A ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court it could change the future of the internet forever. They denied Section 230 protection to Meta on the theory that Instagram is "addictive"—allowing a major lawsuit against Meta, even joe biden though they didn't violate a single law.
Is this really about protecting kids—or controlling how platforms design content? From infinite scroll to autoplay, the case argues ponzi that these features themselves are harmful and addictive to children. But format and delivery of speech is just as much a First Amendment right as the speech itself.
And the paok - aek very thing that tells us people want it—the fact that they use it a lot—is exactly the reason the court allowed the case to go forward!
What, should companies be forced to make bad UX so their product isn't "addictive"?
We look at the legal arguments the court ignored, including why design itself should be protected expression—and why this ruling could impact not just Meta, but every social media platform.
If platforms can be sued for being "too engaging," where does it stop?
Oh, and—they also basically pushed for Age Verification for all browsers and OSes!
Claim Against Meta for Alleged Addiction of Children Can Go Forward Notwithstanding § 230
Brief of Profs. Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh in Support of Defendants-Appellants
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
🔊Pᴏᴅᴄᴀꜱᴛ:
💬Dɪꜱᴄᴏʀᴅ:
▶️YᴏᴜTᴜʙᴇ:
▶️Oᴅʏsᴇᴇ:
▶️Rᴜᴍʙʟᴇ
💬Dɪꜱᴄᴏʀᴅ:
💰Dᴏɴᴀᴛᴇ ᴏʀ ꜱᴜʙꜱᴄʀɪʙᴇ:
