Meta Settlement: Important Steps Forward, But Still Room for Improvement

Recent court proceedings in Oakland saw twenty-nine state attorneys general pursuing an ambitious $200 billion from Meta, highlighting concerns over teen addiction to its platforms. The outcome was a settlement that could require Meta to pay up to $17 billion over the next decade, alongside commitments to implement product changes. These changes include a blackout period from midnight to 6 a.m., a two-hour daily usage limit, and the introduction of an optional chronological feed. However, while these adjustments represent an initial positive shift, they also allow Meta significant leeway to sidestep meaningful, long-lasting change.

A focal point of this settlement is the stipulation for an independent auditor, a critical move as it ensures the assessment of Meta's product design will be overseen by a party other than the company itself. Independent oversight bodies, similar to the Federal Communications Commission, have a track record of helping to safeguard public interests, especially in industries as influential as social media.

This independent auditor will have access to Meta's internal data and engineering resources, tasked with reporting annually on the company’s adherence to the settlement terms. Additionally, summaries of these reports will be made public. However, the limitations of the auditor's power immediately emerge upon closer inspection. For instance, the agreement often resorts to Meta's existing business models rather than establishing forward-thinking standards that prioritize public welfare.

Definitions within the settlement, such as "Age Appropriate Experiences" and "Harmful Experiences," rely heavily on Meta's criteria, which could easily allow the company to comply with the agreement without making significant changes. This situation creates a potential loophole that employees may exploit, effectively undermining the impact of the settlement.

Another concern is the issue of public disclosure regarding the auditor’s findings. Essential information may be redacted at Meta's discretion, preventing transparency in areas where the company may be deemed deficient. This is particularly troubling given Meta's history of obscuring unfavorable data, raising questions about the reliability of their reporting.

Moreover, despite Meta's announcement of an “independent social media research foundation” aimed at enhancing teen well-being, such a foundation was not explicitly mandated within the settlement. This omission raises doubts about the seriousness of Meta's commitment to genuine reform.

One of the more temporary measures within the agreement is the independent auditor's role, with a potential expiration in five years; the overarching agreement itself lasts for a decade. This limited timeframe could pit Meta's long-term commitment against its desire to revert to prior practices once oversight eases.

While this settlement is an important development, its shortcomings highlight not only the need for better legal frameworks but also more proactive legislative efforts. It’s becoming increasingly clear that federal laws should institutionalize strong and persistent regulatory bodies, which would go beyond temporary adjustments to create lasting standards for social media safety and ethical practices.

A robust regulatory mechanism could provide the necessary oversight for Meta and other tech giants, allowing society to collaboratively define what constitutes acceptable standards and practices in digital environments. A comprehensive regulatory approach, rather than isolated fixes tied to specific issues within the company, could facilitate more meaningful improvements across the board.

Public insight into how social media algorithms shape content feeds is another critical area needing attention. Although the settlement requires Meta to give teenagers the option of a non-personalized "home" feed—which is presumably less addictive—this option isn’t mandated as the default, allowing continued reliance on personalized feeds. Research indicates that many users dislike chronological feeds, meaning the potential positive impact of this provision may be limited in practice.

Furthermore, the nature of the non-personalized feed as defined in the settlement suggests that it will prioritize content from accounts users already follow, without addressing the broader issue of feed curation in promoting mental health. The conversation around algorithmic design should encompass more than just chronological order; optimized algorithms that mitigate toxicity and misinformation could be more beneficial to users.

In addition to algorithms, independent standards for auditing privacy and security surrounding user identity data are essential. Trusting Meta, a company with a controversial past, to self-regulate is a risky proposition that could further jeopardize user safety.

Ideally, this settlement will serve as a starting point for deeper regulation rather than standing as its pinnacle. Current and pending legal challenges against Meta are providing vital insights, evidence, and political momentum, but they should not be used as substitutes for the comprehensive regulatory frameworks that lawmakers ought to create. These frameworks are crucial for establishing sustainable rules and structures to govern tech companies properly.

Editor’s Note: This article reflects a broader call for increased scrutiny in social media practices and was initially published in Jonathan Bellack's newsletter, Platformocracy.