OPINION:
Opening statements start this week for a landmark lawsuit against social media companies’ biggest names, including Meta and Google, alleging they purposefully addicted children to their products.
But what of choice?
And that’s the problem with this suit.
In the end, the decision whether or not use to social media is one of personal choice — and in the case of children, one of parental and caretaker control, as well as of school administrators’ control. It’s not Big Tech’s fault if parents and caretakers allow their minority-aged charges to stay on phones and tablets and computers and stare at social media all hours of the night. It’s not social media executives’ responsibility to ensure that education officials put in place policies to limit students’ access to phones and tablets and computers during school hours.
It’s hard to pin blame on Big Tech for something that in the end isn’t within the control of Big Tech: This is, how long one chooses to use the product.
This lawsuit, going forth in Los Angeles County Superior Court, has the potential to shake the social media industry — or more to the point, shake down the industry.
“Instagram’s parent company Met and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. … At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials ‘KGM,’ whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out,” NBC News wrote. “She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded.”
TikTok and Snapchat were originally named in the suit, but settled. So money — though we know not how much — has already been paid, laying the groundwork for more settlements, more suits, more money to be paid.
Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility?
Yes, it’s true that kids could access social media without their parents’ consent. But it’s hard to imagine that kids could become addicted — and addicted to the point of being harmed, as this lawsuit alleges — without parental knowledge and permission. After all, kids have to be home sometime. They have to go to bed at some point. Parents can always ban devices from their home, limit their children’s use of devices, even lock up devices to completely control when and where and for how long their children might access the devices. Schools could do similarly. Even public libraries could impose limits on access to certain devices like computers and laptops that serve as conduits to social media sites.
In other words: There are plenty of ways to limit minors’ access to and use of social media already. If these limits were imposed by those currently in positions to impose them, this lawsuit would be moot because the so-called addictive nature of social media wouldn’t be anywhere near problematic enough to dare bring a lawsuit against the providers of social media. It would be laughed out of court.
“This [is] only the first case,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project, in NBC News. “There are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials … and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products.”
Chances are if Big Tech didn’t have as deep pockets of profits as it does, these parents and school districts wouldn’t be swarming to file these suits.
After all, where were the lawsuits against the television manufacturers, or the cartoon networks, or the various other TV-tied players who provide so many shows that draw so many viewers and, by the same vein of logic, then turn so many of these viewers into couch potatoes, code for addicted watchers?
Big Tech is a tort lawyer’s dream. Just like the suits against tobacco, these social media addiction lawsuits start with the premise that the product has been so blatantly altered and marketed that it blots out the power of personal choice. But personal accountability is key. And it’s key to keeping this nation free, as well.
After all, if citizens don’t have to accept responsibility for their own choices, their own actions, then they don’t have to face the consequences for their own bad choices and their own bad actions. That’s the same logic that drives loons in the street to denounce U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the failure to recognize that Democrats’ bad open border policies have led to the need for ICE in the communities.
It’s not just Big Tech that’s on trial here, and it’s not just Big Tech that will pay the price for a court loss.
It’s all of America, because the more the blame game mindset seeps into the culture, and the more commonplace it becomes to ignore personal accountability, then the less self-reliant, independent, strong, entrepreneurial and self-governing the entire citizenry becomes. And there goes the spirit of American Exceptionalism and the foundation of Americans’ liberty.
Another way to sum it up: This lawsuit is about as anti-American as it gets.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “God-Given Or Bust: Defeating Marxism and Saving America With Biblical Truths,” is available by clicking HERE.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.