Posted by Angelina Carlisle.
There has been debate going around about whether or not social media companies are a result of the increase in mental health issues amongst the youth. Now, there are numerous laws that defend against this allegation, specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from what content is posted by its users and if these platforms decide to take it down. But if a company takes the content created by its users to target specific groups of people, particularly children and teens, preying off their insecurities and time to profit off them, it could be seen as a possible violation of this law.
An article posted by Fox Business discusses how several states across America are putting together a lawsuit to protect the mental well being of teens and children from these large companies.
“The lawsuit, which involves at least 32 states so far, alleges Meta “misled its users and the public by boasting a low prevalence of harmful content,” while being “keenly aware” its platforms’ features “cause young users significant physical and mental harm.” The filing says that Meta’s recommendation algorithm promotes “compulsive use,” which the company does not disclose. The lawsuit claims that social comparison features like “Likes” promote mental health harms for young users, while visual filters are known to promote body dysmorphia and eating disorders.” (Fox Business).
Therefore, social media companies are allegedly posting content to make people feel more self conscious of how they look and feel about themselves. But it also targets them socially, these platforms revolve around the mission to help create new connections, as well as strengthen new ones with people from anywhere around the world which increases the amount of time users spend on its platforms, but also means more money for these corporate giants.
Cases like these question the ethics of business and the effectiveness of the laws of Capitalism. For instance, it is seen to be unethical to sell someone a product you know does not work for your own profit, and depending on the product can scam them out of their money or potentially put them at risk. But under the ethics of Capitalism, that could be viewed as a flaw of the consumer for not knowing enough about the product they are purchasing to see it was a flop. Nowadays, this type of behavior is rewarded and we see it occur more often within big pharma. To put into perspective a pharmaceutical company send out medication with either lack of research/testing and being well aware of what will happen to the consumer by taking their product, but instead of their message saying “This will help cure you of illness A, B, and C”, it says “This might help cure you of illness A, B, and C”, therefore making them aware of their drug not working as promised, but making them less liable for the outcomes of its failure. So by the time a lawsuit comes around, all they will have to do, if that, is pay a small fine and might possibly have to take their product off of the market.
The point is social media companies work the same way. They promise you a fun, personalized experience, by collecting your personal information and feeding it to their algorithm in which case you are acknowledging and giving it permission to do so by accepting the terms and agreements in the beginning of the app. At this point you know that you could be setting yourself up to potentially being hooked into using the app, and are willingly sacrificing your time to use it. If and when it is brought to the companies attention of the potential downsides of this product, such as the increase in mental health issues of children, they can alter their code to help lessen this issue. But when the issue is addressed in court, they can make an argument stating that the user willingly accepted to use this app, acknowledging that it will be collecting personal information about its user to make it a more unique and enjoyable experience, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the amount of time users spend on the app. They can also turn around and blame it on the parents for not placing time restrictions on their children’s devices, which are available for them to use.
It is possible that we have hit a point in history where capitalism has hit its peak, by finding small loopholes within the areas of business law and business ethics to make the company either less liable or entirely unreliable for their attempt to misguide the promise it has made to its consumers. It will be intriguing to find out what happens to the case against Meta as if they will be found liable of promoting content which causes mental health issues to children and teens; it can be a huge turning point in the history of technology, business law, and how our personal information is being collected.
Angelina is a student at Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.