although maybe I’m just quibbling here. But I think there is no doubt that YouTube is habit-forming (I can attest to that from personal experience as an adult) and that much of the content is harmful. And I would very much like to protect children. But what is the remedy? Isn’t it parental control? But is parental control totally possible, because even if parents block a child’s access, doesn’t the child probably have access through friends’ devices?