Meta Hid ‘Causal’ Proof of Social Media Damage, Claims US Court Documents
Meta has halted its internal research regarding the mental health impacts of Facebook and Instagram after uncovering causal evidence indicating that its products negatively affect users’ mental well-being, as revealed in unredacted documents from a class action lawsuit filed by U.S. school districts against Meta and other social media companies. According to Meta documents obtained through discovery, a research initiative known as Project Mercury was conducted in 2020, where Meta scientists collaborated with survey firm to assess the impact of deactivating Facebook and Instagram. Internal documents revealed that, much to the company’s disappointment, individuals who took a break from Facebook for a week experienced reduced feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison. Instead of releasing those findings or continuing with further research, the filing indicates that Meta halted additional work and internally asserted that the unfavorable study results were influenced by the “existing media narrative” surrounding the company. Behind closed doors, staff conveyed to Nick Clegg that the findings of the research were indeed valid. The Nielsen study indicates a causal impact on social comparison, (unhappy face emoji), researcher stated. Another staffer expressed concern that remaining silent about negative findings would resemble the tobacco industry’s approach of conducting research, being aware of the harmful effects of cigarettes, and then withholding that information.
Despite Meta’s own research establishing a causal connection between its products and adverse mental health outcomes, the filing claims that Meta informed Congress it lacked the capability to measure whether its products were detrimental to teenage girls. On Saturday, Meta spokesman Andy Stone stated that the study was halted due to flawed methodology, emphasizing that the company has been working diligently to enhance the safety of its products. The complete record will demonstrate that for more than ten years, we have engaged with parents, investigated the most pressing issues, and implemented tangible changes to safeguard teens, he stated. PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT PRODUCT RISKS WERE CONCEALED The claim that Meta has concealed evidence regarding the harms of social media is among several highlighted in a late Friday filing by Motley Rice, a law firm representing school districts nationwide in a lawsuit against Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat. The plaintiffs contend that the companies have deliberately concealed the internally acknowledged risks associated with their products from users, parents, and educators. TikTok, Google, and Snapchat have yet to provide a response to the request for comment. Allegations have emerged against Meta and its competitors, suggesting they have implicitly encouraged children under 13 to engage with their platforms. Additionally, they are accused of not adequately addressing child sexual abuse content and attempting to increase the use of social media products among teenagers during school hours.
The plaintiffs further claim that the platforms sought to financially support child-focused organizations to advocate for the safety of their products in the public eye. In a notable case, TikTok provided sponsorship to the National PTA and subsequently celebrated its capacity to sway the child-centric organization. According to the filing, TikTok officials stated that the PTA would proceed with whatever we desire moving into the fall… They’ll announce things publicly; their CEO will do press statements for us. Overall, the claims made against the other social media platforms lack the depth found in those directed at Meta. The internal documents referenced by the plaintiffs claim: 1. Meta deliberately crafted its youth safety features to be ineffective and seldom utilized, while obstructing the testing of safety features that it believed could negatively impact growth. Meta mandated that users must be caught 17 times in attempts to traffic individuals for sex before being removed from its platform, a document characterized this as an exceedingly high strike threshold. 3. Meta acknowledged that enhancing its products to boost teen engagement led to the delivery of more harmful content, yet proceeded with this strategy regardless. 4. Meta has delayed internal initiatives aimed at preventing child predators from reaching minors for years, citing growth concerns, while also pressuring safety staff to disseminate justifications for its inaction. 5. In a text message in 2021, Mark Zuckerberg stated that he wouldn’t claim child safety was his primary concern, as he had several other areas he was more focused on, such as developing the metaverse. Zuckerberg dismissed or overlooked Clegg’s appeals for increased funding for child safety initiatives.
Meta’s Stone refuted these claims, asserting that the company’s measures for teen safety are robust and that their existing policy mandates the removal of accounts immediately upon being flagged for sex trafficking. He stated that the lawsuit misrepresents its initiatives to develop safety features for teens and parents, asserting that its safety efforts are broadly effective. “We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions,” Stone said. The Meta documents referenced in the filing remain confidential, and Meta has submitted a motion to strike these documents. Stone stated that the objection pertains to the overly broad scope of what the plaintiffs are attempting to unseal, rather than opposing the unsealing in its entirety.
