It's good we are learning that this is dangerous for teens. Retroactively judging companies is peak stupid. Eupoors....this stuff is why you are losing ground.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU: Facebook and Instagram's Infinite Scroll May Break Digital Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then the minds of the Los Angeles County Superior Court jury must have been moduled too? See below!
Meta Google Social Media Addiction Verdict 2026: $6M Ruling
Jury finds Meta and Google liable for social media addiction in landmark $6M verdict. Inside the ruling reshaping Big Tech liability and youth safety law.
tech-insider.org
The European Mind is simply more prophylactically “moduled”, to force Meta to take out the addictive designs to prevent or at least reduce damage of the mind.
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Meta and google make billions and they being fined the equivalent of a slice of pizza? I’m sure they will appeal.Then the minds of the Los Angeles County Superior Court jury must have been moduled to? See below!
Meta Google Social Media Addiction Verdict 2026: $6M Ruling
Jury finds Meta and Google liable for social media addiction in landmark $6M verdict. Inside the ruling reshaping Big Tech liability and youth safety law.
The European Mind is simply more prophylactically “moduled”, to force Meta to take out the addictive designs to prevent or at least reduce damage of the mind.
Again I appreciate you taking the time to answer me in such detail.
This helps me a lot in understanding this particular world view!
I can respect that view.
It also explains some of the statements Trump, Vance and Musk have made in the past. (I am especially thinking about JD Vance's remarks at the February 2025 Munich Security Conference, which left most of the audience stunned and confused.)
"The U.S. saves billions of dollars and prevents tens of thousands of deaths annually due to restraint laws. Motorcyclist helmets save over $3.5 billion in economic costs yearly, while seat belts prevent over $15 billion in societal harm and save about 15,000 lives annually. [...] If all motorcycle riders wore helmets, the U.S. could save an additional $1.5 billion in economic costs every year. [...] Nationwide seatbelt usage hovers near 91.3%, though unrestrained occupants still account for roughly half of all passenger vehicle fatalities."
Goal achieved: People are not punished. Money is not pocketed anywhere. Company is not going out of business. They simply have been forced to create a healthier product.
I realize that you find this abhorrent. I actually think this is exactly right.
Just two sources from ArsTechnica, a site that I hold in high regard, but there are hundreds more.
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
The prison remark made my day BTW. I laughed so loud, the whole train turned their heads ;-)
I repeat myself one last time:
Thank you for these insights. I am still trying to wrap my head around why these personal liberties are so important to you that almost nothing else matters.
I ask myself, where is the benefit in just "feeling free"? In my early twenties, my definition of freedom was simply not being told what to do. But then over time, I came to value the positives a regulated society can have. Instead of "fighting for myself" all the time, I had something to fall back on, in case I needed it.
It's fascinating to see how differently we can weigh those core values.
We will very likely not convince each other to change our views in a fundamental way, so I would like to end my posts here on a very thankful note.
Looking forward to your posts in the future!
This helps me a lot in understanding this particular world view!
I realize that you see personal liberties as one of the highest possible goods. You are willing to risk wealth, peace, limbs and life to be able to not have someone telling you what to do.
I can respect that view.
It also explains some of the statements Trump, Vance and Musk have made in the past. (I am especially thinking about JD Vance's remarks at the February 2025 Munich Security Conference, which left most of the audience stunned and confused.)
Auntie Gemini tells me:
"The U.S. saves billions of dollars and prevents tens of thousands of deaths annually due to restraint laws. Motorcyclist helmets save over $3.5 billion in economic costs yearly, while seat belts prevent over $15 billion in societal harm and save about 15,000 lives annually. [...] If all motorcycle riders wore helmets, the U.S. could save an additional $1.5 billion in economic costs every year. [...] Nationwide seatbelt usage hovers near 91.3%, though unrestrained occupants still account for roughly half of all passenger vehicle fatalities."
At the moment you save 53 bucks each year. And 15,000 lives.
Do you know what actually happened? The companies realized that people would not buy the more expensive product anymore, so they changed the recipe!
Goal achieved: People are not punished. Money is not pocketed anywhere. Company is not going out of business. They simply have been forced to create a healthier product.
I realize that you find this abhorrent. I actually think this is exactly right.
Yes, by far.
Just two sources from ArsTechnica, a site that I hold in high regard, but there are hundreds more.
Study: Social media probably can’t be fixed
The [structural] mechanism producing these problematic outcomes is really robust and hard to resolve."
arstechnica.com
“IG is a drug”: Internal messages may doom Meta at social media addiction trial
A loss could cost social media companies billions and force changes on platforms.
arstechnica.com
Debatable. If every 'master' does the same, does it really make a difference? Data is collected, data is exchanged for money, data is exploited to make users pay. Does it matter, by which company?
The prison remark made my day BTW. I laughed so loud, the whole train turned their heads ;-)
Maybe that is a plus for Europe? We have a lot more parties to choose from. I generally vote for something, not against.
I agree. I have done this myself (maybe you remember), but at least I believe I am trying to be better than those posters now.
I repeat myself one last time:
Thank you for these insights. I am still trying to wrap my head around why these personal liberties are so important to you that almost nothing else matters.
I ask myself, where is the benefit in just "feeling free"? In my early twenties, my definition of freedom was simply not being told what to do. But then over time, I came to value the positives a regulated society can have. Instead of "fighting for myself" all the time, I had something to fall back on, in case I needed it.
It's fascinating to see how differently we can weigh those core values.
We will very likely not convince each other to change our views in a fundamental way, so I would like to end my posts here on a very thankful note.
Looking forward to your posts in the future!
With regulation in place, it would not have to come as far as the below. Regulation is more efficient and effective.
“A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury delivered a historic verdict on March 25, 2026, finding Meta Platforms and Google liable for designing social media platforms that addicted a young user, awarding $6 million in total damages. The landmark ruling in the case of K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms and Google marks the first time a jury has held Big Tech accountable for the addictive design of Instagram and YouTube, and it could reshape the legal landscape for more than 235 pending federal lawsuits and over 250 school district claims targeting the social media industry.”
California is seen by many as having fringe leftist progressive political leadership, so yes. Incidentally, the state itself as a lot of conservatives but the big cities hold a lot of population and tend to be heavily 'blue' (liberal). California courts are infamous (from a conservative standpoint) at producing leftist decisions. California is often decried by conservatives for having 'failed liberal policies' (e.g.: high taxation, soft on crime, some areas with open drug use in broad daylight, defecation in public, etc., though I'm told even the big cities aren't mostly like that last bit).Then the minds of the Los Angeles County Superior Court jury must have been moduled to? See below!
Meta Google Social Media Addiction Verdict 2026: $6M Ruling
Jury finds Meta and Google liable for social media addiction in landmark $6M verdict. Inside the ruling reshaping Big Tech liability and youth safety law.
My point is, California governance (nowhere near all the people) leans much further left in politics than America overall, and thus probably toward E.U. governance.
Fun fact: a lot of products in their package documentation have this little blurb due to California's Proposition 65 (now a law) that sets very low standards to mandate reporting of alleged carcinogens - like in a blurb saying this product contains substances known to the state of California to...and it's so over-the-top this is habitually ignored.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
What changes have happened? Is an appeal process being followed? It ain’t over till it’s over. And imo kids should be protected, which is why a 6m verdict was announced. Which is approximately a slice of pizza to these companies.
Last edited:
The $53/year I'm willing to pay for liberty (thanks for the figures, interesting stuff). The 15,000 lives don't belong to me (I wear a seat belt; once saw photos of people who apparently hadn't - seeing someone who looks like his face was turned inside out was persuasive). I seem them as paid by the people whose lives (and choices) were involved (assuming they're adults).
If there's a demand for alternatives, someone will bring it to market. But an alternative business model will need a different revenue stream - like subscription costs. I see no evidence most people are willing to go that way.
One model I've seen described is negative vs. positive rights; U.S. culture favors negative rights, basically the right to be let well enough alone, to be free from government interference. E.U. favors positive rights, what some consider tax-funded entitlements, to be free from potential risks - universal heath care, more generous unemployment benefits, guaranteed paid parental leave, things like that. Power and responsibility go together; the more responsibility the government has for you, the more power/control it must have over you. Neither the U.S. nor E.U. is an absolute in that sense; we've chosen different shades of gray.
I agree, debates come to a close at some point. I keep a link handy with a resource where someone else explained American vs. European value mindsets (deontological vs. utilitarian) that goes a long way towards explaining some contrasts - for example, think of the contentious 'right to bear arms' - annual mortality rates vs. a belief in a right to self-empowerment (noting that when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away).
What People Get Wrong About America - https://qr.ae/pvapeb
As you indicated, it won't change your mind, but it may help conceive of why some people think so differently.
v0lume4
macrumors 68030
If you're an adult, your actions are your responsibility. Don't like Facebook? Uninstall it.
And if you're a child, it's your parents' responsibility to be the parent. Too few parents being parents nowadays.
v0lume4
macrumors 68030
Most likely, they will appeal, yes; But this verdict is more about principle than money.
This is why regulation is the better route. The EU will fine Meta up to 6% of its global revenue — far beyond the scope of a slice of pizza. Meta can dispute the claims but as is reported here …
“Our starting point is that, based on our findings, this design is too addictive and changes need to be made,” Henna Virkkunen, the EU’s tech chief, told Reuters. … Virkkunen said the EU does not plan to back off the fight if the final decision reiterates the preliminary findings.
That regulation fine of 6% will do the trick, especially when you consider:
“On top of looming fines in the EU, Meta also risks eye-popping penalties if it loses its biggest US fight. Meta recently failed to toss a lawsuit from 29 states that claims its platforms addict kids. That trial begins in August, and states may seek up to $1.4 trillion in penalties if Meta is found guilty, Reuters reported this week.
So you think the 29 states which filed a lawsuit claiming Meta’s platforms addict kids are left leaning? Meta failed at having it tossed out, the trial begins in August.
With your kids, how did you manage/are you managing social media use? Do they have devices and access? Do you have rules and explained the rationale?
Samplasion
macrumors 6502a
You do when you present it as fact. And my response is the result of studying history 😉
I didn’t say anything about change in usage rates. What I mean is, the addictive nature is no longer a secret. Always blaming someone else for one’s actions is also not healthy. I have a different opinion on who or what should control parts of my life.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The case could get reversed on appeal. It’s a civil case and not a criminal case.
Protect the kids. Let the adults use their agency and along with every other addiction on the planet manage them. Less regulation and more self control.
Government should stay out of being a micro-nanny.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
That’s not the case. I am not for immolation at the hands of others because I believe a high powered auto should be driven the way I want on streets and speed limits are a suggestion. But it’s my right to bungee jump and the government shouldn’t outlaw it, only make sure it’s safe.
With a sugar tax we’ve seen companies go to HFCS. A less healthy alternative. Or use artificial sweeteners that have their own set of issues.
Yeah social media is broken but it’s not for the government to fix. What should be addressed is the collection of our data by companies and give back the control to us.I realize that you find this abhorrent. I actually think this is exactly right.
Yes, by far.
Just two sources from ArsTechnica, a site that I hold in high regard, but there are hundreds more.
Study: Social media probably can’t be fixed
The [structural] mechanism producing these problematic outcomes is really robust and hard to resolve."“IG is a drug”: Internal messages may doom Meta at social media addiction trial
A loss could cost social media companies billions and force changes on platforms.
I have never seen anybody change their minds with some of these contentious debates. And some people dont understand civil debating. You know who they are.
I can’t understand the mindset of people who endorse more nanny regulation is better and more government parenting is better but maybe it’s the side of ocean I’m on.
People have to be responsible and live their lives with the agency that has been given and if they want to doomscroll until the cows come home, it’s their right.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The children should be protected. What the outcome will be we will see and grab the popcorn.
Trying to understand other cultures' views may be aided with a little history. Someone once pointed out when America had the 'go West' phase, it was possible for a family to strike out alone, rather individualistic, but Canada is cold, and up there that attitude could turn you into a popsicle. Thus a more communalistic perspective.
Similarly, someone once mentioned WW2 caused a lot of devastation in Europe, and people had to pull together for reconstruction. That may've imprinted collectivism.
Per reports western European nations tend to have a denser population than much of the U.S. - more reliance on public transportation and walking/less 'car culture' dependence, smaller homes and yards. In the U.S. we know cities, our most densely populated areas, lean left, and denser population styles create practical pressures for collectivism.
Some European nations are about the size of some U.S. states, so perhaps often a bit less diverse collective with more sense of cultural kinship. That aids collectivism.
Some are known for being 'rules oriented.' Switzerland very much so, from what I'm told, but I've heard anecdotal claims to the effect France and German folks 'love rules.'
Now contrast all that with the U.S. population, spread out over an area larger than Western Europe, very diverse over that range, many without a lot in common with each other (what does someone in a Louisiana bayou have in common with someone living in Harlem in NYC?), a much more casual culture and probably on average more 'personal space' in life. Plus the U.S. successfully rebelled to establish itself in what could be seen as fighting perceived government over-reach (e.g.: taxation without representation), and considered this important enough to kill a lot of people on both sides over - beliefs are one thing, beliefs people are willing to kill over are something else.
One may counter-argue we're talking about the E.U., not an individual nation, but the power figures driving policy may come from such societies, and if the individual nations are more accepting of and accustomed to the government managing their lives, at least some of these factors may play a role.
Similarly, someone once mentioned WW2 caused a lot of devastation in Europe, and people had to pull together for reconstruction. That may've imprinted collectivism.
Per reports western European nations tend to have a denser population than much of the U.S. - more reliance on public transportation and walking/less 'car culture' dependence, smaller homes and yards. In the U.S. we know cities, our most densely populated areas, lean left, and denser population styles create practical pressures for collectivism.
Some European nations are about the size of some U.S. states, so perhaps often a bit less diverse collective with more sense of cultural kinship. That aids collectivism.
Some are known for being 'rules oriented.' Switzerland very much so, from what I'm told, but I've heard anecdotal claims to the effect France and German folks 'love rules.'
Now contrast all that with the U.S. population, spread out over an area larger than Western Europe, very diverse over that range, many without a lot in common with each other (what does someone in a Louisiana bayou have in common with someone living in Harlem in NYC?), a much more casual culture and probably on average more 'personal space' in life. Plus the U.S. successfully rebelled to establish itself in what could be seen as fighting perceived government over-reach (e.g.: taxation without representation), and considered this important enough to kill a lot of people on both sides over - beliefs are one thing, beliefs people are willing to kill over are something else.
One may counter-argue we're talking about the E.U., not an individual nation, but the power figures driving policy may come from such societies, and if the individual nations are more accepting of and accustomed to the government managing their lives, at least some of these factors may play a role.
There are instances where governments need to step in, and companies creating highly addictive and damaging widespread products is one of them.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
I wonder if we'd be able to put "lines on the road" today if we didn't already have them?
Or create seat belt laws and speed limits.
It seems like things have gotten so anti "any kind of safety regulation" for no discernible reason other than "regulation must be bad!"
Or create seat belt laws and speed limits.
It seems like things have gotten so anti "any kind of safety regulation" for no discernible reason other than "regulation must be bad!"
1.) Lines on the road - yes. They help people stay in their lane, which most people want to do. It's about protecting others, in addition to oneself.
2.) Seat belt laws - not for adults, hopefully. That's government over-reach.
3.) Speed limits - yes, that's about preventing people from endangering others.
I'm going to have to start using Instagram then! Maybe it should go into your enemy's retirement account instead. That'll bring usage down.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
There’s a difference between regulations and laws for the common good and nanny laws that micromanage our personal responsibility. Maybe we should abolish the NEC and let our electrical be “like whatever”? (Strawman). And children yes, they need protection.