Even though Zuckerberg, if convicted, would probably get a Trump pardon
Aaron
Regunberg
Should Mark Zuckerberg be handcuffed—literally—for
endangering millions of children? That’s the inescapable question raised by a
legal brief filed last month in a civil case against
major social media companies.
The litigation, which alleges that social media platforms
have been purposefully cultivating addiction among adolescents, has been
working its way through the courts since 2022.
But the details laid out in this
new court filing, and reported recently by Time,
contain genuinely horrifying claims about Zuckerberg’s Meta, the parent company
of Facebook and Instagram.
And they suggest that—in addition to the tort claims
being pursued by the families, school districts, and state attorneys general
behind this multidistrict litigation—the corporate executives responsible for
these harms could and should be criminally prosecuted for child endangerment.
The brief alleges that Meta was aware that its platforms
were endangering young users, including by exacerbating adolescents’ mental
health issues. According to the plaintiffs, Meta frequently detected content
related to eating disorders, child sexual abuse, and suicide, but refused to
remove it.
For example, one 2021 internal company survey found that more than 8
percent of respondents aged 13 to 15 had seen someone harm themself or threaten
to harm themself on Instagram during the past week. The brief also makes clear
that Meta fully understood the addictive nature of its products, with
plaintiffs citing a message by one user-experience researcher at the company
that Instagram “is a drug” and “We’re basically pushers.”
Perhaps most relevant to state child endangerment laws, the
plaintiffs have alleged that Meta knew that millions of adults were using its
platforms to inappropriately contact minors. According to their filing, an
internal company audit found that Instagram had recommended 1.4 million
potentially inappropriate adults to teenagers in a single day in 2022.
The
brief also details how Instagram’s policy was to not take action against sexual
solicitation until a user had been caught engaging in the “trafficking of
humans for sex” a whopping 17 times. As Instagram’s former head of safety and
well-being, Vaishnavi Jayakumar, reportedly testified, “You could incur 16
violations for prostitution and sexual solicitation, and upon the 17th
violation, your account would be suspended.”
The decision to expose adolescents to these threats was,
according to the brief, an entirely knowing one. As plaintiffs allege, by 2019
Meta researchers were recommending that Instagram shield its young users from
unwanted adult contact by making all teenage accounts private by default.