In a significant California trial, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg found himself under intense questioning regarding the company's relentless pursuit of user engagement and its handling of underage users on its platforms. Zuckerberg maintained that Meta's focus on increasing user time is driven by a desire to provide valuable experiences, not to foster addiction. He also asserted that the company does not actively recruit children as users.
However, during his sworn testimony, Zuckerberg was pressed by plaintiff's attorney Mark Lanier about internal company documents that discussed specific targets for user time spent on Meta's products. While Zuckerberg stated that such explicit goals for 'time spent' are no longer set, he was presented with an internal email from 2015 outlining a goal to increase user time by 12% in 2016. The defence's strategy in this trial appears to be focusing on the design of Meta's apps rather than the content shared on them, aiming to circumvent established legal doctrines that offer social media companies broad protection from lawsuits.
Furthermore, the trial delved into Meta's awareness of underage users on its platforms. Documents presented indicated that Meta employees were aware of children under 13 utilising their apps, with one 2015 email estimating that approximately 4 million such children were using Instagram, representing a substantial portion of the 10-12-year-old demographic in the US. Zuckerberg reiterated Meta's policy against users under 13 and confirmed that they are removed when identified. The tech mogul also addressed his substantial ownership stake, noting his pledge to donate the majority of his wealth to charity and his belief that Meta's success directly fuels his capacity to invest in scientific research.
The questioning also touched upon the controversial decision to continue allowing beauty filters on Meta's apps, even after 18 experts deemed them harmful to teenage girls. While Meta temporarily banned these filters in 2019 and commissioned an expert review, which confirmed their damaging effects, the ban was later lifted. Zuckerberg defended this decision, stating that while Meta wouldn't create or recommend such filters itself, prohibiting users from expressing themselves through them could be seen as overly restrictive, with some experts viewing such bans as a suppression of free speech.
Artículos relacionados de LaRebelión:
- Zuckerberg Faces Trial Over Social Media Child Addiction
- Blavity Data Breach API Keys Expose Users
- Metas Smart Glasses Revolution Unveiling Hypernova with Display Neural Wristband - A First Look
- Meta Sued Jury Finds Meta Illegally Collected Flo App Users Period Data
- Smart Home Dumb Move Futurehome Forces Subscription on Existing Users After Bankruptcy
Artículo generado mediante LaRebelionBOT
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario