Prosecutors Turn Their Extortion Racket Against Facebook and Instagram
The propensity of prosecutors to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in is very destructive—and nothing new.

Having extorted what they could from pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies by blaming them for the overdose crisis, several state attorneys generals (AGs) have now set their sights on extorting social media platforms for causing so-called "social media addiction" among our youth. On October 24, 33 states filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging Meta "has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens."
One of the allegations—that Meta violated federal law by collecting data on children under age 13 without parental consent—is prosecutorial fair game. Not fair game, however, is the claim that "the company knowingly designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram, Facebook, and its other social media platforms that purposefully addict children and teens," as New York Attorney General Letitia James, a co-plaintiff, made in an official statement about the case.
As I wrote in 2018, the science is still unsettled as to whether social media addiction is even a thing. Scientists and clinicians agree that the distinguishing characteristic of addiction is the compulsive use of a substance or engagement in a behavior despite negative consequences. Addiction researchers have not yet reached a consensus as to whether perceived excessive time spent on the internet and engaged with social media is an addictive behavioral disorder.
The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) does not designate "internet addiction" or "social media addiction" as a mental disorder. Instead, it designates it as a "condition for further study," which is notable in light of economic incentives for the psychiatry profession to medicalize problem behaviors.
A 2009 analysis of 61 empirical articles on "internet addiction" conducted between 1996 and 2006 determined they used "inconsistent criteria to define internet addicts, applied recruiting methods that may cause serious sampling bias, and examined data using primarily exploratory rather than confirmatory data analysis techniques to investigate the degree of association rather than causal relationships among variables." A 2011 review by researchers at Nottingham Trent University also found empirical studies to have considerable limitations, restricting the "generalizability of findings." In a 2017 follow-up study, the researchers found that methodological problems persist. In a study published in 2017, Jean Twenge and colleagues at San Diego State University found that 99.64 percent of the girls' depressive symptoms did not correlate with social media use. While others have linked social media use with depression and even suicide, causation has not yet been established. Alas, this has not deterred politicians, pundits, and now, prosecutors, who are all too willing to jump to conclusions.
The propensity of prosecutors to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in is very destructive—and nothing new. State and local prosecutors sought to blame the makers of prescription pain pills, pharmacies, and doctors for causing the overdose crisis, even though there is no correlation between prescription volume and nonmedical use or addiction to prescription pain pills. They embraced the narrative that overprescribing pain medications generated the current population seeking opioids in the black market and overdosing on fentanyl, despite government data showing the percentage of adults aged 18 and above addicted to prescription pain pills has been stable and never greater than 0.7 percent since the National Survey on Drug Use and Health began in 2002.
Prosecutors singled out Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, as the worst offender. The Food and Drug Administration approved OxyContin, a concentrated formulation of oxycodone designed to extend its pain-relieving effect, in 1996. A recent study published in the Yale Law and Policy Review found that "only 9.0% of all nonmedical opioid users in 2001 reported ever using OxyContin during their lifetime." The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will review a bankruptcy settlement between prosecutors and Purdue Pharma.
Meanwhile, as opioid prescribing plummets while pain patients suffer, the opioid overdose rate, mainly from illicit fentanyl, continues to climb.
A lack of scientific evidence didn't stop ambitious AGs from squeezing drug makers and pharmacies, allowing them to fill state coffers while harming patients and accelerating the overdose rate. That same ambition might also explain why prosecutors don't want to wait for conclusive evidence about social media addiction. Social media users should worry about what collateral damage to digital communication and innovation the prosecutors leave in their wake.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
One of the allegations—that Meta violated federal law by collecting data on children under age 13 without parental consent—is prosecutorial fair game.
If Meta violated federal law, why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?
Also, if a federal law was violated, why aren't the feds involved?
"If Meta violated federal law, why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?"
Because not all laws create criminal liability. See anti-discrimination laws.
"Also, if a federal law was violated, why aren’t the feds involved?"
Because a lot of federal laws create civil causes of action intended to be pursued/prosecuted by individual victims.
However, state AGs have gotten on board with filling class action suits on behalf of residents of their states.
No. State AG's have gotten on board to funnel any settlement funds to politically acceptable causes.
I am making money from home with facebook. i received $15000 in this month for doing easily home job. I work in my part time only 3 to 4 hours a day on facebook. Everyone can earn more cash easily from home. For more information visit below this website....... BiteCoinTrader
No way. Slippery slopes do not exist.
The propensity of prosecutors to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in is very destructive—and nothing new.
Now do ________ __________.
That voodoo that you do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itF3WhfFU70
As I wrote in 2018, the science is still unsettled as to whether social media addiction is even a thing.
Science doesn't settle. Use a different way of describing this if you want me to take your article seriously.
And further, as this article starts veering into the very Reason-way of describing the world... if the *cough* science DID settle, would this lawsuit then be justified? Remember, liberty and freedom aren't only valid if they have a settled-science outcome.
Yeah, determining your principles based on "scientific consensus" is a very poor method.
For instance, it's very well understood that heroin is addictive and causes long-term damage. Same with tobacco. Both of these should be 100% legal, regardless of the scientific consensus.
"Settled" science can support rational policy decisions which may or may not be libertarian. Unsettled science can't support any policy decisions.
And this is just the usual Reason commenter bullshit way of framing things. Arguing against one argument in favor of a given policy is not the same as recognizing other arguments as correct. It's entirely possible to make both purely principled and pragmatic arguments against bad policy. Too often the former is just preaching to the choir. (Even more pointless when the choir is singing in a dozen different keys.) The latter might actually convince some people who aren't already libertarian true believers.
Personally I'd really rather see people supporting good policies for any reason than insisting on strict ideological conformity. I'm more interested in making things even a little bit better than in enforcing purity tests. I think it's pretty sad that so many commenters believe (or at least claim to) that if the writers at Reason aren't riding their personal hobbyhorse at any given moment then they're all a bunch of Commie Nazi mutant traitors.
Science doesn’t settle.
Where have you been for the last 3 years?
Where have you been for the last
3 yearstwo weeks.FTFY
"Where have you been for the last..."
40 years of "climate science"
50+...
You mean the last 20? Screaming that Science doesn't settle.
Science doesn’t settle.
Have you seen, The Science's wife?
But yes, and doubly so when it comes to the social "sciences".
This is deeply stupid. It's true that scientific theories are never perfectly "proven" in the sense that mathematical theorems can be. But when a theory survives multiple attempts to disprove it then a consensus does eventually grow accepting that theory. Yes, people can still challenge that consensus but they're going to need some strong evidence if they want anyone to take them seriously. Suggesting otherwise is mindless, reflexive pedantry at best.
"Addiction researchers have not yet reached a consensus as to whether perceived excessive time spent on the internet and engaged with social media is an addictive behavioral disorder."
Oh my god. CONSENSUS. Completely irrelevant to anything. Even if "addiction researchers" reach a "consensus" that the internet is "addictive," that doesn't mean they're right. Or even asking the question correctly. Or studying it correctly. "Consensus" is genuflecting to so-called "experts" which no one who employs Reason should ever, ever, ever do.
Why limit it to social media? I can’t keep my 10 year old son away from fortnight for even a nanosecond without him going psychotic. If that’s not addiction, I don’t know what is.
Sounds like a parenting problem. How do you keep him off booze or the marihuana? So much easier to let the government sue companies.
"The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) does not designate "internet addiction" or "social media addiction" as a mental disorder."
One of these days the APA and commenters will get this straight: The DSM was originally intended to specify criteria for various conditions so that researchers would all used the SAME criteria in their research studies so that research results could be meaningfully compared. Somehow it mutated into a code manual for providers who treat conditions to charge insurance companies - and then further evolved into criteria for providers to use to decide what the diagnosis was in the first place - something it was never intended to do and which it is very bad at doing! It's even worse when the general public uses it to decide whether a particular diagnosis is even a thing or not. Psychiatry is mostly pseudoscience at this point with very few diagnoses based on actual neuroscience and physical evidence of dysfunction; the rest of them are observations of "bad" behavior and things that make people feel bad.
"Psychiatry is mostly pseudoscience at this point"
Was there some point in the past when psychiatry wasn't pseudoscience? 🙂
goddam Nintendo I still can't quit Donkey Kong.
This shit all started with the tobacco Nazis. In the end the settlement ensured that everybody got paid. Except the purported victims of course.
I'm experiencing schadenfreude.
So does this mean that kids are going to start overdosing on black market social media smuggled across the southern border?
"The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) does not designate "internet addiction" or "social media addiction" as a mental disorder."
There's no proof needed. Look how no proof worked out for Trial Lawyers with Roundup.
hshb
Farcebook and it's subsidiaries SHOULD be prosecuted, and sued, into oblivion. Posting links and proof of politicians selling America and Americans out to the war and prison industries will get users removed from their platforms. I'm talking links to reliable information sources like wikipedia, politifact, Reuters, govetrack.us and the New York Times. Suckerberg is the lapdog of the pro-war democrat party.
The shift of prosecutors targeting tech giants is quite a hot topic. It's concerning to witness the dynamics between legal systems and platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The legal implications and potential consequences are worth discussing in the forum. On a lighter note, if you're into video sharing, TikTok has my vote. The engaging content and trends make it a standout platform. I even sometimes buy tiktok views to boost my account!