社交媒体成瘾危机：科技巨头的“大烟草时刻”、法律诉讼与青少年心理健康防线

Jeyan Jeganathan: Parents and experts have beensaying for years that kids andteenagers don't just like socialmedia.They're addicted to it.So a few US states took theparent company of Facebook andInstagram Meta to court, tryingto prove just that.And recently there was a majordevelopment in that case.While Meta hasn't admitted itdid anything wrong, it hasagreed to a settlement of $18billion, and that could haveimplications here in Canada.Ontario school boards have theirown lawsuit against Meta,Snapchat and TikTok.They're arguing the apps arenegatively rewiring students,thinking, so are we reaching aturning point in how weregulate social media forkids?And while that fight plays out,what can we actually do toprotect young people's mentalhealth?Right now, I'm Jeyan Jeganathan.Welcome to "The Rundown".Okay, so let's get into theOntario school board lawsuitsagainst a few of thesesocial media companies.There are now 13 school boardsinvolved in this fight, callingthemselves schools fordigital wellbeing.For more on where this lawsuitstands, we're joined bylitigation lawyer SoniaAnand, who's representing theschool boards.Sonia, thank you so much forjoining us on the line.Bring us up to speed on wherethis lawsuit currently stands.

Sonia Anand: So unfortunately, the wheelsof justice in Canada can beslow.We are still in preliminarymotions.The defendants brought a motionto strike our claims about ayear ago now, actually about ayear and a half ago.We've been preparing for it.It is coming up in about sixweeks to be heard and debated,the motion to strike.So we're still at very earlystages of the lawsuit.

Jeyan Jeganathan: In six weeks.Okay.So the date on that calendar,we're looking late October.

Sonia Anand: It's late October.Yes, two days in late October.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Carmi, as a technologyanalyst, break it down for us.Why are lawmakers calling thisMeta's quote unquote, bigtobacco moment?

Carmi Levy: Because it's the inflectionpoint in a, decades long effortto finally bring this industryto account, we've known, as thereports, as the research haspiled up, we've known the toxicrelationship between engagementand screen time, between socialmedia usage and young people'smental health.And yet it's all been theoreticallawmakers for one reason oranother have dragged their heels,haven't been able to passlegislation until now, whenattorneys general, when schoolboards finally decided, we're notwaiting for lawmakers anymore.We're taking action directlythrough the courts, and now withMeta's willingness to sign offon a multi-billion-dollarsettlement, the doors have beenblown wide open.This shows that the tech companiesrealize that if they don't cometo the table, they could be dealtwith even more harshly in acourt of law.It is a turning point.It will open the door for morelawsuits like it, and it willforce lawmakers to take actionand the industry itself tofinally take responsibility forits products and how they affectits youngest audiences.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Sonia, he talks about theinflection point, and I amcurious to know one of thecourts that is quite importantis the court of public opinion.Two years ago.A lot can change in those twoyears, and I'm sure it'sshifted with these tech giants.

Sonia Anand: I think we've changed.We've changed tremendously withrespect to, you know, the publicopinion.And and we were in a verydifferent spot two and a halfyears ago, largely because ofthe things that Carmi hasidentified.We have a lot more research.We've had more whistleblowerscome forward, and there's a lotmore public understanding ofwhat these products are doingto the brains of our children.And the school boards are on thefront lines and they see itday in and day out.And the public is now behind it,saying, yes, we see it.We understand why you broughtthis lawsuit, and we're on board.And that's that's a very bigchange in the landscape.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Well, let's dig a little bitinto sort of the changes thatwe're seeing for Meta Instagramand Facebook as part of thesettlement, Meta is rolling outmajor changes to how teens useits platforms.Here's a look at some of thosechanges.Accounts for teens under 16,or under 18 in somejurisdictions, will be made,will be private by default.They can only be messaged bypeople they follow or areconnected to.They will be placed in the moststrict sensitive contentcontrol, and sleep modenotifications will turn on atnight, prompting them to closethe app.Carmi, I want to get yourthoughts on these changes.Are these changes enough toprotect kids?

Carmi Levy: I mean, they'll certainlyhelp any time we see greaterlevels of restriction onplatforms like this.It gives parents, caregivers,communities that surround kidsmore, let's call it oxygen to tohelp kids navigate the space.If you have better controls builtin, we can do a better job ofguiding them.It is not enough, because at theend of the day, Meta's businessmodel has not changed.Meta's business model is stillabout driving as many eyes toscreens as possible for as longas possible, so it can sell asmany targeted ads to them aspossible.And until that underlying businessmodel is broken, userinterface changes like this,default settings, sleep mode,notifications, and the likewill only do so much.So yes, it is a step in theright direction, but no, it isnot the end of the journey.It is the first step in a verylong journey, and if this is allwe get, then we have, we havefailed in our fight to protectkids against excessive screentime and mental health concerns.

Jeyan Jeganathan: All right, a few points thatI want to pick up on there.Let's talk first off is thiswill we see some concrete changehere with these?

Sonia Anand: I think we need to addressmaybe something more fundamentalhere, which is that Meta.Since this settlement has cometo light in late August, hasbeen very clear that thesechanges will not apply outsideof the United States.So as Canadians, as people livingin Ontario, we're not seeingany of these changes rollout in Canada.So status quo for kids inCanada, for school boards inCanada, it really changesnothing.So again, that's not protectionif it stops at the US border.Second, if we are to lookat the changes, they in manyways are the bare minimum,as Carmi is pointing to.They are not enough to protectour kids against the hazardsinherent in the products.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Help me understand a littlebit then if that's let's callthat the bare minimum, then insense of perhaps what you wouldlike to see, what would youlike, spell it out for usexactly what you would like.

Sonia Anand: You know, I think there's,there's many specific thingsabout the design that, that wecould talk about, like, let'stalk about infinite scroll for asecond.The fact that the productdoesn't have a natural stoppingpoint means that your brain isnever triggered to take a break.Things like autoplay, you know,the algorithms, of course, thatsend kids down rabbit holesand keep feeding themcontent that is harmful.All of those features canbe redesigned, and they should beredesigned.And they shouldn't berequiring parents to togglebuttons and turn features onand off.They should be the default forhow this product operates forkids and really all of society.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Sonia, you had mentionedYouTube, TikTok, Snapchat as, asother platforms that have some,some concerns as well.Part of the settlement with Metais that there are contingent onthe actions of some of thoseother companies.Why is that important to includethese competitors?

Sonia Anand: Yeah.So I think this goes back tothis is an all hands on deck,holistic approach to ensuringthat these changes are made andthat even more changes thatwe've talked about are neededare implemented.So I think the reason for thatis that you don't want kidsjust going from Instagram toTikTok, or from TikTok toSnapchat.We need to ensure that theentire ecosystem in which kidslive and breathe every day,especially in our school systems,is changed for the better.It really won't do much good ifkids are simply taking the screentime they had allocated toInstagram and putting it now toTikTok.So this is about changingthe entire digital landscapefor kids, which is what theOntario school boards aresaying and why we have, in fact,sued Meta, Snapchat,and TikTok.It needs to be a unified,collective approach.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Carmi Sonia mentionsgovernment.Government can be a tad bit slowto responding sometimes.That's a gentle way ofcritiquing it.Here I am curious, how can thissettlement influence Canadianpolicy shifts as we work tocatch up to legislation aroundtech?

Carmi Levy: I mean, I admire yourpoliteness in saying we're a tadslow because really, I mean,we're we're tortoise like in ourability to bring tech awarelegislation to the national, youknow, onto the national agenda.We typically take years, if notdecades, to respond to trendsout of Silicon Valley thatemerged five, 10 yearsago.By the time we debate themin Parliament, the technology hasmoved on to the nextgeneration.And, you know, we've had Billsthat have that have dealt withonline harms that have struggledto reach the floor of thehouse, let alone be voted on andsigned into law.What this does is, it providesa template for our lawmakers tosay, wait a second, if USattorneys general, if USjurisdictions can get togetherand demand this level of change,what is holding Canada back fromdemanding similar, if not deeper,changes as well?It's no longer a matter of law,it's now a matter of politicalwill.And I think what this does is itlight a fire under our electedofficials in Ottawa to say, getgoing, because Canadians expectyou to act and they are notprepared to wait another fiveor 10 years for you to startdebating this.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Sonia.

Sonia Anand: Yeah.I'll say I echo many of thosecomments.And I think all of us should beconcerned about that gap where Ido see progress.Bill C-34 is up for debate thisfall.You know, similar to the actthat Carmi mentioned, there's areferral to the Supreme Courton this issue.So we are seeing some progresson this front, but we've seenfederal regulation work inefforts like the Online HarmsAct.The challenge with theregulatory approach, though, isthat it takes years and it'svery slow.And so the value that theschool board's litigationbrings is that it doesn't waitfor government.It demands changes right now.And it's not looking to governmentto solve the problem, it'slooking to the courts to solvethe problem.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Carmi.It's kind of crazy to thinkthat, you know, 20 plus yearsago, we were talking about Metaand what we were able to do withit with Facebook and be able toconnect.And here we are havingconversations about is it poisoninga generation?Is this really a turning pointthat we won't be able to turnback from?

Carmi Levy: I think it is.I think Meta settled this casebecause they were hoping to sortof slow down the bleeding, maybereduce the velocity of those3000 plus other cases that arewaiting in the wings and to sortof take back the narrative andsay, look, we're being proactive.Look, we're taking action.We're responsible corporatecitizens.And that's fine for publicrelations.It might even help it in somesubsequent court hearings.It won't make the underlyingproblem go away, which is thatthe industry was built on a wildwest mentality, where it wasallowed to grow fast and breakthings, including the mentalhealth of its youngestusers, without accountability.Those days are now officiallyover.There is no turning back.They will have to learn torebuild their products from theground up to be safe andhealthy for their users,otherwise they won't have usersleft to sell ads to.

Jeyan Jeganathan: This is a story that we willcontinue to follow.Carmi.Thank you.Thank you so much for joining uson the line.And Sonia, you are going to bebusy.So we will be checking in withyou.Thank you so much for joining usas well.

Sonia Anand: Thank you for having me.

Carmi Levy: Thank you.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Here's the thing.Whatever happens in court,social media isn't disappearingfrom kids lives anytime soon.And according to a recent reportfrom Children First Canada,online harms are the number onethreat to young people's mentaland physical health in thiscountry.Sara Austin is the founder andCEO of Children First Canada,and she joins us now for moreon that.Sara, welcome.

Sara Austin: Well, thanks so much forhaving me.I started Children First Canadaa decade ago because Canada hasbeen on a downward trajectoryfor the health and well-being ofkids for quite some time.We used to be a top 10 countryamongst OECD countries, andnow we rank 31st out of 38wealthy nations when it comesto the health and well-being ofour kids.Our kids are in trouble whenthey look at their mentalhealth, their physical health,the levels of poverty, and thisyear, in our annual Kids inCanada report, which identifiesand measures the top 10 threatsto childhood, online harms andsocial media have jumped to thenumber one spot for the veryfirst time.And that is based on leadingdata and the perspectives ofchildren's health leaders,the pediatric hospitals,research centers and charitiesfrom coast to coast to coast,who are really sounding thealarm that our kids are in acrisis and online harms are atop driver of that.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Kids today face way differentmental health pressures than mygeneration did.And you mentioned online harms,but let's get into the nittygritty of it's we're talkingsocial media here.What does social media's rolein that?

Sara Austin: Social media certainly has asignificant role.I mean, we've seen such adrastic change in a relativelyshort period of time.You know, my son just turned 16this week and I've seen it.It's just a really bigreality for families, as wellas for our country as awhole.And we're seeing kids, youknow, really struggling withtheir mental health.And social media is a big driverof that, because these appsare designed to be addictive.They're designed to keep kidsglued to their screens, andkids don't have the developmentaland cognitive capacity toprotect themselves from thosepredatory algorithms.And so what we're seeing isthat kids are spending countlesshours online, displacingthings like sleep, physicalactivity, face-to-faceinteractions with peers andfamily, and that's having amassive toll on their mentalhealth.

Jeyan Jeganathan: You talk about sort of theage ranges here.These are crucial years for alot of young people.Help me understand sort of theeffects social media plays sortof across the board.When we look at demographics.

Sara Austin: When it comes todemographics, the mental healthof young people is impacteddifferently.There's significant differencesfor boys and girls.For instance, girls are muchmore likely to be dealing withissues around body image,eating disorders, self-harm,and suicide ideation, largelydriven by the toxic beautyideals and content that they'reexposed to on platforms likeInstagram and TikTok.For boys, it's often morearound issues of cyberbullying,violent content, and, youknow, feeling isolated andfalling into radicalized groupsonline.And for diverse populations,for 2SLGBTQ+ youth, for racializedyouth, the risks of bullyingand online harms are evenhigher.So it really is having a verybroad and pervasive impact onyoung people.And the reality is that kids arenever safe.You know, when when bullyinghappened in the school yard, kidscould at least go home and finda safe haven.Now, that bullying, thatharassment follows them into theprivacy of their bedrooms, 24hours a day, seven days a week.

Jeyan Jeganathan: I want to get your thoughtson who's responsible here.The tech companies themselves,Meta, the parent company ofFacebook and Instagram, has saidit doesn't find itselfresponsible for the negativeimpacts on young people's mentalhealth.They say it's more societalreasons why this is happening.From your perspective, who'sresponsible?

Sara Austin: There's no doubt that parentshave a responsibility around theprotection and well-being ofkids.You know, that is our primaryduty.Duty for, for as parents is toprotect our kids.But we have seen, sadly, thesocial media companies, youknow, push the responsibilityentirely onto parents, as thoughparents are the only ones whoshould be held accountable.And that's a completely unfairfight.You've got a parent up againsta multi-billion-dollar techgiant with, you know, hundreds,if not thousands of softwareengineers who are deliberatelydesigning products to beaddictive, to keep kids gluedto their screens.And so we can't expect parentsto do this alone.Governments have a duty toregulate and ensure that thedigital world is safe forkids, just as they wouldregulate physical products likecar seats, cribs, toys, food.We expect our governments toensure that those products aretested and proven safe beforethey hit the market.The same standard must applyto digital products.And the tech companies haveto be held accountable for theharm that their products arecausing.They have knowingly designedthese products to be addictive.They have known about the harms,and they have failed to takethe necessary steps to protectkids, putting profit aheadof children's safety.

Jeyan Jeganathan: There are probably listenersand viewers who are listening toour conversation about socialmedia and these tech giants andthinking, we have had this moralpanic before.Perhaps different things we'retalking about rock music, we'retalking about TV, we're talkingabout violent video games.How is this different?

Sara Austin: You know, it's I think it'sprofoundly different.You know, we can see clearlyfrom the data the impacts onkids survival and development.In the past year alone, aquarter of our kids experiencingcyber bullying, we're seeingthe rates of suicide and self-harm skyrocketing.We are seeing kids end up inhospital emergency roomsbecause of the impacts of screentime and online harms.This is not a moral panic.This is a health crisis, and itis backed up by evidence, bydata, by the leading expertsin our country.And the difference, too, isthat, you know, TV or radiowasn't interactive.It wasn't collecting data onour kids.It wasn't using algorithms tofeed them more and more toxiccontent to keep them gluedto screens.These technologies are fundamentallydifferent than anything we'veever seen before.And they're operating at ascale and speed that is simplyunprecedented.

Jeyan Jeganathan: We talk about theresponsibility and role ofparents and guardians, help usunderstand how can they protecttheir children without forcingthem off their screens, which weknow that probably isn't thebest way to go about it.

Sara Austin: Yeah, I mean, delay is alwaysthe way.I mean, I think, as I said, I'ma parent raising a kid in thedigital world.My we've delayed his access to aphone as long as possible.We delayed social media accessas long as possible.And I think that's reallyimportant advice for parentsis to delay, delay, delay.The older kids are when theyaccess these technologies,the more resilient they will be,the more equipped they will beto navigate them safely.Setting clear boundaries andguidelines in the home aroundscreen time, around device-freezones, like no phones at thedinner table, no phones inthe bedroom at night.Those are really practical,actionable steps that parentscan take.And most importantly, havingthose open, honest, regularconversations with kids aboutwhat they're doing online, thetypes of things they're seeing,so that they know you know, whenwhen they face encounters,when they.Because inevitably they willin some form of harm online,whether it's just witnessingsomething, seeing somethinghappen to somebody else, to beable to come to their parentsand ask for help.

Jeyan Jeganathan: Speaking of conversations, Iwant to thank you, Sarah, forthis conversation.Really important message.Really appreciate your work.If you're a parent, I want toknow, do you have rules aroundsocial media and screen time foryour kids, and how hard are theyactually to enforce?Let us know.Send an email toRundown@TVO.org or drop us acomment.Until then, I will see youtomorrow.