SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
social media
'Good Start': Meta Fine Now Nearly $1 Billion for Social Media Giant's Harm to Kids
"We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Aug 07, 2026
A New Mexico court on Thursday ruled that Meta must pay an additional $567 million fine on top of the $375 million a jury fined the tech giant in March for harms caused to teens and children who use its Instagram and Facebook social media platforms.
First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid said in his 68-pager ruling that "significant numbers of people in New Mexico experience harm from Meta’s products due to risks of sexual exploitation, interference with education, and adverse mental health outcomes."
"The harm to the impacted New Mexicans is not doubtful, eventual, or contingent, but an immediate, temporally connected, and highly probable result of Meta’s actions," he continued.
"The youth mental health crisis has inflicted significant and widespread harm in New Mexico in terms of the number of youth suffering mental health harms, the profound suffering they and those in their families suffer, and the resulting interferences with the functioning of the schools, law enforcement, [and] healthcare systems in New Mexico," the judge added.
The case centered on allegations that Meta knowingly designed and operated Facebook and Instagram in ways that exposed children to harmful content, encouraged excessive use, and failed to adequately protect minors from exploitation. New Mexico officials argued that internal company knowledge and outside warnings showed Meta was aware of risks associated with its platforms but did not act sufficiently to address them.
Most of the new fine—$420 million—will go toward funding youth treatment services, while the rest is designated for awareness and prevention, screening services, and other costs.
Biedscheid's order also compels Meta to make changes to its platforms in New Mexico, including removing "like" counts and only showing them to minors with parental consent, and prohibiting overnight push notifications for users under age 18.
"Regardless of whether it is labeled as an 'addiction' or 'problematic use,' the evidence at trial proved that design elements, such as autoplay, infinite scroll, 'like counts,' and push notifications create a product that, particularly for adolescent users, is highly rewarding psychologically and neurochemically," he wrote. "As a result, for many, it is irresistibly compelling to start scrolling and very difficult to stop or abstain from its use."
"In addition," the judge added, "algorithmic content recommendations can create harmful feedback loops and 'rabbit hole' users. Within a similar vein, 'like counts'... can provide a potentially harmful focus for adolescent users."
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said the company would appeal the ruling, claiming: “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content. We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts."
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez hailed the ruling, saying that “Meta built products it knew would fuel addiction, deepen a youth mental health crisis, and expose children to sexual exploitation, then lied to parents and policymakers about the danger. Today, it pays for that choice.”
At Fairplay—a children's advocacy group—executive director Josh Golin hailed the "landmark ruling" as "the clearest indication yet that the tide is turning when it comes to protecting kids from social media."
"For the first time, Meta is being compelled by a court to change its dangerous and harmful design," he continued. "And with so many states lined up to sue Meta and other social media companies, we should expect to see a lot more injunctive relief to make online platforms used by young people safer."
“This ruling also clearly indicates why families need the Kids Online Safety Act," Golin added, referring to a controversial bill advanced this week by the Senate Commerce Committee. "The judge said it was up to Congress to address the addictive features on Instagram and other social media platforms. KOSA’s duty of care against compulsive use is the key to ensuring that Meta and other social media companies stop designing for addiction, as addictive design is the root of all social media harms.”
Justin Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement: "This verdict is an important step towards creating safer social media for children and young people. For years, Amnesty International has warned that major social media platforms have been designed to maximize engagement and profit, while failing to adequately protect children’s rights."
“Crucially, the court went beyond imposing a financial penalty," he continued. "By ordering changes to platform features, including removing 'like' counts for people under 18 and restricting overnight notifications, the ruling recognizes that the harms children experience online are often the result of deliberate design choices."
“Amnesty has been calling for exactly this kind of action," Mazzola added. "Child safety must be built into platforms from the start, not added as an afterthought once harms are identified. This decision sends a clear message that social media companies cannot continue to prioritize engagement at the expense of children’s well-being and rights.”
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on Bluesky: "This is good news. For far too long, Big Tech corporations have put their bottom lines ahead of the health and safety of kids on their platforms."
"Congress must continue to push for accountability and real guardrails for companies like Meta as tech giants continue to grow," added Jayapal, who was critical of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act approved by the House of Representatives in June.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also welcomed the ruling, posting on X that billionaire Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's "greed is fueling a youth mental health crisis in America."
"Today, a judge ordered Meta to pay a $567 million fine for the damage it has done to our kids," Sanders added. "Good start. We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Padilla Unveils Bill to Stop Trump From Selling Access to 'Market-Moving Social Media Posts'
"Americans deserve a government that works for them, not one that’s for sale to hedge funds and Wall Street banks."
Aug 04, 2026
US Sen. Alex Padilla on Tuesday introduced legislation aimed at blocking President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and future occupants of their offices from profiting by selling early access to official or personal social media posts that could move financial markets, calling the practice a blatant abuse of public office for private gain.
Padilla's (D-Calif.) Stop Corrupt Trading Act would prohibit any sitting president or vice president—and any business in which they hold a substantial financial interest—from selling advance or exclusive access to presidential social media announcements. It would also establish civil penalties for the sale of nonpublic government information through such services.
“This is out in the open—Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in American history," Padilla said in a statement introducing the legislation. "Despite already being the richest president in history, President Trump’s number one priority in office is to make himself richer while everyday Americans struggle to make ends meet."
“Selling access to his market-moving social media posts is just one example of the brazen corruption we’ve seen coming out of the Oval Office—and I am fighting back to put a stop to it," he added. "Americans deserve a government that works for them, not one that’s for sale to hedge funds and Wall Street banks that can afford the subscription fee.”
Padilla's bill comes days after the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) launched a premium service offering subscribers expedited access to the president's Truth Social posts, a move that ethics watchdogs and government accountability advocates have warned could provide wealthy investors with an unfair advantage if presidential statements affect stock prices, tariffs, or other market-sensitive policies.
US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) responded to TMTG's move by announcing an investigation into what he called an "insider-information scheme."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Cockroach Movement Is Reinvigorating Democracy in India
The protests have yet to produce lasting institutional change, yet they have already demonstrated the capacity of young people to organize and exercise self-determination over their own political future.
Aug 01, 2026
Through a meme and a movement, Indian students have once again mobilized, this time in response to Chief Justice Surya Kant’s comparison of unemployed youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites” attacking the system. This remark led to the creation of the Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, a mass-scale satirical movement with a mission to amplify the “voice of the lazy & unemployed.”
The political movement was fueled by compounding grievances. The precipitating factor was the leak of a medical entrance exam paper and irregularities in the government’s on-screen marking system forced millions of students to retake exams. But discontent has been building up for some time because of surging unemployment rates and a deepening disillusionment with the government. Student suicides associated with increasing academic pressure have reached as many as 13,000 a year.
Matters escalated further when hunger-striking activist Sonam Wangchuk was forcibly removed from a student protest site in Delhi and hospitalized by authorities. Tear gas and baton charges on student protesters catalyzed a countrywide youth uprising that would culminate in the resignation last week of the Modi government’s education minister.
Apart from material grievance, the student movement was ignited by what philosopher Axel Honneth argues is a form of moral indignation. Widespread feelings of injustice have changed the nature of emancipatory struggles from rational economic interests to ones that are personal and emotional. Framing students as parasites through dehumanizing language, rather than as citizens facing systemic and institutional barriers, strips them of political dignity and represents them as inferior and shameful in addition to diverting attention from the state’s own policy failures.
Region-Wide Discontent
Across South Asia, contemporaneous youth-led, digitally organized uprisings have taken place in quick succession. Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya protest in 2022 forced the resignation of both the president and the prime minister. Bangladesh’s student-led movement in 2024 against a quota system in government jobs, compounded by rising authoritarianism, led to the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina after 15 years in power. And in Nepal, a country where nearly 56% of the population is under 30, a generation disproportionately affected by economic precarity and a housing crisis, a Gen Z protest in 2025 toppled Prime Minister K.P Sharma Oli within days of a government ban on social media.
These cases mark different points on the spectrum of outcomes. Protesters in Sri Lanka and Nepal converted disruption into institutional turnover, resulting in the installation of new elected governments following the uprisings. Young people in Bangladesh toppled a government but have struggled to translate that disruption into a stable institutional order. In India, CJP called off its protest after the government met its three immediate demands—the education minister’s resignation, withdrawal of criminal investigations against protesters, and compensation for the families of students who died by suicide following the leak. However, the settlement remains contentious, as CJP raised concerns that the government was not honoring its commitments, with a spokesperson warning that the protest would resume if punitive action against student protesters continued.
Youth uprisings matter, then, not simply as sudden, spectacular action but as a means of amplifying the voice of a demographic majority and reshaping the terms of legitimacy and accountability between citizens and the state.
The movement’s broader charter—a new Public Examinations Act, reform of national examination bodies, a students’ rights charter, a national aspirant welfare fund, and permanent parliamentary oversight of examination authorities—is due to be taken up in a further round of talks with the government. The protests have yet to produce lasting institutional change, yet they have already demonstrated the capacity of young people to organize and exercise self-determination over their own political future.
Generation Gap
The United Nations estimates that the world is home to 1.3 billion young people, more than half of them living in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Almost half of South Asia’s 1.8 billion people are under the age of 24, giving the region the world’s largest youth labor force until 2040.
Yet political power across South Asia remains generationally divided with the average age of Indian parliamentary representatives at 56. In Sri Lanka, only 4 of 212 MPs are under 30, while in Pakistan it’s just 7 of 311.
These figures expose a widening generational gap between aging political elites who have long monopolized legislative power and a younger generation that has grown up in the digital age expecting greater accountability but experiencing political marginalization. A related tension is a growing disconnect between economic liberalization and meaningful employment opportunities and social mobility for a generation of youth pursuing higher education.
In India, a democracy of 1.4 billion people, youth representation in the country’s legislative politics remains strikingly narrow along lines of age, gender, and caste. Over the past few decades, the share of young MPs aged 25-40 in the lower house of India’s parliament has fallen from 30% to just 10%.
Youth uprisings matter, then, not simply as sudden, spectacular action but as a means of amplifying the voice of a demographic majority and reshaping the terms of legitimacy and accountability between citizens and the state. These movements have galvanized global solidarity around regional struggles. They have been made increasingly possible by digitally mediated technology and decentralized, leaderless organizing.
Digital Pluses and Minuses
Central to the profound historical shifts in social movements is the emergence of the internet as a space for dissent. Sociologist Manuel Castells frames the internet as a “hybrid space of autonomy” where cyberspace and physical urban space merge into a new kind of social location for political actions. These networked movements, Castells argues, are characterized by spontaneity, virality, decentralization, and ad hoc collaborative deliberation with no single leader.
As the CJP movement tweeted, filmed, and Instagrammed in real time, its networked visibility diversified participation and displaced the state and the traditional media’s monopoly over the narratives of its violence and police brutality. However, Zeynep Tufekci cautions against the fragility of networked movements, which mobilize with extraordinary speed but often lack the internal capacities, leadership structures, negotiating experience, and resilience that older movements built over years of slower political organization.
Their activism reflects a wider shift toward collective action that is increasingly contentious, globalized, and proactive.
Although digital movements enable horizontal mobilization and egalitarian participation in emancipatory struggles, post-uprising outcomes often remain uncertain. Social movement scholars have noted a recurring pattern. Movements built on decentralized coordination excel at forcing concessions or toppling governments, but they struggle to convert that same horizontal structure into hierarchical institutional governance. This leaves established political actors better positioned to reassert control during the transition, making it harder for movements to transcend regime change and translate initial disruption into long-term democratic transformation that the participants demanded. Nevertheless, these movements have expanded democratic possibilities by opening up new locations of collective belonging, political self-expression, and altruism.
In the end, the collective benefits of a social movement can outweigh the success or failure of a challenger’s program because social movements have many influences, both tangible and intangible, that go beyond the explicitly stated goals. In CJP’s case, these benefits include the representation of youth voices and the democratic rights of the country’s largest demographic group. Their activism reflects a wider shift toward collective action that is increasingly contentious, globalized, and proactive. In a larger sense, this contributes to a more participatory polity where Indian citizens exercise political rights and shape political outcomes directly.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Feels Very 1984': ICE Agents Push Poll Worker to Delete Post Calling for Charges Against Renee Good Killer
"ICE agents entered a polling place to intimidate a worker about her social media posts," said a civil liberties advocate.
Jun 25, 2026
A poll worker in Syracuse, New York said she was left unsettled after a pair of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents showed up at her polling place to tell her to delete Instagram content calling for the indictment of the agent who shot Renee Good in January.
The worker, Paigelynne Gonyea, was in the middle of her shift during Tuesday's elections in New York when she received a phone message from someone who identified himself as Dave Brody, a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security.
He said agents "were just by" her apartment and had spoken to her husband about a post in which she "doxxed an ICE agent back in January."
Gonyea said the agents were referring to a post she made on January 8, 2026, the day after an ICE agent shot and killed Good, a 37-year-old mother and US citizen, in Minneapolis. The post contained an image of the masked agent, who had at that point been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune.
"The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune," the post read. "I think today is a great day for Jonathan to be indicted!"
Gonyea said she could not leave her job working the polls to speak with the agents, so she told them to come to her polling place. "They knew I was a poll site worker and still came in," she said.
Referencing what happened to Good, she said she refused to meet with the agents outside alone.
“I’ve seen the news, especially in Minnesota,” she said. “And I didn’t want anything to happen to me at all.”
Video of the encounter, shot by another employee, shows the two agents entering the polling site at Central Library on Salina Street.
The agents handed Gonyea a form letter that read, "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW."
The form, which Gonyea posted, said ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) had identified a post on Gonyea's account that it believed "may constitute a violation" of federal law.
The notice informed her that "it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official" and that "knowingly making restricted personal information about a covered person, or their immediate family member, publicly available with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime" was also illegal. It said violating these laws could subject her to state and federal prosecution.
The letter directed her to "promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior." It warned her that receipt of the notice "will be taken into consideration, should you continue to be involved in any criminal activities described above."
Gonyea told Syracuse.com that the agents presented her with copies of her social media posts and her driver's license and that "they tried to scare me into signing" the document "while I was working."
She refused to sign the notice despite continued pressure from the agents.
Gonyea was emphatic that her post—which only repeated publicly reported information—did not violate the law.
“I didn’t dox his personal information, such as address, phone number,” she said, adding that she would not remove the post.
Gonyea has discussed the case with the New York Board of Elections and the attorney general’s civil rights office, and she said she has contacted US Rep. John Mannion (D-NY), Syracuse Mayor Sharon Owens, and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
She has created a GoFundMe page to pay for potential legal expenses.
“For ICE to come to me over a social media post just feels very 1984 to me,” Gonyea said. “They definitely should have known better to not go into a polling place, even if I said it was OK.”
In a post on her GoFundMe page, Gonyea described the incident as a "pretty unsettling run-in."
"It’s the kind of situation that makes you stop and think about free speech and how far government authority can go. Honestly, it shook me, and I don’t think it’s something that should just be brushed off," she said. "It just doesn’t sit right with me."
Dustin Czarny, the election commissioner for Onondaga County, emphasized that federal law only allows specific people to enter polling places during elections—including poll workers, elections inspectors, voters eligible to vote at the site, and someone a voter brought to assist them in voting
Federal law specifies that it is unlawful for anyone in federal service to send “troops or armed men” to places where elections are held.
“There’s no role for law enforcement officials to be inside a polling place unless they are responding to an emergency of some kind,” Czarny said. “There is no indication of that here.”
Despite this, Trump administration officials have indicated a desire to send ICE agents to polling places on election day during the 2026 midterms.
Then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in February that her department had been "proactive to make sure we have the right people voting" in elections. In March, then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche asked at a conservative political conference, "Why is there objection to sending ICE officers to polling places?” adding, "Illegals can't vote. It doesn't make any sense."
Trump refused to rule out the possibility when asked about it by reporters in May, saying he'd "do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections."
Critics of ICE have described agents' demands for Gonyea to remove political speech as a worrying new frontier for the agency's encroachments on civil liberties.
"ICE agents entered a polling place to intimidate a worker about her social media posts," said David J. Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. "Wouldn't you quit before you carried out an order to do this?"
"Americans refuse to be intimidated by these government criminals who hate the Constitution," he added. "Normal people want accountability, not impunity for killing Americans unnecessarily."
"But it’s not enough for ICE to disagree; they need to stamp out dissent," he said. "I know they monitor my social media. You should know that they’re monitoring yours too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Letting Big Tech Off the Hook, UK Kids' Social Media Ban Called 'Right Diagnosis' But 'Wrong Prescription'
"Banning under-16s risks treating children as the problem rather than addressing the companies and systems that create the risks in the first place."
Jun 15, 2026
It's not yet clear whether Australia's ban on social media for children under age 16 has had a positive impact on kids' mental health and safety, but British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that the country's law is being used as a model for the United Kingdom's own blanket ban—leading critics, including the parent of a child who died by suicide after viewing harmful content on social media, to question whether Starmer was simply opting for a "politically expedient" solution to the harms of online platforms.
Banning young teenagers and children from using social media, said advocacy groups, does nothing to ensure powerful tech companies will make their products safer by design for all users.
Starmer announced the ban online in a video in which he highlighted his support for the policy "as a parent as much as a prime minister," and noted that in public comments, "thousands of parents" said their children "are addicted to social media."
We are banning social media access for under 16s.
These days kids must find their feet in a world where technology intrudes into every area of their life.
I just can’t let that go on anymore. So we’re giving children their childhoods back. pic.twitter.com/jn7iQrcwk8
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 15, 2026
"It can leave them trapped in a cycle of endless scrolling that displaces play, sleep, and time with the family," said the prime minister, who leads the Labour Party and is facing threats to his leadership following the party's major losses in May's elections. "It can harm their mental health, and frankly, parents need our support on this. That is why today the government has decided to ban social media access for children under 16."
Starmer said new age-related regulations for social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, as well as gaming and livestreaming platforms, will be introduced by the end of this year, with the new laws going into effect in early 2027. The government also said it was examining restrictions for users under 18, such as "overnight curfews" and mandated blocking of "infinite scrolling."
More details about the ban are expected to be released next month.
But Kerry Moscoguiri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, said that removing children from platforms that broadcast harmful content is "a case of the right diagnosis but the wrong prescription."
“The UK government is right to recognize that many children face serious harms online," said Moscoguiri. "Too many social media companies have built products and business models that prioritize keeping children engaged for longer, often at the expense of their well-being, privacy, and rights."
“But the problem is not that children exist on social media; it’s that social media companies have built platforms that are unsafe by design," she added. "Banning under-16s risks treating children as the problem rather than addressing the companies and systems that create the risks in the first place."
The ban comes after mounting reports of Big Tech companies' efforts to keep all users, including young people, on their platforms for as long as possible using algorithms and "infinite scrolling." Numerous cases have linked children's suicides to their exposure to thousands of posts regarding self-harm and suicidal ideation, as well as to cyberbullying through social media. And reporting by Reuters last year revealed that Meta's artificial intelligence chatbots were permitted by the company to have sexually provocative conversations with minors.
Advocacy groups like Amnesty have called for restrictions on social media platforms' most addictive and manipulative features, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and hyper-personalized recommendations.
Moscoguiri warned that bans like the one imposed by Australia last year will force children "to surrender their privacy in order to participate in modern digital life." In Australia, companies are required to perform age verification by collecting data from bank accounts or scanning users' photo IDs.
Instead of a blanket ban, she said, "we need strong regulation that tackles surveillance-based business models, protects children’s data, and puts safety ahead of profit.”
“The responsibility for children’s safety should rest first and foremost with the companies that build and profit from these platforms," said Moscoguiri. "Government action should focus on ending invasive profiling of children, [and] tackling addictive and manipulative design features."
As children's safety groups in the UK were expecting Starmer's announcement in recent days, Ian Russell, chair of the Molly Rose Foundation and the father of a 14-year-old girl who died by suicide in 2017 after viewing content related to self-harm and suicide on social media, told the BBC that he was, "quite frankly, dismayed" that a blanket ban was likely coming to the UK.
"Keir Starmer promised to tighten up the online safety world by regulating better," said Russell, who has called for social media giants like Meta to remove and regulate content that's harmful to young users' mental health. "If he's playing politics, what he's doing is gambling with young people's lives, and I find that deplorable."
https://t.co/oqDAdFFI8p
Very strong words ahead of expected social media ban from @mollyroseorg -
Ian Russell tells us govt is rushing in a blanket ban, rather than more sophisticated controls, under political pressure, in a 'deplorable way' pic.twitter.com/AMxcleLixU
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) June 13, 2026
In Australia, which last year became the first country to impose a nationwide blanket ban on kids under 16 using social media, the law has had unclear benefits, with many young teens still managing to use the platforms—where Big Tech has not been forced to place controls that would make it safer for young users to be there.
Carole Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist, said that imposing a ban that includes age verification, as Australia's does, "looks like rushed populist techsolutionism that will hand more power to the platforms."
"This is going to hand even more surveillance powers to the very companies that already know way too much about us. Do you want [X executive chair] Elon [Musk] to have a copy of your biometrics? Do you want [Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg] to scan your face? That’s what we will all be doing," Cadwalladr added. "This isn’t reining in Silicon Valley power. It’s gifting them even more power. Of course, parents want these companies safe and regulated but that’s a job for government, not the end user."
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, acknowledged that he has advocated for a ban on social media for children under 16 and called it "the right step to protect young people"—but said the UK government must impose restrictions on social media giants themselves, not just their most vulnerable users.
"Bans only treat the symptom, not the problem," said Khan. "Social media companies need to reimagine their platforms so they can offer a safe and healthy environment for all users, where restricting access wouldn’t be necessary."
"There’s nothing inevitable about algorithms which feed us a diet of dangerous content," he added. "Londoners deserve platforms which prioritize people, not just profit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
You Can Mute Notifications But You Can't Escape the Algorithm
Social media companies have intentionally designed their products to be addictive to young users; the issue cannot be resolved until the entire architecture of the platforms is overhauled.
Jun 14, 2026
You can mute Instagram stories. You can turn off Snap Maps. You can silence every notification on your phone. But try turning off reels. Try removing your “explore page.” Try turning off your TikTok algorithm.
Social media platforms have spent years perfecting the art of giving users just enough control to feel empowered, but not enough to actually break away. The result is a false sense of autonomy. Psychology Today cites that users used to control their feeds by choosing who to follow and which posts to interact with, but most platforms have shifted to algorithms that prioritize content for users based upon its likelihood of engagement. Consumers now get countless settings to reorganize the surface level features of a structure that cannot be fundamentally changed.
These apps enable endless settings to facilitate an illusion of control, whether that be through settings privacy, hiding like counts, or blocking certain pages. But none of these features are meaningful. They all act as a decoy to prevent change from the much deeper issue.
The features you cannot turn off are the ones that keep you scrolling hour after hour. It is the product of years of behavioral engineering, precisely designed to exploit dopamine loops and addiction to keep account holders in a cycle that generates a feeling of continuous rewards. The ability to scroll infinitely on any platform through videos and suggested posts prevents the natural end that a finite feed would create. As time goes on, algorithms adapt to the users employing them. It understands what will make you excited, enraged, or captivated, all at the expense of your attention span and countless unreturnable hours of your life.
The question isn’t about how to not use social media—it's unavoidable. It’s about if you even have the ability to not use it.
In a landmark case in March of 2026, Meta and Youtube were just found guilty of intentionally addicting young users and damaging their mental health. The juries found them both negligent in the design of their platforms, knowing it was dangerous and failing to appropriately warn of the risks. The companies were required to pay $3 million in compensatory damages, and jurors recommended another $3 million in punitive damages.
This verdict is revolutionary because for the first time, the law has indicated that the design of the apps was the issue, rather than the content or the users. It changes the conversation from blaming consumers for being on social media too much to recognizing these apps are designed to make it impossible to walk away. This trial could set the precedent for the over 1,500 similar cases that have been filed against the companies.
The findings of this case are nothing new. For countless years, tobacco companies sold cigarettes knowing the devices engineered customer addiction, while vehemently denying the harm every step of the way. It's easy to reflect on that chapter of history with clearer vision, but it was difficult to spot in the moment. Now we are living through its modern day counterpart.
The difference in these cases is that purchasing cigarettes takes explicit effort, but social media follows you everywhere you go. It’s in your pocket, it’s with you at school, in the office; no place is out of reach and no moment is off-limits. There is no social media equivalent of a “no smoking zone” or too inappropriate of a place to check your phone. It is a socially enabled addiction with no guardrails to limit engagement.
The question isn’t about how to not use social media—it's unavoidable. It’s about if you even have the ability to not use it. When the entire algorithm is designed to keep you from clicking away, and keep the app gaining revenue, it’s not about your personal autonomy anymore, it's about the devices keeping you from being able to physically peel yourself away.
Politicians can see this problem too. California AB 2169 would require companies to provide a copy of their personal data, including behavioral profiles and the digital map of online interactions. It also mandates that platforms build a bridge to allow users to sync their friends and interactions to other apps. Michigan's Kids Over Clicks package SB 757-760 goes further to prohibit platforms from using minors' personal data to fuel recommendation algorithms without parental consent, banning manipulative patterns like streaks and reward systems to incentivize continued app usage, and strictly regulating AI companion chatbots that could encourage self-harm or serve as unlicensed therapists.
While these bills make leaps toward restoring user autonomy, none of them actually address social media addiction head-on. Knowing the features these apps use to trap you into endless scrolling is helpful but doesn’t stop the behavior at its core. The option to turn off these privacy settings and default restrictions is still present. The problem isn’t the content on the apps, but the design. We can’t stop at changing the features and restructuring the settings. The issue cannot be resolved until the entire architecture of the platforms is overhauled.
I’ll leave you with this: We already know how the story ends if we do nothing as we have lived it before. So what are we going to do today to write a different ending?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Says YouTube Is Trying to ‘Suppress the Truth’ By Banning AI Lego-Style Videos Mocking US-Israeli War
One expert said the videos have gone viral by "hitting on points of disaffection in the United States."
Apr 14, 2026
Iran's foreign ministry is accusing YouTube of trying to "suppress the truth" by banning the account responsible for a series of viral Lego-style animations mocking the US-Israeli war.
The small team known as Explosive Media has racked up tens of millions of views across several platforms, with slickly produced music videos mercilessly lampooning the Trump administration and glorifying Iran's struggle against the US and Israel's attacks that began at the end of February.
Last week, Explosive Media had its channel suspended from YouTube for "violent content," which its owners disputed. "Are our LEGO-style animations actually violent?” the group asked on social media.
On Monday, Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, joined the criticism of the ban.
"In a land that proudly hosts Pixar, DreamWorks Animation, and The Walt Disney Company, an independent animated YouTube channel—which had organically grown by depicting US aggression and warmongering, and garnered millions of viewers—was abruptly shut down!!" he wrote on social media.
"Why?!" Baghaei said. “Simply to suppress the truth about their ‘illegal war’ on Iran and shield the American administration’s false narrative from any competing voice.”
While Explosive Media's content can no longer be viewed on YouTube—which is owned by Google—it appears unaffected on other major platforms like Instagram, X, and TikTok, where it has garnered millions of views.
The videos appear aimed at a US audience, often leaning into jokes and memes about the personal foibles of those leading the war.
They frequently reference the familiar accusation that President Donald Trump launched the war to distract from the growing scrutiny of his connections to the late multimillionaire sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. Another video takes aim at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's history of alcoholism and accusations of serial adultery and sexual misconduct.
The videos also portray a strident pro-Iran message. Following the announcement of a ceasefire last week, a video declared that “Iran won” the war. Others have shown Iranian missiles hitting the White House or heading toward Tel Aviv.
The videos also seize on growing domestic outrage over the US government's devotion to Israel, which it implies is controlling Trump and dragging the US into a war against its interests. One video, uploaded last week, portrays Trump being literally walked like a dog by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Your government is run by pedophiles. They ordered you to die for Israel," repeats one video's chorus.
A spokesperson for the team, who identified himself as "Mr. Explosive" in an interview with the BBC, has described his group as "totally independent." But he did say that the Iranian government is a “customer,” implying possible collaboration.
Explosive Media has denied any links with the Iranian government. Responding to a journalist at The Associated Press who said the sophistication of the videos suggests government involvement, the group's official X account replied, "We’ve told you—and other journalists—multiple times that we are independent. Yet you keep repeating the same false claim, insisting that we are connected to the government."
It added: "Western media shows no real commitment to truth—they simply repeat their own baseless claims until they start to sound like facts."
While the Trump administration often portrays the war as a clash of civilizations, the videos posted by Explosive show the American people in a sympathetic light.
Though the videos pull no punches toward their leaders, ordinary Americans are portrayed protesting the Trump administration or fearful about being sent to fight in a foreign war by an administration that promised to end such conflicts.
Polls show that the majority of Americans disapprove of the war and fear it escalating. Moustafa Ayad, a researcher with the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, told WIRED that the videos have likely gotten so much attention because they tap into this discontent.
"People are disengaging from some of the real conflict content and looking for something that can distill what's happening quickly and in a language and tone that they understand, and that's what those Lego videos are doing,” he said. "They're making it easily accessible to understand the conflict from Iran's point of view, and it's hitting on points of disaffection in the United States at the same time. It's working on two fronts.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘America’s Not OK’: Surveys Show US Wellbeing in Steep Decline Under Trump
"Americans are drowning under rising costs, flat wages, high unemployment, and historic layoffs—it’s no wonder they’re concerned about how they’re going to make ends meet."
Apr 10, 2026
Two recently released surveys revealed a significant drop in Americans' self-reported wellbeing as the Trump administration launches illegal and deadly military conflicts and plunges the global economy into chaos.
On Friday, the University of Michigan issued its monthly Survey of Consumers, which showed that consumer sentiment in the US hit an all-time low after dropping by 11% since March, amid President Donald Trump's war of choice in Iran.
The drop in consumer sentiment was almost universal, the survey found, as "demographic groups across age, income, and political party all posted setbacks in sentiment, as did every component of the index, reflecting the widespread nature of this month’s fall."
As for the reasons for the decline, the survey found "many consumers blame the Iran conflict for unfavorable changes to the economy," such as a major spike in gas prices, which the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday increased by more than 20% in the month since the war began.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that the latest consumer sentiment data showed Americans are even more sour on the economy now than they were in the summer of 2022, when the economy was dealing with the highest inflation it had seen in decades.
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director of the Democratic National Committee, seized on the consumer sentiment report and accused Trump of having "tanked the economy for working families."
"Americans are drowning under rising costs, flat wages, high unemployment, and historic layoffs," Witmer added. "It's no wonder they're concerned about how they’re going to make ends meet and Trump and [Vice President] JD Vance can’t be bothered to make life more affordable for them."
The record low in consumer sentiment comes just weeks after Gallup released its annual World Happiness Report, which showed that the US had fallen out of its rankings of the 20 happiest countries in the world.
The report says the decrease in US happiness largely came from "lower life evaluations among young adults," and points the finger at high social media use as a key factor in making young people miserable.
Specifically, the report finds "there is now overwhelming evidence of severe and widespread direct harms (such as sextortion and cyberbullying), and compelling evidence of troubling indirect harms (such as depression and anxiety)" from social media use, adding that "the harms and risks to individual users are so diverse and vast in scope that they justify the view that social media is causing harm at a population level."
Social media's impact on mental health has come into focus in recent weeks with juries in multiple states finding Big Tech companies liable for creating products that harm children.
In March, a New Mexico jury found social media giant Meta liable for harming children's mental health and safety, ordering the company to pay $375 million. A day later, a Los Angeles jury ordered Meta and Google to each pay $3 million in civil damages to a now-20-year-old woman who alleged harm and suffering caused by their products when she was an adolescent.
Journalist Derek Thompson took stock of the Gallup survey and the University of Michigan survey, as well as last year's General Social Survey that also documented a decline in US happiness, and declared, "America is not OK."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Earthquake for Big Tech': LA Jury in Social Media Addiction Trial Finds Meta, YouTube Harmed Child
"Between yesterday’s historic verdict in New Mexico and today’s ruling in California, it is clear that Big Tech’s free rein to addict and harm children is over," said one campaigner.
Mar 25, 2026
A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found that Meta and Google acted negligently by harming a child user with their social media platforms' addictive design features in a landmark verdict that came on the heels of Tuesday's $375 million fine imposed on Meta by New Mexico jurors.
The California jury—which deliberated for 40 hours over nine days—ordered the companies to pay $3 million in compensatory civil damages to a now-20-year-old woman, known in court as Kaley G.M., for pain and suffering and other damages.
Meta—the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—must pay 70%, while Google, the Alphabet subsidiary that bought YouTube, will pay the rest.
The jury also found the companies acted fraudulently and with malice, and will impose an additional fine.
Kaley's legal team successfully argued that the social media companies designed products that are as addictive as cigarettes or online casinos, and that site features like infinite scrolling and algorithmic recommendations caused her anxiety and depression. Attorneys said Kaley began viewing YouTube videos when she was 6 years old and started using Instagram at age 9.
Attorney Mark Lanier called YouTube Kaley's "gateway" to social media addiction. Later, features like Instagram's "beauty filters" made her feel "fat" and unattractive.
Still, Kaley was hooked, testifying in court last month: “Every single day I was on it, all day long. I just can’t be without it.”
Kaley's lawyers submitted evidence including internal communications in which officials at the two companies privately acknowledged their products' addictiveness.
"If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens," one YouTube strategy memo states.
A communication from an Instagram employee says: “We’re basically pushers... We’re causing reward deficit disorder, because people are binging on Instagram so much they can’t feel the reward.”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says, “Kids under 13 aren’t allowed on our services.” That's a lie. 2015: Internal review found 4 million kids on Instagram.2017: Meta employees, we're "going after <13 year olds” – Zuckerberg had been talking about this “for a while.”
[image or embed]
— Tech Oversight Project (@techoversight.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 10:18 AM
Kaley's attorneys said in a statement following Wednesday's verdict: "For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today’s verdict is a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—on that accountability.”
One of those attorneys, Joseph VanZandt, told The New York Times that “this is the first time in history a jury has heard testimony by executives and seen internal documents that we believe prove these companies chose profits over children."
As Courthouse News Service reported:
Kaley is the first of nearly 2,500 plaintiffs in a consolidated case in Southern California suing four tech companies—Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snap—who say their social media and streaming platforms were designed in ways that caused or worsened depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia in minors.
TikTok and Snap settled with Kaley in the weeks before her bellwether trial but remain defendants in the broader consolidated litigation. The trial’s outcome could help spur a global settlement, though eight more bellwether trials are being prepared, with the next one scheduled to start this summer.
A Meta spokesperson told Courthouse News Service that “we respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO and co-founder, insisted during the trial that Instagram is “a good thing that has value in people’s lives.”
Appeals by the companies could drag on for years, and, as Fox Business correspondent Susan Li noted on X, "if it’s just money that they have to pay, in the end it’s just a speeding ticket as they have deep pockets of cash."
Wednesday's verdict comes amid numerous pending lawsuits against social media companies and follows Tuesday's $375 million penalty imposed on Meta by a New Mexico jury, which found that the company violated the state's Unfair Practices Act by misleading users and exposing children to harm on its platforms.
Child welfare and digital rights advocates hailed Wednesday's verdict, which The Tech Oversight Project, an advocacy group, called "an earthquake for Big Tech."
"After years of gaslighting from companies like Google and Meta, new evidence and testimony have pulled back the curtain and validated the harms young people and parents have been telling the world about for years," the group's president, Sacha Haworth, said in a statement.
"These products were purposefully designed to harm [and] addict millions of young people, and lead to lifelong mental health consequences," Haworth added. "This trial was proof that if you put CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg on the stand before a judge and jury of their peers, the tech industry’s wanton disregard for people will be on full display."
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One, said, “Today’s verdict is a victory for young people, their families, and all Americans, marking a critical turning point in the fight to hold Big Tech accountable."
"The message is clear: The industry cannot continue to treat the youngest generation as its guinea pigs without consequences," he continued. "The trial process exposed how these platforms are designed, how risks to young users are understood internally, and how those risks have too often been outweighed by the pursuit of growth and profit."
"Today’s verdict builds on that truth. It affirms that young people are not test subjects for unproven products that prioritize profit at all cost," Fraser added. “No other industry enjoys the level of legal protection tech companies have relied on. This verdict begins to crack that shield and move us closer to a system where accountability is the norm, not the exception."
Josh Golin, executive director of the children's advocacy group Fairplay, said, “We are so pleased that a jury has confirmed what Fairplay and the survivor parents we work with have been saying for years: Social media companies like Meta and YouTube deliberately design their products to addict kids."
"Between yesterday’s historic verdict in New Mexico and today’s ruling in California, it is clear that Big Tech’s free rein to addict and harm children is over," he added.
JB Branch, the artificial intelligence and technology policy counsel at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "the parallels to Big Tobacco litigation are becoming harder to ignore."
"Like tobacco companies before them, social media firms built massive business models around dependency, denied or minimized mounting evidence of harm, and resisted meaningful safeguards while millions of young people were exposed to escalating risks," Branch explained. "Infinite scroll, push notifications, algorithmic amplification, and behavioral targeting were commercial design choices built to maximize attention, addiction, and revenue."
“Now more than ever, it’s time for Congress and federal regulators to establish enforceable safeguards for youth online while preserving the right of states to adopt stronger standards, including stronger product safety requirements, transparency obligations, limits on manipulative design practices, and accountability mechanisms for platforms whose business models depend on prolonged youth engagement," Branch added.
While many campaigners are urging congressional lawmakers to pass the Senate version of the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups including the ACLU argue that KOSA is overbroad and poses serious risks of censorship of free speech.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Mexico Jury Orders Meta to Pay $375 Million for Endangering Kids
While the company plans to challenge the decision, the state's attorney general said the figure "should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law."
Mar 24, 2026
Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez and other child advocates on Tuesday celebrated a state jury's landmark verdict against Meta, despite the social media giant's plans to fight the decision requiring it to pay $375 million in civil penalties.
"The jury's verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety," said Torrez, who had accused the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp of violating the state's Unfair Practices Act. "Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today, the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough."
The Associated Press highlighted that "the landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case."
Torrez said that "New Mexico is proud to be the first state to hold Meta accountable in court for misleading parents, enabling child exploitation, and harming kids. In the next phase of this legal proceeding, we will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta's platforms that offer stronger protections for children."
"The substantial damages the jury ordered Meta to pay should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law," he added. "Policymakers and law enforcement officials across the country can help make this verdict a turning point in the fight for children's safety. This is a watershed moment for every parent concerned about what could happen to their kids when they go online—and this victory belongs to them."
Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit Fairplay, welcomed the verdict. He said in a statement that "we've known for years that Meta enables the sexual exploitation of children. Now, that has been proven by a jury."
"As an organization that fights to protect children from Big Tech's deadly business model, Fairplay thanks Attorney General Torrez for his leadership in taking Meta to court," Golin continued. "Between this case and the ongoing trial in Los Angeles, parents, survivors, and state officials are doing their part to hold Big Tech accountable. Now, it's time for our leaders in the US Congress to get off the sidelines and pass the Senate's version of the Kids Online Safety Act to force these companies to change their addictive and dangerous product designs."
As Common Dreams has reported, while a diverse coalition supports the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups have also expressed concerns about the legislation. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, warned last year that "the overbroad language in KOSA and similar legislation risks censoring everything from jokes and hyperbole to useful information about sex ed and suicide prevention."
Amid celebrations over the New Mexico jury's decision on Tuesday, Meta said in a statement that "we respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."
NBC News noted that "separately, Meta is facing thousands of lawsuits accusing it and other social media companies of intentionally designing their products to be addictive to young people, leading to a nationwide mental health crisis. Some of the lawsuits, which have been filed in both state and federal courts, seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars, according to Meta’s filings with financial regulators."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy