Mark Zuckerberg on the bench: the keys to the historic process that could define the future of social networks

Zuckerberg is not the only senior executive of a social network to be called to testify in this trial. Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, took the stand last week. Neil Mohan, director of YouTube, is also expected as one of the witnesses in the judicial process, but lawyers for the plaintiff revealed on Tuesday the 17th that they would call another senior executive of the video platform in his place.

At the center of this legal process is the question of whether social media platforms have been designed to exploit vulnerabilities in the brains of people, particularly minors, and addict them in a way similar to what tobacco companies did in past decades.

Big technology companies argue that the fact that a minor experiences mental problems after using a social network does not imply that these were caused by those platforms. Instead, they point out that the cause is a complex mix of factors. In the case of Kaley GM, they point out, it is a difficult family life, in which social networks serve as a ‘scapegoat’.

Usually the greatest defense for large platforms in these types of lawsuits focuses on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Acta three-decade-old legal provision considered a fundamental building block of the Internet that confers immunity from liability to providers and users of an “interactive computer service” in connection with the disclosure of information provided by third-party users.

The lawsuit that brought Zuckerberg to the bench on Wednesday the 18th has sidestepped this defense by focusing exclusively on the design of the applications, algorithms and personalization features, stating that platforms like Meta chose to implement features to keep young people “engaged for as long as possible,” even when they knew of the danger they were exposing their users to.

“These companies created machines designed to cause addiction in children’s brains and they did it on purpose“said Mark Lanier at the beginning of the trial. For this, the lawyer presented internal documentation from both companies, including one written by Zuckerberg himself in 2015 where he demanded that his executives increase the time that teenagers spent on Meta applications.

During the interrogation of Zuckerberg, Lanier also emphasized the apparent negligence on the part of Meta to prevent minors under 13 years of age from creating accounts on Instagram, something prohibited under the rules in force since the founding of the ‘app’.

Regarding this, the lawyer presented Zuckerberg with an internal company document in which it was estimated that in 2015, the year in which KGM began using Instagram, approximately a third of children between 10 and 12 years old in the United States had Instagram accounts.

For his part, Zuckerberg highlighted the difficulties in verifying the age of the platform, noting that there is a “notable” number of people who lie about the year of their birth, which is coupled with the need to respect user privacy. However, he noted that they have gradually introduced the necessary tools to ensure better handling of the issue and that more will soon be added for the same purpose.

“I think we got to the right place over time. I always wish we could have gotten there sooner,” said the world’s fifth richest man.

In conversation with The Commercethe lawyer specialized in digital law Erick Iriarte stated that he was not very surprised by Mark Zuckerberg’s defense, stating that in recent years Meta has adopted a strategy where “Although it acknowledges partial responsibility for the errors, the progressive improvement of the project is more highlighted.”

However, he noted that in his statements Zuckerberg “does not answer the underlying question: whether they built a tool with the intention of making people stay longer, that is, if what was sought was a form of addiction.”

However, the expert considers that the ongoing trial will probably have as a critical point changes in minors’ access to the platform and the responsibility of social networks around it.

The trial will last until the end of March, when 12 jurors will have to decide the fate of Kaley GM, Meta and Alphabet. But the importance of the process goes beyond the particular case. An unfavorable ruling could set a precedent that will affect around 1,500 similar lawsuits against social media companies in the US.

The consequences could also be felt outside the United States. Iriarte highlights that because the large platforms are American, “By changing the rules locally, you end up changing the rules globally.” Although for this we will have to wait for the trial to reach the final instance, since the platforms will probably appeal any decision that is contrary to them.

Even if Meta receives a favorable ruling, its legal problems will not end soon as the company faces a trial this month in New Mexico, where it is accused of prioritizing its profits over protecting minors from sexual predators.

They are not the only obstacles faced by large technology platforms, which are currently facing a legislative wave that seeks to prevent access to their services for minors under 15 years of age. This trend began in Australia, but has also found success in countries such as Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Malaysia and Indonesia, which are studying imitating the strict regulation model.

“The rules in the rest of the world are changing and countries are already setting rules on the minimum age” to use social networks, highlighted Erick Iriarte, who noted that now more countries are trying to generate a control mechanism for the platforms.