During recent testimony in a New Mexico child safety trial, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, systematically downplayed the significance of his company’s own internal research on social media addiction and its impact on young users. His testimony, part of a broader lawsuit alleging lapses in child safety and platform addiction, emphasized that mobile operating system and app store owners are better equipped to handle age verification for children.
Key Points
- Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg minimized the impact of internal research findings on social media addiction.
- He questioned the methodology and practical application of documents detailing user engagement and teen well-being.
- Zuckerberg suggested Apple and Google are more responsible for age verification on their platforms.
- This testimony follows a similar stance in a Los Angeles trial and precedes new Instagram safety features.
Meta Under Scrutiny in New Mexico
The New Mexico Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Meta in 2023, alleging the company designed its platforms to be addictive and facilitated predators’ access to minors. This trial is one of several ongoing legal challenges Meta faces regarding the safety and well-being of its younger users. Central to the prosecution’s case are internal Meta documents, which researchers within the company compiled to study how its applications affect teens and other users.
During pre-recorded testimony from March, Zuckerberg was directly confronted with these findings. He was repeatedly asked about Meta’s understanding of social media addiction and other issues studied by its own teams. His general approach was to cast doubt on the certainty or practical implications of these internal reports.
Downplaying Internal Research
One document highlighted during the testimony described how “contributors on Facebook are likely to learn to associate the act of posting with feedback,” which could “lead contributors to seek rewards by visiting the site more often.” Zuckerberg responded by stating he wasn’t “sure if that’s actually how it works in practice, but I agree that you’re summarizing what they appear to be saying.” This hedging suggests a disconnect, or at least a public distancing, from the conclusions drawn by his own researchers.
Another internal chart presented to Zuckerberg reportedly showed that around 20 percent of 11-year-olds were monthly active users on Instagram. This data point is significant, given the platform’s stated minimum age of 13. While acknowledging the graph’s content, Zuckerberg claimed he was “not familiar with what methodology we were using to estimate this.” He added that “if we had direct knowledge that any given person was under the age of 13, that we would have them removed from our services.”
The CEO also dismissed findings from a company researcher who noted “there is increasing scientific evidence, particularly in the US, … that the average net effect of Facebook on people’s well being is slightly negative.” Zuckerberg countered this by stating, “my understanding is that the general consensus view is not that.” This consistent pattern of questioning internal research aligns with Meta’s broader defense strategy in these child safety trials.
Meta’s Broader Defense Strategy
Meta’s legal teams and executives have consistently disputed the classification of social media as an “addiction.” In public statements, the company maintains that lawsuits rely on “cherry-picked quotes and snippets of conversations taken out of context.” They assert that Meta “has consistently put teen safety ahead of growth for over a decade.”
Zuckerberg’s testimony in New Mexico mirrored his appearance in a separate social media addiction trial in Los Angeles. In both instances, he frequently rejected the “characterization” of questions posed by prosecutors. He emphasized that Meta’s goal is to make its apps “useful,” not merely to increase the amount of time users spend on them.
This isn’t the first time a Meta executive has attempted to minimize internal findings. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen disclosed documents that indicated Facebook’s researchers had found Instagram negatively impacted some teen girls’ self-perception. Instagram chief Adam Mosseri, whose recorded testimony was heard a day prior to Zuckerberg’s, similarly referred to some of these disclosures as based on “problematic research.” He claimed, “Most research is surveys. We run hundreds of surveys every month.”
The Question of Age Verification and Recent Changes
A significant part of Zuckerberg’s defense during the Los Angeles trial involved shifting responsibility for age verification. He claimed that mobile operating system and app store owners like Apple and Google were in a better position to verify users’ ages than application developers like Meta. This stance suggests that core infrastructure providers, not just app creators, share a burden in preventing underage access.
Despite downplaying internal research findings in court, Meta has concurrently introduced new child safety measures. Instagram, for instance, has unveiled a new flagging system to alert parents if their child repeatedly searches for self-harm or suicide content within a short period. These alerts are designed to provide parents with information and expert resources to support their teens during sensitive conversations. This move, following Zuckerberg’s various testimonies, indicates an ongoing effort to address concerns about user safety, even while challenging certain legal characterizations of its platforms.
Key Research Findings vs. Meta’s Stance
| Research Finding | Zuckerberg/Meta’s Stance |
|---|---|
| Facebook posting associated with feedback, leading to seeking rewards by visiting more often. | “Not sure if that’s actually how it works in practice,” “agree you’re summarizing what they appear to be saying.” |
| Around 20% of 11-year-olds are monthly Instagram users. | “I agree that the graph says that, I am not familiar with what methodology we were using.” |
| Average net effect of Facebook on well-being is slightly negative. | “My understanding is that the general consensus view is not that.” |
| Instagram made some teen girls feel worse about themselves. | “Problematic research,” “Most research is surveys.” |
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the New Mexico child safety trial about?
- The New Mexico Attorney General sued Meta in 2023, alleging the company deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive to children and failed to prevent predators from accessing minors.
- How did Mark Zuckerberg respond to claims about internal research?
- Zuckerberg largely downplayed the significance of Meta’s own internal research, questioning the practical application or methodology of findings related to user addiction, engagement, and negative well-being effects.
- Who did Zuckerberg say is responsible for age verification?
- Zuckerberg suggested that mobile operating system and app store owners, such as Apple and Google, are better positioned to verify users’ ages than Meta, shifting part of the responsibility to platform providers.
- Has Instagram introduced any new safety features recently?
- Yes, Instagram recently rolled out a new flagging system that alerts parents if their teenage child repeatedly searches for content related to self-harm or suicide, aiming to provide resources for support.
What This Means For You
- For Developers: Zuckerberg’s testimony highlights the increasing legal scrutiny on platform design, particularly features that could be perceived as addictive. Consider how feedback loops and engagement mechanisms in your applications are structured and their potential impact on user behavior, especially for younger audiences.
- For Founders & Product Managers: The ongoing trials against Meta underscore the critical importance of internal research integrity and transparency. Discrepancies between internal findings and public statements can lead to significant legal and reputational challenges. Ensure your organization has clear policies for addressing sensitive research insights.
- For Parents & Consumers: The revelations about internal Meta research and Zuckerberg’s responses suggest a complex and sometimes evasive stance on platform impacts. While new features like Instagram’s self-harm flagging system offer some protection, parents should remain vigilant and utilize available tools to monitor their children’s online activity, rather than relying solely on platform self-regulation.
- For Investors in Social Media Platforms: The legal battles and the cost of defending against widespread allegations of harm, including the need for new safety features, represent a non-trivial operational cost and potential liability. This could impact future earnings and growth projections as platforms face increased regulatory pressure and potential litigation expenses.
9to5mac.com