WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Social media did not injure you, personally
A Los Angeles jury will soon rule in a landmark case regarding social media’s impact on present society, and its future. The plaintiff, known only as K.G.M., is lodging a personal-injury case against Meta, TikTok, and YouTube, claiming their products caused a series of mental health problems during her teenage years, ranging from body dysmorphia to suicidal ideation, addiction, anxiety, and depression.
A case like this isn’t surprising, and the plaintiff wouldn’t be the first person to feel as though a new technology causes distress — one wonders if K.G.M. would have also sued the designers of the first glass mirrors in the 1st century CE.
Teenage insecurity was not engineered by a Silicon Valley team of app designers, which is the central claim of the case. It’s a defining feature of adolescence that crosses income brackets, ZIP codes, and borders. I have a 15-year-old daughter myself, and this is something any parent of a teenager must be looking out for during these sensitive years. What you say to them about their skin, their hair, pants size, or height can be enough to draw tears and days of consternation.
These kinds of issues manifest on their own in the real world. I once made my tall and athletic teenager cry because I remarked how tall and beautiful she is. I didn’t know that she desired to be shorter — and my teenager isn’t even allowed on social media, nor did she get a smartphone before high school.
This is growing up.
There is no doubt the plaintiff feels wronged as part of a generation that was raised on devices and allowed into social media networks as early as 12. It’s been a social experiment with less than desirable outcomes for a wide range of youth, whether it be reported anxiety levels or educational outcomes. But we also know that unchecked social media use by tweens and teenagers is not a great parenting strategy.
In the proceedings, we’ve learned that “KGM was just 9 when she got her first iPhone.” To her mother’s credit, social media apps were forbidden and she went so far as to put software on the phone to inhibit access, but her child went around them.
The legal framing of this case is quite shocking. It would set a precedent where any emerging technology can be blamed directly for mental distress, even in cases where the associated mental conditions predate the tech.