Social Media Platforms & The Loss of Autonomy

-- By MichelleXiao - 01 Mar 2024

Social Media Platforms & Addiction

It is no secret that businesses want to make money and will cater their products towards this goal. Sometimes this may result in companies promoting products or behaviors that are harmful to their consumers and may result in addiction and the consequences that come along with addiction. As technology advanced, new types of addiction developed alongside it. Social media companies like Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), which owns Instagram and Facebook, are now in the spotlight for their practices and resulting alleged harm of addiction, especially in children.

Current Litigation

Currently, the biggest case regarding this alleged harm is the Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) against Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms (with co-defendants including Snapchat, TikTok? , Youtube, and Google) titled In re: Social Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3047). The argument detailed in the Master Complaint takes an interesting approach regarding the damages as one of civil law tort that accuses the social media platforms of product defects and failure to warn.

What Meta Does

Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms are generally free to use for users. They make money primarily by collecting information from users to build a consumer profile then selling advertising space based on the users’ specific preferences (i.e. targeted advertising). Because of Meta's business models, “profits from these platforms are highly dependent on the number of users, the amount of time each user spends on the platform, and the amount of information a user provides, directly or indirectly, to the platform about themselves.” The incentive to increase use and duration of its platforms can encourage Meta to implement algorithms that harm its users if it helps increase their own profit.

Alleged Design Defects

The Master Complaint details many ways that the defendants’ platforms cause physical and emotional harm, including disordered eating, idealizing suicide, and encouraging social comparison. These are the most relevant alleged product defects regarding Meta:

Intermittent Variable Rewards or “IVR”: Instagram may delay notifications of interactions (likes and comments) on a users’ posts until there are multiple interactions so that when the user does receive the notification, there is an increased and stronger dopamine reaction.

Ephemeral Content: Facebook and Instagram create a sense of urgency to see content using “Stories” because there is a time limit on how long the content is available (similar to fear of missing out).

Notifications: Facebook and Instagram send push notifications to users’ phones (texts and emails) to draw them back to their respective platforms, sending many notifications about new content generally and new interactions with their content.

Algorithmic Prioritization of Content: Facebook and Instagram use “engagement-based algorithms that promote content to users based on the likelihood it will keep them engaged with and using the platform rather than post content as specifically directed by users or in chronological order.”

Defenses: Section 230 and the First Amendment

Meta has been able to shield itself from many of the alleged defects through Section 230 and First Amendment defenses. Essentially, some of the most controversial tactics, like notification timing and clustering and addictive algorithms are classified by this Court as “traditional editorial functions that are essential to publishing” protected under Section 230 because they do not change the content that is being published. Rather, they only choose how, what, and when users see this content, which is standard to publishing. Additionally, the “timing and clustering of notifications of the defendants’ content to increase addictive use,” is classified as speech and requiring platforms to change when and how they publish speech is barred by the First Amendment.

The Loss of Autonomy

While I understand that a legal privacy argument was not necessarily viable here, I do think that it is worth considering from a policy standpoint. As Professor Eben Moglen has taught, privacy may refer to three types: secrecy, anonymity, and autonomy. With these targeted social media algorithms inducing addiction in children and others, the greatest violation of privacy arises from an autonomy perspective. Many of the studies in the Master Complaint conclude that social media algorithms target the reward center of the brain, in much the same way that other addictive activities do (e.g. gambling).

This is not new insight because there have been whistleblowers in the past that highlight how many resources Meta has put into maximizing their algorithm to keep people on their apps. This loss of autonomy is an infringement on our privacy, but is not recognized as such due to the belief that we have a choice in the matter. However, I believe that since social media plays a very different role in our lives than gambling at a casino, there should be greater protections in place to protect our autonomy when companies like Meta are specifically trying to use our own psychology to the contrary.

The Protection of Privacy

There is an abundance of proposed legislation to limit Meta’s addictive algorithms affecting children; however, these propositions will likely receive pushback in lieu of Section 230 and First Amendment protections. Thus, I believe that the most effective route to curtail Meta’s addictive algorithms is for the Federal Trade Commission (“the Commission”) to bring a privacy case against Meta regarding unfair business practices. In the past decade, the Commission has brought numerous cases against Facebook for violating its users’ privacy and even issued the company the biggest privacy violation fine in American history for $5 billion dollars. The most important factor in determining unfair business practices is causation of consumer harm. Here, the substantial harm to children is clear. While these companies were protected from certain charges in the MDL due to Section 230 and First Amendment defenses, the companies were not absolved of causation regarding its algorithms and resulting harm. In the past, the Commission has received strong support for their revised Orders regarding Meta’s privacy policies that demanded substantial changes in order to protect users’ privacy. Thus, the best chance of protecting children’s privacy and autonomy of thought from Meta’s targeted algorithms is for the Commission to issue a revised Order regarding its privacy infringements.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, MichelleXiao
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.