"At the center of a consequential case about social media liability is a key question: did Meta lie or mislead the public about the safety of its platform, while knowing something very different? The state of New Mexico opened its case Monday arguing that public statements by Meta's top executives regularly contradicted its own internal discussions and research about the harm Facebook and Instagram posed to teens."
"According to Don Migliori, an attorney for the state, Meta prioritized profits and its stated commitment to free expression over the safety of young users on Facebook and Instagram. Meanwhile, Meta attorney Kevin Huff told the New Mexico jury that Meta hadn't deceived anyone, and that the company actually regularly discloses potential risks on its services. These disclosures happen, Huff said, because the company can't always catch violations of its terms of service right away."
A New Mexico trial opened with the state alleging that Meta's public statements by top executives contradicted the company’s internal research on harms to teens from Facebook and Instagram. The state argued that Meta prioritized profits and its stated commitment to free expression over young users' safety. Meta responded that it did not deceive anyone and routinely discloses potential risks because the company cannot always catch violations of its terms of service immediately. Meta emphasized that the presence of bad content does not prove deception and asserted that evidence will show the company told the truth.
Read at The Verge
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]