Social media's big tobacco moment

[gregh1]

Lawsuits against Social media (facebook/meta/instagram, tiktok, snapshot, youtube) are coming, alleging they hurt kids, and they're avoiding the 1st amendment shield, instead focusing on personal injury. They've got decent arguments, targeting the intentionally addictive features (with receipts of intent).

Plaintiffs are focusing on injury in some suits, apparently AG's for schools/states are also complaining of public nuisance.

Tik toc already settled - TikTok settles just before social media addiction trial to begin

Apparently snapchat has settled too.

Plaintiffs are seeking $ but also asking for change in the platforms - more restrictions aimed at limiting child usage an parental control, and change to some of the addictive features (auto-play of targeted vids, infinite scroll of targeted content, etc).

In addition to the approximately 2,500 personal injury cases, the social media companies face consumer protection suits by about three dozen state attorneys general and public nuisance suits by more than 1,000 public school districts.

Those cases, which are expected to start going to trial later this year in federal court, also expose the tech giants to billions of dollars in damages and potential changes in how the platforms operate.

Will anything change?

 

[Rock]

Will anything change?

But seriously, no. The government does not understand how to regulate the Internet because it’s full of people who still ask their secretaries to print off emails.

 

[JCTarheel82]

 

[gregh1]

But seriously, no. The government does not understand how to regulate the Internet because it’s full of people who still ask their secretaries to print off emails.

Tobacco use decreased without gov intervention.

 

[EyeballKid]

Tobacco use decreased without gov intervention.

I hope this is sarcasm, given:

—Mandated warnings on cig packaging.
—CDC and NIH studies and public health outreach to curb smoking.
—laws against selling and marketing tobacco to minors.
—laws against cigarette vending machines in the open

 

[1moretimeagain]

I hope this is sarcasm, given:

—Mandated warnings on cig packaging.
—CDC and NIH studies and public health outreach to curb smoking.
—laws against selling and marketing tobacco to minors.
—laws against cigarette vending machines in the open

Don’t forget the taxes

 

[EyeballKid]

Don’t forget the taxes

And the subsidies to push tobacco farmers to grow other crops.

 

[wmheel1287]

I hope this is sarcasm, given:

—Mandated warnings on cig packaging.
—CDC and NIH studies and public health outreach to curb smoking.
—laws against selling and marketing tobacco to minors.
—laws against cigarette vending machines in the open

Yeah...the marketing laws were probably the biggest thing. Remember Joe Camel being marketed to us as kids?

 

[EyeballKid]

Yeah...the marketing laws were probably the biggest thing. Remember Joe Camel being marketed to us as kids?

Fair. But I do think we tend to underestimate the impact of CDC/NIH/ public health stuff. Without that, the impetus for the laws is nonexistent.

 

[wmheel1287]

Fair. But I do think we tend to underestimate the impact of CDC/NIH/ public health stuff. Without that, the impetus for the laws is nonexistent.

Oh I agree totally. I think it was all an avalanche of change precipitated by federal involvement.

 

[gregh1]

I hope this is sarcasm, given:

—Mandated warnings on cig packaging.
—CDC and NIH studies and public health outreach to curb smoking.
—laws against selling and marketing tobacco to minors.
—laws against cigarette vending machines in the open

You're right, but weren't the studies and pub health funded by the suit? Or were impactful things coming from CDC pre-suit?

Many marketing changes were forced by the suit.

Them having to publicly admit the harms came from the suit too, and those suits in 80's/90's prob helped shape the age laws. But yeah, my statement trashed some gov intervention unintentionally.

 

[finesse]

You're right, but weren't the studies and pub health funded by the suit? Or were impactful things coming from CDC pre-suit?

Many marketing changes were forced by the suit.

Them having to publicly admit the harms came from the suit too, and those suits in 80's/90's prob helped shape the age laws. But yeah, my statement trashed some gov intervention unintentionally.

Exactly which suit are you referencing?

 

[gregh1]

Exactly which suit are you referencing?

Just the era of suits I think started late 80's and settled late 90's.

 

[TarHeeledTexan]

But seriously, no. The government does not understand how to regulate the Internet because it’s full of people who still ask their secretaries to print off emails.

So, not a guy who had a secretary, but I used to work with a guy who didn’t just print his emails. He would print out each time he got a reply in an email chain. He’s print the original email. Then he’d print it again once there was a reply. Then the next reply, he’d print again. When I had to help clean out his files, I found emails of 15-20 reply chains, each one of which had been printed and stapled and then paper clipped with the other emails from that chain. Some of these were probably close to 100 pages, single sided, of the same things printed over and over and over again.

His computer screen was also totally full of icons. No apparent organization, just randomly scattered and with no free space.

He also made folder and file names so long and descriptive that he’d run out of space, back when there were still character restrictions on the length of a file name.

 

[finesse]

Just the era of suits I think started late 80's and settled late 90's.

The reason I was asking was that all those suits were essentially based on a series of reports from the Surgeon-General starting in the mid 60s. They'd have pretty much not had the impetus or evidence without that. Seems like you overlooked about a generation of groundwork.