硅谷对社交媒体成瘾审判的恐惧和否认
Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

原始链接: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86e3eglv2go

## 硅谷因社交媒体成瘾诉讼判决而震动 最近在洛杉矶的一项里程碑式的判决给硅谷带来了冲击。陪审团裁定Meta(Facebook/Instagram)和YouTube对他们的平台设计存在故意成瘾性,导致了一名20岁原告(仅被称为Kaley)的精神健康问题。这两家公司被判支付600万美元的赔偿金。 虽然科技行业的一些人淡化了这一判决的影响,但另一些人担心一场“清算”,这可能会威胁到大型社交媒体公司的商业模式。此案凸显了公众对这些平台有害影响日益增长的担忧,迫使公司正视负面认知。 Meta和Google(YouTube的所有者)计划上诉,辩称Kaley的问题在她使用平台之前就已存在。然而,法律专家认为,判决结果——以及陪审团在很大程度上站在原告一边的事实——将鼓励更多的诉讼,可能涉及TikTok和Snapchat,它们之前已经解决了类似的索赔。 这项裁决引发了关于监管以及科技公司对用户福祉的责任的问题,一些人认为这些公司将增长和参与度置于安全之上。尽管有判决结果,Meta仍然坚持其保护青少年在线安全的承诺,并反对将复杂的精神健康问题归结为单一原因。

## 社交媒体成瘾诉讼引发辩论 最近一场关于社交媒体成瘾的诉讼正在硅谷引发“恐惧和否认”,各公司正努力应对公众对其运营方式的看法。核心讨论围绕着像Instagram和TikTok等平台故意设计的成瘾性,被比作提供不可预测多巴胺刺激的“老虎机”。 许多评论员一致认为,这些平台对成年人和儿童都有明显危害,并批评继续允许这些做法。然而,关于*什么*真正具有成瘾性,存在争议——是屏幕本身,还是驱动参与度的公司结构。一些人反对监管屏幕,担心政府过度干预,并主张关注存在问题的公司动机,将欧盟的《数字市场法案》作为潜在的模式。 另一些人指出,成瘾性设计并非社交媒体独有,但*个性化*成分加剧了问题,针对个人的弱点。一个反复出现的主题是公司内部数据(可能显示用户参与度下降)与公众认知之间的脱节,以及一种愤世嫉俗的观点,认为担忧更多源于潜在的诉讼,而非真正的道德考量。最终,这场对话凸显了人们对优先考虑参与度而非福祉的社会成本日益增长的认识。
相关文章

原文

'We're having a moment' - fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

Lily JamaliNorth America Technology correspondent
Getty Images Mark Zuckerberg wearing a blue suit and red tie, walking through the Capitol. Getty Images
Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg was on Capitol Hill on Thursday meeting Senate Majority Leader John Thune, but did not respond to questions from reporters on the social media trial

Silicon Valley is reeling from the seismic verdict delivered by an LA jury on Wednesday.

Tech giants Meta and YouTube were found to be liable for designing their platforms to be addictive, which harmed a 20-year-old's mental health.

The plaintiff at the heart of the case was only known by her first name Kaley, and after nine days of deliberation, the jurors agreed with her on all counts.

Some in the tech world have sought to downplay this case's impact, while others fear it's the beginning of a public reckoning that poses a threat - potentially an existential one - to US social media companies.

As one insider who asked not to be identified told the BBC, "we're having a moment".

The view from inside Meta

The verdict has forced those inside the companies to grapple with the fact that many outsiders do not view them as favourably as they have come to view themselves.

That realisation has been difficult for companies that a decade ago were hailed as critical to connecting and entertaining people, and even helping to spread democracy around the world.

Meta, and YouTube owner Google, have both said they will appeal the jury's verdict, which included $3m (£2.3m) in compensation and an additional $3m in damages intended to punish the companies.

Inside Meta, the verdict is viewed as a disappointment. Going into the trial, the company was confident in the strength of its position.

Its argument involved laying out Kaley's struggles with her family and challenges in school, which they said preceded her use of Meta's Instagram starting at the age of nine.

Kaley claimed the platforms amplified her personal issues and left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.

"It was a clean sweep with respect to liability against both Google and Meta," case attorney Jayne Conroy told the BBC after the verdict. "It will matter."

"I bet there's a lot of math going on in boardrooms at Meta, Google, Snap and TikTok as they evaluate what that means if they know thousands of cases are coming their way," she added.

TikTok and Snapchat's parent company Snap Inc had been defendants in the case but settled before the trial started.

But they are not off the hook yet, as they will be defendants in several upcoming bellwether trials.

Those cases will continue to test a new legal theory that social media companies caused personal injuries by designing their products to be addictive in the pursuit of profit.

For now, Meta hasn't given any indication it will change its posture, or will be more likely to settle future cases.

"We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online," the company said on Wednesday.

A Meta spokesperson told the BBC that reducing something as complex as teen mental health to a single cause risks leaving the many, broader issues teens face today unaddressed.

"Many teens rely on digital communities to connect and find belonging," Meta said.

A Google spokesperson told the BBC its video platform YouTube had been misunderstood in the court case.

YouTube is "a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," the company said.

It's clear these companies won't take the ruling lying down.

Former Twitter executive Bruce Daisley said most big tech firms derive their value from growing faster than the rest of the stock market.

Played out over 20 years, that means "effectively you've got a business which is just geared for trying to force people to spend more and more time [on their apps]".

Any sort of regulation - or in this case lawsuit - which jeopardises that becomes a problem that needs to be dealt with.

"The tech firms spend more on lobbying and more on PR than any other sector in the world," Daisley told the BBC's World Business Express.

"They are very intent on trying to win the soft influence battle to try and persuade politicians to go easy on them."

Just the beginning

In arguing his case for punitive damages, Kaley's attorney Mark Lanier - a folksy Texas litigator - had shown the jury a jar of M&Ms.

Each M&M stood for $1bn of the company's worth, he said, in a bid to illustrate the depth of the company's wealth.

Currently, Meta's market capitalisation is at around $1.4tn, or 1,400 M&Ms.

"I would've thought it was likely we would have gotten a bigger number," Lanier told reporters outside the courthouse after the $6m damages had been announced.

But the mere fact that the jury agreed with Lanier's arguments is a considerable win to the personal injury lawyers involved in the case.

They believe the outcome bodes well for the eight bellwether trials set to follow in the months ahead.

EPA/Shutterstock Mark Lanier wearing a dark pinstriped suit and patterned tie, standing in front of a bank of microphones and flanked by people either side of him.EPA/Shutterstock
Attorney Mark Lanier spoke to reporters outside the court room on Wednesday

Meta is also reeling from a separate $375m verdict delivered on Tuesday.

New Mexico prosecutors convinced a jury the company enabled child exploitation on its platforms.

In its wake, Meta spokesman Andy Stone posted to social media that the New Mexico penalty was "just a fraction of what the State sought".

State prosecutors had asked for more than $2bn.

In addition to the size of the damage judgement in Los Angeles, defenders of Meta have noted the fact that the jury decision was not unanimous - and that deliberations dragged on for nearly two weeks.

"Let's not draw any big conclusions," one observer said.

"It makes sense to downplay the overall financial exposure so investors don't leave," Eric Goldman, an associate dean and professor at Santa Clara University School of Law in Silicon Valley, told the BBC.

"I don't think any of the social media services can afford to pay $6m per injured user," he added - saying he views the social media addiction cases as a potentially existential threat.

But, Goldman said, there's no guarantee the jury verdicts of the past week will stand on appeal.

As the companies face an onslaught of liability claims, evidence and testimony heard in Kaley's case could be recalled in upcoming trials.

All parties will have an opportunity to refine their legal arguments as cases brought by individuals, school districts and states wind through the courts.

A green promotional banner with black squares and rectangles forming pixels, moving in from the right. The text says: “Tech Decoded: The world’s biggest tech news in your inbox every Monday.”

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.


联系我们 contact @ memedata.com