After the historic images and reactions left in 2018 and 2021 by the first interventions of Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta, in the US Congressional committees on and, later, on network algorithms; Yesterday’s trial promised a lot. The head of the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp testified for three long hours in a meeting that put Los Angeles as the global epicenter of the debate on the responsibility of the directors of these social networks regarding the addiction they generate among minors.
Zuckerberg, like Google (Alphabet) through YouTube, had to respond to the accusation that they are responsible for generating levels of addiction just as tobacco does, but greatly impacting the mental health of some users. It all started from the complaint of a 20-year-old woman -KGM- who claims that having been using these types of networks since she was 10 years old turned her into a true addict, generating signs of depression and an inclination towards suicide.
In reality, beyond the individual case, KGM’s fight represents that of thousands of other people around the world, in a context in which the Governments of different countries – with special attention in Europe – prepare and deploy measures against social networks. Without going any further, Spain announced a few weeks ago that access to those under 16 years of age will be prohibited. But Zuckerberg has relieved Meta of all responsibility. So whose fault is it? According to the technology magnate, from the users. Specifically, the minors themselves.
Zuckerberg: “They lie about their age to use our services”
The head of Meta assured that “the company’s policy has been clear” and that access to children under 13 years of age is completely prohibited. He didn’t stop there and point out the obvious. “I think there is a group of people, potentially a significant number, who lie about their age to use our services,” he said, ignoring that the central pillar of the popular demand is that technology companies be the ones to guarantee an effective age verification system.
Zuckerberg did not stop there, as he also addressed another of the factors that mark this trial. He has argued that it is difficult for app developers to implement user age verification systems, defending that this task and responsibility should be the responsibility of the mobile phone manufacturers themselves.
He also gave information that would be very relevant to the internal documents and reports that were placed before him. According to the CEO of Meta, teenagers would not be an attractive demographic profile, in economic terms, for their companies. Especially on Instagram, where he assured that this age cohort is equivalent to less than 1% of income.
Portrait of Mark Zuckerberg, during his testimony in the historic social media addiction trial, held in Los Angeles.
Lawyer corners Zuckerberg with documents: “And yet you say ‘we would never do that'”
All these arguments did not go unanswered. The person in charge of giving it was Mark Lanier, the complainant’s lawyer, who turned to an internal document from 2018 – revealed by Los Angeles Times– in which one piece of information stands out, contradicting Zuckerberg’s defense that teenagers are not profitable. 8 years ago, the number of children under 13 years old on Instagram was 4 million. Much, little? It represented about 30% of all US children between 10 and 12 years old.
The prosecution lawyer did not stop there either, who presented Zuckerberg with an internal presentation, also from Instagram and from 2018, in which he assured that “if we want to have great success among teenagers, we must incorporate them when they are pre-teens.” At that point, the lawyer snapped at Meta’s owner: “And yet you say ‘we would never do that.'”
“[Está] misinterpreting what I say”
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and founder of Meta
Zuckerberg responded that he was “misinterpreting what I’m saying” and that he has “had different conversations over time to try to create different versions of services that children can use safely.” He even assured that they considered creating a parallel Instagram for those under 13 years of age, but that they ended up discarding that idea.
Again, in terms of the addiction charge, Lanier addressed the jury by laying out a series of emails from 2014 and 2015 in which Zuckerberg set out a ‘Goal’ quite different from the scope goals. It demanded an increase in the time that users spend on these apps. How much? The emails claimed that this increase had a double-digit percentage. The lawyer was also asking him for explanations for what he had testified in Congress in 2021.
Zuckerberg referred to that statement in the US House in the following way: “If what they are trying to say is that my testimony was not accurate, I totally disagree with that.” Many of the answers had this construction, an issue that also came to light during the interrogation of the CEO of Meta, who was asked if he had received training to testify in that court.
The prosecution lawyer also provided the jury with another internal document, but from 2022, which set out the “milestones” (objectives, goals…, in business jargon) that Instagram had to complete in the following years. Among them, the gradual increase in the time that users spend in the application each day. Was it a lot? In three years, it went from 40 minutes in 2023 to 46 minutes in 2026. What did Zuckerberg say to that? That had also been misinterpreted, since they were not milestones as such, but rather an “evaluation” for senior management on how the company is doing. And, yes, it’s not bad at all.
