What the Meta Settlement Means for the UK and Other Questions After the Deal

The recent agreement between Meta and nearly every US state has sparked debate over online safety. Behind the scenes, however, something more complex is at play. By introducing time limits, parental controls, and warnings about screen time, Facebook and Instagram are attempting to forestall stricter regulations from governments worldwide.

In the UK, where its own Online Safety Act is being implemented, Meta’s deal seems poised to follow suit. Instead of banning social media entirely for under-16s – as proposed by the UK government – Meta’s agreement restricts access during certain hours and sets time limits. This move might seem like a step in the right direction, but it’s essential to consider the motivations behind this decision.

Meta’s move can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate that stricter regulations are unnecessary, as former Meta director Zvika Krieger suggested. By implementing these measures voluntarily, Meta is trying to forestall more draconian laws from being passed. This tactic has been successful in the past when faced with increasing pressure; social media companies have often capitulated and made concessions.

The UK’s Online Safety Act mainly restricts online content for young people, but a blanket ban on social media for under-16s is a more significant departure from Meta’s deal. This raises questions about why the US approach was chosen instead of a complete ban. One possibility is that it would be easier to implement and enforce time limits and parental controls than a complete ban.

The settlement also highlights the issue of industry self-regulation. While Meta has called on TikTok, YouTube, and Snap to follow suit, these companies have thus far remained silent. The lack of public comment from these firms suggests they are not willing to adapt to stricter regulations unless forced to do so – as Ellen Roome, a parent suing TikTok in the US over child safety, pointed out.

The $18 billion settlement is also worth examining. While this sum represents only 30% of Meta’s revenue last year and will be paid out over a decade, it raises questions about whether the company’s future profits are at risk due to a decrease in users or younger users spending less time on their platforms.

The wider implications of the settlement extend beyond online safety concerns. The comparison between social media companies and Big Tobacco is becoming increasingly apt, with both industries pushing products that have been found to be harmful to young people. As Arturo Béjar, a former Meta whistleblower, noted, even after the dangers of smoking were established, tobacco companies continued to profit from their products.

While the settlement may seem like a step forward for online safety, it’s essential to consider its true motives. By implementing measures that are more restrictive than some governments’ current policies, Meta is attempting to maintain control and preempt stricter regulations. The question remains whether this will be enough to satisfy campaigners and policymakers alike – or if more drastic action will be necessary to protect young people from the risks associated with social media use.

As other countries follow suit in demanding similar measures from Meta and other tech giants, pressure on governments worldwide is mounting to regulate these companies. The recent settlement has only accelerated this momentum. The question now is whether Meta’s attempt at self-regulation will be enough to stave off more stringent laws – or if it will ultimately prove to be a last-ditch effort to maintain its dominance in an increasingly regulated industry.

The future of online safety hangs in the balance as social media companies continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable. Governments must remain vigilant and hold them accountable for their actions, even in the face of resistance from both industry and regulators alike.