Meta’s $18bn settlement shows the wrong way to keep kids safe

Pretty much everybody — even Meta Platforms boss Mark Zuckerberg — concedes that social media can pose a grave threat to the mental health of minors. The $18bn settlement the company announced on Wednesday, the result of horse-trading between the tech giant and US states and territories, will mitigate harm. But relying on mutual compromise is a flawed way to protect young users.

The money, in this case, is less significant than it sounds. True, as single-company settlements go, it ranks among the highest, according to advocacy group Good Jobs First. For the $1.5tn Meta it’s a pittance, though, and is spread over 10 years. Discount the instalments back at a rate of 15 per cent and the real hit today is about $8bn — barely in the top 20 of all-time wrist thwacks.

Meta is, though, making significant changes for teenage users of Instagram and Facebook, including disabling “extreme make-up” filters and adding screen-time prompts. Some measures, such as hiding numbers of “likes” on posts, should be potent. Ditto muting notifications during school time: a study by think-tank Common Sense showed teens get on average 237 notifications a day.

But others are weaker than they could be. Two-hour time caps, an essential guard against excessive use, can be overridden with parents’ agreement. Personalised feeds can be disabled in favour of less manipulative chronological ones, but only if users or parents request it. Few will.

Moreover, if the goal is to protect children from harm, some aspects of the settlement defy logic. For example, $5.3bn of Meta’s payment — and even more conservative time limits for users — are only triggered if rivals TikTok and YouTube agree to similar restraints, and each shoulder a similar payout. The time caps expire after five years, though the dangers of addiction presumably do not.

Flaws point to the big problem with settlements: they’re based on what both sides will tolerate. Meta wants to avoid unflattering court appearances. States’ attorneys-general want to score a win in reasonable time and have strong incentives to avoid being sucked into ricocheting appeals that drag on for years. States such as California and New York are pushing for tougher local laws, and other lawsuits remain outstanding, but unlike in the UK and Europe, there is virtually no chance of US national regulation any time soon.

That’s a big difference with Wall Street, another industry with a propensity to cause harm if left to run amok. There, too, fines have become little more than a cost of doing business. But regulations on capital and conduct are onerous and are set based on analysis of what will ensure safety and soundness — rather than a negotiating tug of war. While it took a colossal financial crisis to get there, the current regime has basically worked for almost two decades.

The negative effects of social media on children’s health are setting the scene for a crisis too. Meta’s imperfect settlement shows how much there is to do, and how important it is to draw up consistent safeguards. If Silicon Valley does indeed pose a risk to children, adults, ecosystems or electoral systems, it is foolish to think payouts and compromises will do the job.

[email protected]