Are Children's Mental Health Issues the Fault of Platforms? The Causality Debate Between YouTube and Meta

Are Children's Mental Health Issues the Fault of Platforms? The Causality Debate Between YouTube and Meta

1) "It's Not an Addiction" — The Courtroom Battle Begins with Words

In the courtroom, the first battle is not over evidence or numbers, but over the words themselves.


The YouTube side strongly pushed back, stating "YouTube is not social media" and "the plaintiff is not dependent on YouTube," attempting to dismantle the framework of "social media dependency" itself. According to reports, the defendant's lawyer emphasized the absence of a dependency diagnosis in medical records, arguing that blaming the platform for the plaintiff's suffering is a leap.


This trial is not just a single case of damages. It is treated as a "bellwether" for similar lawsuits piling up across the United States, and the impressions formed here could influence subsequent litigation strategies, settlement pressures, and regulatory discussions.


2) The Plaintiff's Story: "Designed to Hook Children's Brains"

The narrative drawn by the plaintiff is clear.


Children have immature impulse control and are easily reactive to stimuli. When combined with mechanisms that create an endless viewing experience—autoplay, continuous recommendations, never-ending feeds—it creates a "gravity" that is difficult to resist by sheer willpower. As a result, it negatively impacts sleep, academics, self-esteem, and mental health. The plaintiff calls this the "consequence of design."


Symbolic is the phrase used by the plaintiff's lawyer, "addicting children's brains." It's not just that the content is entertaining, but that it is "designed to keep them watching."


3) The Defendant's Counterattack: Dismantling "Causation"

On the other hand, the defendant's basic strategy is "deconstruction."

  • "Is it really an addiction?" (How is it defined medically and scientifically?)

  • "Can't the person's suffering be explained by factors other than the app?" (Family environment, bullying, existing psychological wounds)

  • "Is YouTube even 'social media'?" (A dispute over definitions)


According to AP and others, the defendant cites the plaintiff's life history and surrounding factors, arguing that it's unfair to single-handedly blame the app. In other words, the defendant aims to dismantle the "single-cause narrative."


The most challenging aspect of this type of trial is not proving that "overuse occurred," but demonstrating by courtroom standards that "it was a design inevitability and a major cause of mental harm."


4) Has "Addiction" Been Scientifically Settled?

In society, the term "social media addiction" is commonly used. But in the scientific and medical world, the terminology is unsettled.


The Guardian notes that experts tend to prefer terms like "problematic use" over "addiction." While there is caution in equating it with drug addiction, which has clear withdrawal symptoms and tolerance, there are studies suggesting reward system responses similar to gambling, indicating it's not entirely "harmless."


The court must decide "responsibility" while grappling with this lack of consensus. That's why both sides first grapple over the word "addiction."


5) A Revisit of Tobacco Litigation? The Heat and Risks of Comparisons

Reports often liken this to "Big Tobacco" lawsuits, as the narrative is similar: companies knew the risks yet promoted use through design and marketing, leading to widespread harm.


However, the same analogy is simultaneously risky.


With tobacco, the mechanism of harm upon consumption is relatively clear, and the product's harmfulness was the central issue. For social media, the results vary greatly depending on "usage," "constitution," and "environment." Thus, the question this trial poses to society is not about the "good or bad of content," but rather, "to what extent should responsibility be assigned to designs that keep people engaged?"


6) Social Media Reactions: Sympathy and Backlash on the "Same Screen"

 

The reason this topic easily ignites on social media is that everyone is a stakeholder. There are nights when even you can't stop. There are parents worried about their children's screen time. Conversely, some fear that increased regulation could harm jobs and expression.


In fact, on Reddit threads,

  • there is anger that "it's natural for companies to aim for addiction, a consequence of the advertising model."

  • There is cynicism that "ultimately, isn't it a 'personal or family issue'?"

  • There is caution that "the misuse of the word addiction ruins the debate."
    all coexist in the same space.


On X as well, while posts circulate quoting the trial's summary ("an anonymous young plaintiff named K.G.M.," "use from childhood") and criticizing the "platform's winning design," there are also reactions supporting the defendant's argument that "it's not an addiction."


What is important here is that the "division" on social media directly overlaps with the trial's points of contention.

  • As an experience, "not being able to stop" is something one can feel

  • But legally, it's difficult to definitively say "it's the cause."
    This gap polarizes the comment sections.

7) The Point Where This Trial Could Change Society: The Line of "Design Responsibility"

If the plaintiff wins, the path to questioning responsibility for "experience design created by companies" rather than "user-generated posts" could widen. Conversely, if the defendant wins strongly, pursuing design responsibility on grounds of "addiction" or "mental harm" will likely continue to face high barriers.


And this demarcation won't be black and white overnight. Regardless of the verdict, companies will likely change how they describe their products, issue warnings, implement age-appropriate features, and present transparency based on the "winning strategy." Society's "norms" will quietly shift.


8) The Practical Question Remaining for Us: How to Engage with "Recommendations"

Even while waiting for the trial's conclusion, smartphones remain in our hands.


That's why the optimal solution at the individual level leans more towards "structural changes" than "strength of will."

  • Turn off autoplay/reset recommendation history regularly

  • Separate time for opening with a purpose (searching and watching) from time for watching what's flowing in

  • For children, design the ending (how to wrap up) together before "prohibiting"


This trial doesn't end with "the company is at fault." Rather, it is akin to a societal effort to rearticulate the "winning ways" of the UI we interact with daily.


Source URL

Related Articles