As a child, I watched several movies that I was decidedly too young to see: “Jaws,” “The Exorcist,” “Caddyshack.” “The Godfather I & II.” I also may or may not have had periodic access to truly “adult” material. Pre-teen boys are often disproportionately drawn to prurience, violence, and horror. (Older boys and young men tend to have the same appetites, with increased access to such vices.) What young person doesn’t want to feel like an adult — or at least what they believe being an adult feels like?
While I was fully aware that I should not have been viewing some of the things that I saw, others seemed to be innocuous to me (e.g., scary movies). Admittedly, I didn’t waste much time pondering moral dilemmas; I was too busy enjoying myself.
I thought about my prepubescent life as I listened to and read about Meta’s recent decision to settle a federal lawsuit by paying “up to” $17 or $18 billion. The lawsuit, which was aimed at Facebook and Instagram, was brought by several states’ attorneys general, highlighting one of the staggeringly few issues on which Democrats and Republicans tend to agree. (Meta is the parent company of those two social media platforms.)
While $18 billion is a lot of money, it’s a relatively small amount for a company that is worth roughly $1.5 trillion and has annual revenues around $230 billion. Moreover, the payout is scheduled to take place over a decade, which means that Meta is highly unlikely to go broke as a result.
“… no company would pay that kind of money unless it believed that it was likely to lose even more at trial.”
Still, no company would pay that kind of money unless it believed that it was likely to lose even more at trial. The plaintiffs’ legal strategy, which essentially is that Meta repeatedly lied about the dangers of its platforms, was very potent. Thus, the notoriously pugnacious company decided to settle. Score one for the government against the tech bros.
Of course, Meta admits no wrongdoing, but that’s beside the point. Despite its nearly limitless coffers, this isn’t merely a nuisance fee. It is a more-than-tacit acknowledgement that Meta has a problem. As Stanford law professor Nora Freeman Engstrom said to The New York Times: “Meta wouldn’t settle unless it sees the writing on the wall and feels really exposed.”
In addition to ponying up the dollars, Meta also agreed to modify its algorithms on Facebook and Instagram to prevent harm to young children and teens. Why are these changes to the platforms so important? It’s because young people’s mental, emotional, and physical health are all at stake.
In an interview with NPR, psychologist Mitch Prinstein said, “We know that about 50% of kids are reporting at least one symptom of clinical dependency on social media. We know that kids who are having a difficult time getting off social media are also reporting more depression,loneliness, anxiety, even suicidality over time.”
Prinstein is co-director of the Winston Center on Technology and Brain Development at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“… young people are notoriously adept at getting around age-restrictions on the internet.”
One problem with the settlement, perhaps the central problem, is that young people are notoriously adept at getting around age-restrictions on the internet. Then again, many such “restrictions” are comically — or tragically — easy to bypass. For example, some platforms merely ask whether the user is older than 18. Young people are totally going to answer that question honestly …
Further, in December 2025 Australia instituted a social media ban for children under 16. Unfortunately, studies have shown that it’s been largely ineffective. For example, that nation’s eSafety Commissioner reports that more than 80% of children aged 10 to 15 still use social media, down slightly from 86% before the ban. Is all this just a waste of time? Should we forego such bans and just hope for the best?
In a word, no. It’s wrong to acquiesce just because “kids will be kids.” When I was in high school, several of my friends’ parents would purchase kegs of beer after Friday night football games. The logic was that “kids are going to drink anyway, so they might as well do it at home under our supervision.” Many parents were relatively fatalistic about their ability to prevent their children from making bad choices. Others didn’t seem to think that drinking beer as a 16- or 17-year-old was that big a deal.
The principle is not completely the same in the era of social media, but versions of both arguments still apply. A related issue is that millions of parents are beleaguered by their work and life responsibilities. Maybe they have two or three jobs. Maybe they have to take care of their elderly or ill parents. Maybe they’re just too beaten down by life to muster the energy to be more vigilant.
Whatever the reason, it is not enough simply to blame bad parents for not being able to supervise every aspect of their children’s lives. (I offer this apologia as a former full-fledged helicopter parent who, according to my kids, was a bit extreme about keeping tabs on them.)
Looking back on my childhood, I am very much aware that I could have (and should have) been supervised better. I’m also aware that some of the things that I was exposed to played a major role in accelerating my life’s experiences — with sex being most prominent among them. Am I blaming those experiences for my choices? Ultimately, the answer is no. I was a free moral agent then, just as I am now. However, it would be foolish to think that someone whose brain wasn’t fully formed would always make fully informed decisions.
In the end, I am hopeful (though not optimistic) that Meta’s attempts to make social media safer for our young people will be effective. I think that a much more likely scenario is that governments and parent groups will simply sue social media companies from time to time. Call it “accountability by accounting.” That sounds like something grown-ups could get addicted to.
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
