Melike Tanberk has a degree from Oxford University and is currently researching ethics in big data and AI at the University of Cambridge.
A 20-year-old, K. G. M., won her fight against the social media giants. A US jury recently ruled that Meta and Google must pay her $6 million in damages, finding that they deliberately designed their platforms in ways that contribute to depression, body dysmorphia, and anxiety (a "casino-effect" design). K. G. M.'s story is no different from others; she started watching YouTube when she was six and using Instagram when she was nine. By the age of ten, after obsessively using filters to make herself appear more attractive, she had already developed anxiety.
In response to the decision, Meta went so far as to blame K. G. M.'s family, trying to dodge responsibility. Both companies, Meta and Google, said they would appeal the verdict. "Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app," the Meta spokesperson argued.
Another case in point is Alexis Spence's family. Diligent and proactive, her parents followed every recommended guideline: banning screens from bedrooms, allowing only a shared computer in the living room, maintaining constant supervision, and enforcing a strict no-Instagram policy. Yet even these measures were not enough to safeguard their child from the digital world's harms. Somehow, Alexis found ways to outsmart each measure; for instance, she hid the Instagram icon behind a calculator icon on her iPad. With these maneuvers, she continued using social media without her parents' knowledge. Within weeks, Instagram's algorithms shifted her content from fitness to images of models, then to dieting tips, and eventually to material promoting anorexia. As a consequence, in eighth grade, she was hospitalized for anorexia and depression (Haidt, 2024). Now, she is among the many who seek a reckoning for their lost childhood.
Yet another case of family "abuse" and "neglect", as Meta would allege. But is that really the case?
Can parents be held solely responsible for their children's dependency?
If there is negligence simply for the sake of having some headspace, and if that period exceeds two hours unsupervised, then yes, parents can share responsibility for harmful outcomes. In a contrasting situation, where parents are vigilant and attentive, they can only protect their children to a certain extent, short of isolating them from society entirely. Once children enter mainstream schools, surrounded by classmates with smartphones, this inevitably results in a tug of war between parents and children. Even if parents resist early pleas for devices through the first years, the need for convenience, safety and practicalities, like GPS tracking or digital bus passes, often forces their hand when children start commuting to school. Then, after having smartphones, children start asking for more: another app, five more minutes, or "I have an assignment," or "I listen to biology on YouTube for my exams, Mum" -- all while actually scrolling on another tab.
One important point is to acknowledge that today's parents are in a blurry transitional phase, shifting from physical to digital parenthood. Most are by no means tech-savvy or digitally literate, while their children, born into the tech era, effortlessly adapt. Add generative AI like ChatGPT to the mix, and children can now find detailed instructions on bypassing restrictions or using VPNs to circumvent parental controls. A polite chatbot might respond: "Absolutely, you can change your MAC address."
Having witnessed these kinds of incidents first-hand, I can say that parents are fighting against these powerful algorithms single-handedly. In most cases, it is not about neglect or abuse at home; it is about the Pied Pipers' irresistible tune.
Another compelling piece of evidence comes from the Facebook Files, the internal documents exposed by whistleblower Frances Haugen. These files make it clear that Facebook was deliberately targeting young users. In one particularly revealing presentation, the stated goal was "to support Facebook Inc. -- wide product strategy for engaging younger users." The presentation featured MRI images of adolescent brains and described specific strategies for keeping teens hooked, such as reward-driven engagement mechanisms. This evidence shows just how far tech companies are aiming to capture and manipulate the attention of vulnerable young people.
Returning to the Meta and Google verdict, it is important to note that while this case may not yet establish a binding legal precedent, as Google has indicated plans to appeal, it has nevertheless sparked hope for many parents. The outcome highlights that the responsibility of protecting children online is too great for parents to bear alone. Other stakeholders must take responsibility as well. In particular, governments should implement regulations that keep up with rapid digital innovation -- specifically by enforcing clear limits on how these platforms are designed to engage children and young users. Without decisive action, these pied pipers of the screens may ultimately do away with the very essence of childhood: those precious years defined by love, happiness, and curiosity.
References:
- Haidt, J. (2024) The anxious generation : how the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness. London] UK: Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books.
- https://www.ft.com/content/d3d80bd4-d2b1-4522-9752-4071df5b4c0a
- https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/meta-lawsuit-instagram-caused-eating-disorder-self-harm-rcna32221
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYhSUdphPvQ
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.
