| >Ok, so you should be able to sue schools where regular bullying happens, or ads that supposedly promote unrealistic beauty standards for eating disorders, righ If they 1) know of such bullies and 2) do nothing or even enable it, yes. I would agree with that. I don't know the legal details, but schools should have a moral duty not to promote harmful factors to kids, and to make sure kids are safe on campus. > Or why ads, sue the media companies that publish them. Depending on the ad, sure. Wouldn't be the first time. Ads targeting children have a ton of regulations behind them. >Or maybe vendors that sell the magazines, or all of them - since they make up a platform like Facebook. The magazine would be under scrutiny. I'm not sure if there are any laws against that (the national enquirer is still on my grocery store checkout line after all), so I'm guessing freedom of press overrides that. It's really just libel they worry about (feel free to look up Hulk Hogan vs Gawker for one if the few cases where the press loses such charges. Since Libel laws are very strong in the US). >Majority of their time on social media" is not a harm. The rest are similar and/or not clearly linked to anything. Not by itself no. The lawsuit seems to be arguing that meta knowingly deploys algorithms and utilizes data in a way that Is harmful. TBD. >parents cannot control the other kids' behavior in school or out in the neighborhood - preventing their own children from using social media is comparatively trivial. So, there's also that - I guess if facebook is responsible for harms, all of the parents affected should be sued for neglect :) Regardless of my opinion on that, children's anything (media, ads, internet websites) have regulations and the argument here is that meta had continually and knowingly ignored such regulation. It involves minors but summarizing down to "social media harms kids" belittles all this regulation setup over the years. It's not just about "being too addicting" |