Meta reaches landmark $18 billion settlement with states in trial over teen social media addiction; AP, August 26, 2026

  BARBARA ORTUTAY, KELVIN CHAN AND KAITLYN HUAMANI, AP; Meta reaches landmark $18 billion settlement with states in trial over teen social media addiction

"Meta agreed Wednesday to pay up to $18 billion and add stronger child-safety measures to its Facebook and Instagram platforms as part of a landmark legal settlement that ended a trial over teen social media addiction and settled claims filed by nearly every state.

The settlement resolved a pivotal case years in the making that sought to hold the tech giant accountable for the role its platforms played in undermining children’s mental health. The effort targeted features designed to hook young people’s attention."

Zuckerberg lied about concern for child safety, Meta whistleblower testifies at landmark trial; The Guardian, August 19, 2026

 Dara Kerr, The Guardian ; Zuckerberg lied about concern for child safety, Meta whistleblower testifies at landmark trial

"Meta has taken a “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy when it comes to the safety of children on its social media platforms, according to a whistleblower who testified during a landmark trial against the company on Tuesday. He is slated to continue his testimony on Wednesday.

Arturo Béjar, a former Meta safety engineer, told the jury that the company was aware of the harm its products caused children, which included its recommendations pushing content from sexual predators and violent and graphic images. He said he repeatedly raised the issue to various Facebook and Instagram executives but that they did little to resolve it...

Béjar was the first witness called to the stand in the federal trial that started with opening statements on Tuesday. The case was brought against Meta by 29 US state attorneys general, who allege the social media company deliberately designed addictive products that lured in young people and led to them being harmed. The legal officials also claim Meta regularly collects data on children under the age of 13 without parental permission in violation of federal and state laws."

Meta legal action forces Facebook whistleblower to sit in silence at Hay festival; The Guardian, May 31, 2026

 Emma Loffhagen, The Guardian; Meta legal action forces Facebook whistleblower to sit in silence at Hay festival

Sarah Wynn-Williams did not speak during event after lawyers warned of possible sanctions from tech firm

"Facebook whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams was forced to sit in silence on stage at an event at Hay festival, after lawyers advised her not to speak because of ongoing legal action brought by Meta.

Wynn-Williams, whose bestselling memoir, Careless People, details her years working at Facebook, was due to appear in conversation with the investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr and academic Tim Wu.

Instead, Wynn-Williams sat on stage for the duration of the hour-long discussion between Cadwalladr and Wu, without speaking or responding. She was unable even to nod or shake her head...

At the end of the event, Wynn-Williams received a standing ovation from the audience, during which she was moved to tears...

Wynn-Williams, a former Facebook executive, has faced mounting legal restrictions since the publication last year of Careless People, which contains allegations about Meta’s internal culture and decision-making, including claims relating to political influence, the company’s approach to China and concerns about the wellbeing of its child users. Meta has disputed the book’s claims."

OpenAI Is Making the Mistakes Facebook Made. I Quit.; The New York Times, February 11, 2026

 Zoë Hitzig , The New York Times; OpenAI Is Making the Mistakes Facebook Made. I Quit.

"This week, OpenAI started testing ads on ChatGPT. I also resigned from the company after spending two years as a researcher helping to shape how A.I. models were built and priced, and guiding early safety policies before standards were set in stone.

I once believed I could help the people building A.I. get ahead of the problems it would create. This week confirmed my slow realization that OpenAI seems to have stopped asking the questions I’d joined to help answer.

I don’t believe ads are immoral or unethical. A.I. is expensive to run, and ads can be a critical source of revenue. But I have deep reservations about OpenAI’s strategy."

Mark Zuckerberg Is Done With Politics; The New York Times, September 24, 2024

 Theodore Schleifer and Mike Isaac, The New York Times; Mark Zuckerberg Is Done With Politics

"Instead of publicly engaging with Washington, Mr. Zuckerberg is repairing relationships with politicians behind the scenes. After the “Zuckerbucks” criticism, Mr. Zuckerberg hired Brian Baker, a prominent Republican strategist, to improve his positioning with right-wing media and Republican officials. In the lead-up to November’s election, Mr. Baker has emphasized to Mr. Trump and his top aides that Mr. Zuckerberg has no plans to make similar donations, a person familiar with the discussions said.

Mr. Zuckerberg has yet to forge a relationship with Vice President Kamala Harris. But over the summer, Mr. Zuckerberg had his first conversations with Mr. Trump since he left office, according to people familiar with the conversations."

Mark Zuckerberg Isn’t Done With Politics. His Politics Have Just Changed.; Mother Jones, September 24, 2024

Tim Murphy, Mother Jones; Mark Zuckerberg Isn’t Done With Politics. His Politics Have Just Changed.

"On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that one of the world’s richest men had recently experienced a major epiphany. After bankrolling a political organization that supported immigration reform, espousing his support for social justice, and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to support local election workers during the 2020 election, “Mark Zuckerberg is done with politics.”

The Facebook founder and part-time Hawaiian feudal lord, according to the piece, “believed that both parties loathed technology and that trying to continue engaging with political causes would only draw further scrutiny to their company,” and felt burned by the criticism he has faced in recent years, on everything from the proliferation of disinformation on Facebook to his investment in election administration (which conservatives dismissively referred to as “Zuckerbucks”). He is mad, in other words, that people are mad at him, and it has made him rethink his entire theory of how the world works.

It’s an interesting piece, which identifies a real switch in how Zuckerberg—who along with his wife, Priscilla Chan, has made a non-binding pledge to give away a majority of his wealth by the end of his lifetime—thinks about his influence and his own ideology. But there’s a fallacy underpinning that headline: Zuckerberg isn’t done with politics. His politics have simply changed."

Facebook runs the coward’s playbook to smear the whistleblower; The Verge, October 5, 2021

 Elizabeth Lopatto, The Verge; Facebook runs the coward’s playbook to smear the whistleblower

 

"Facebook has chosen to respond to whistleblower Frances Haugen in the most cowardly way possible: by hiding Mark Zuckerberg, the man ultimately responsible for Facebook’s decisions, and beginning the process of trying to smear and discredit Haugen.

This is some Big Tobacco bullshit — precisely what sleazeball PR guru John Scanlon was hired to do when Jeffrey Wigand blew the whistle on tobacco company Brown and Williamson. Scanlon’s task was to change “the story of B&W to a narrative about Wigand’s personality.”

Of course, that strategy “backfired completely,” Vanity Fair reported in 2004. It probably won’t work here, either. One senator, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, has already called Haugen “a 21st-century American hero,” adding that “our nation owes you a huge debt of gratitude.”...

But the funniest part is the absence of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO and the only shareholder with the power to replace himself. Zuckerberg started Facebook as a Hot-or-Not clone — which almost certainly would negatively affect teen girls’ self-esteem. (At least he is consistent, I guess.) The decisions Haugen alleges, which put profits ahead of morals, have also enriched him more than anyone else. The buck stops, quite literally, with him. So where is he?"

Inside Facebook's 'cult-like' workplace, where dissent is discouraged and employees pretend to be happy all the time; CNBC, January 8, 2019

Salvador Rodriguez, CNBC; Inside Facebook's 'cult-like' workplace, where dissent is discouraged and employees pretend to be happy all the time

"Former employees describe a top-down approach where major decisions are made by the company's leadership, and employees are discouraged from voicing dissent — in direct contradiction to one of Sandberg's mantras, "authentic self."...

"All the things we were preaching, we weren't doing enough of them. We weren't having enough hard conversations. They need to realize that. They need to reflect and ask if they're having hard conversations or just being echo chambers of themselves.""

Top ethics and compliance failures of 2018; Compliance Week, December 17, 2018

Jaclyn Jaeger, Compliance Week; Top ethics and compliance failures of 2018

"Shady data privacy practices, allegations of financial misconduct, and widespread money-laundering schemes make up Compliance Week’s list of the top five ethics and compliance failures of 2018. All impart some key compliance lessons."

Question Technology; Kip Currier, Ethics in a Tangled Web, December 31, 2018

Kip Currier; Question Technology

Ars Technica’s Timothy B. Lee’s 12/30/18 “The hype around driverless cars came crashing down in 2018” is a highly recommended overview of the annus horribilis the year that’s ending constituted for the self-driving vehicles industry. Lee references the Gartner consulting group’s "hype cycle" for new innovations and technology:

In the self-driving world, there's been a lot of discussion recently about the hype cycle, a model for new technologies that was developed by the Gartner consulting firm. In this model, new technologies reach a "peak of inflated expectations" (think the Internet circa 1999) before falling into a "trough of disillusionment." It's only after these initial overreactions—first too optimistic, then too pessimistic—that public perceptions start to line up with reality. 

We’ve seen the hype cycle replayed over and over again throughout the World Wide Web age (and throughout recorded history), albeit with new players and new innovations. Sometimes the hype delivers. Sometimes it comes with an unexpected price tag and consequences. Social media was hyped by many through branding and slogans. It offers benefits; chief among them, expanded opportunities for communication and connection. But it also has significant weaknesses that can and have been exploited by actors foreign and domestic.

Since 2016, as example, we’ve acutely learned—and are still learning—how social media, such as Facebook, can be used to weaponize information, misinform citizenry, and subvert democracy. From Facebook’s “inflated expectations” Version 1.0 through multiple iterations of hype and rehype, to its 2018 “trough of disillusionment”--which may or may not represent its nadir--much of the public’s perceptions of Facebook appear to finally be aligning with a more realistic picture of the company’s technology, as well as its less than transparent and accountable leadership. Indeed, consider how many times this year, and in the preceding decade and a half, Planet Earth’s social media-using citizens have heard Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg essentially say some version of “Trust me. Trust Facebook. We’re going to fix this.” (See CNBC’s 12/19/18 well-documented “Mark Zuckerberg has been talking and apologizing about privacy since 2003 — here’s a reminder of what he’s said”) Only for the public, like Charlie Brown, to have the proverbial football once again yanked away with seemingly never-ending revelations of deliberate omissions by Facebook leadership concerning users’ data collection and use.

To better grasp the impacts and lessons we can learn from recognition of the hype cycle, it’s useful to remind ourselves of some other near-recent examples of highly-hyped technologies:

In the past decade, many talked about "the death of the print book"—supplanted by the ebook—and the extinction of independent (i.e. non-Amazon) booksellers. Now, print books are thriving again and independent bookstores are making a gradual comeback in some communities. See the 11/3/18 Observer article "Are E-Books Finally Over? The Publishing Industry Unexpectedly Tilts Back to Print" and Vox’s 12/18/18 piece, “Instagram is helping save the indie bookstore”.

More recently, Mass Open Online Courses (MOOCs) were touted as the game-changer that would have higher education quaking in its ivory tower-climbing boots. See Thomas L. Friedman's 2013 New York Times Opinion piece "Revolution Hits the Universities"; five years later, in 2018, a MOOCs-driven revolution seems less inevitable, or perhaps even less desirable, than postulated when MOOCs had become all the rage in some quarters. Even a few months before Friedman’s article, his New York Times employer had declared 2012 as “The Year of the MOOC”. In pertinent part from that article:

“I like to call this the year of disruption,” says Anant Agarwal, president of edX, “and the year is not over yet.”

MOOCs have been around for a few years as collaborative techie learning events, but this is the year everyone wants in. [Note to the author: you might just want to qualify and/or substantiate that hyperbolic assertion a bit about “everyone”!] Elite universities are partnering with Coursera at a furious pace. It now offers courses from 33 of the biggest names in postsecondary education, including Princeton, Brown, Columbia and Duke. In September, Google unleashed a MOOC-building online tool, and Stanford unveiled Class2Go with two courses.

Nick McKeown is teaching one of them, on computer networking, with Philip Levis (the one with a shock of magenta hair in the introductory video). Dr. McKeown sums up the energy of this grand experiment when he gushes, “We’re both very excited.” 

But read on, to the very next two sentences in the piece:

Casually draped over auditorium seats, the professors also acknowledge that they are not exactly sure how this MOOC stuff works.

“We are just going to see how this goes over the next few weeks,” says Dr. McKeown.

Yes, you read that right: 

“…they are not exactly sure how this MOOC stuff works.” And ““We are just going to see how this goes over the next few weeks,” says Dr. McKeown.”

Now, in 2018, who is even talking about MOOCs? Certainly, MOOCs are neither totally dead nor completely out of the education picture. But the fever pitch exhortations around the 1^st Coming of the MOOC have ebbed, as hype machines—and change consultants—have inevitably moved on to “the next bright shiny object”.

Technology has many good points, as well as bad points, and, shall we say, aspects that cause legitimate concern. It’s here to stay. I get that. Appreciating the many positive aspects of technology in our lives does not mean that we can’t and shouldn’t still ask questions about the adoption and use of technology. As a mentor of mine often points out, society frequently pushes people to make binary choices, to select either X or Y, when we may, rather, select X and Y. The phrase Question Authority was popularized in the boundary-changing 1960’s. Its pedigree is murky and may actually trace back to ancient Greek society. That’s a topic for another piece by someone else. But the phrase, modified to Question Technology, can serve as an inspirational springboard for today. 

Happily, 2018 also saw more and more calls for AI ethics, data ethics, ethics courses in computer science and other educational programs, and more permutations of ethics in technology. (And that’s not even getting at all the calls for ethics in government!) Arguably, 2018 was the year that ethics was writ large.

In sum, we need to remind ourselves to be wary of anyone or any entity touting that they know with absolute certainty what a new technology will or will not do today, a year from now, or 10+ years in the fast-moving future, particularly absent the provision of hard evidence to support such claims. Just because someone says it’s so doesn’t make it so. Or, that it should be so.

In this era of digitally-dispersed disinformation, misinformation, and “alternate facts”, we all need to remind ourselves to think critically, question pronouncements and projections, and verify the truthfulness of assertions with evidence-based analysis and bonafide facts.

Facebook: A Case Study in Ethics ; CMS Wire, December 20, 2018

Laurence Hart, CMS Wire; Facebook: A Case Study in Ethics 

"It feels like every week, a news item emerges that could serve as a case study in ethics. A company's poor decision when exposed to the light of day (provided by the press) seems shockingly bad. The ethical choice in most cases should have been obvious, but it clearly wasn’t the one made.

This week, as in many weeks in 2018, the case study comes from Facebook."

Why Should Anyone Believe Facebook Anymore?; Wired, December 19, 2018

Fred Vogelstein, Wired;

Why Should Anyone Believe Facebook Anymore?

"Americans are weird about their tycoons. We have a soft spot for success, especially success from people as young as Zuckerberg was when he started Facebook. But we hate it when they become as super-rich and powerful as he is now and seem accountable to no one. We'll tolerate rogues like Larry Ellison, founder and CEO of Oracle, who once happily admitted to hiring investigators to search Bill Gates' trash. Ellison makes no effort to hide the fact that he's in it for the money and the power. But what people despise more than anything is what we have now with tech companies in Silicon Valley, especially with Facebook: greed falsely wrapped in sanctimony.

Facebook gave the world a great new tool for staying connected. Zuckerberg even pitched it as a better internet—a safe space away from the anonymous trolls lurking everywhere else online. But it’s now rather debatable whether Facebook is really a better internet that is making the world a better place, or just another big powerful corporation out to make as much money as possible. Perhaps the world would be happier with Zuckerberg and Facebook, and the rest of their Silicon Valley brethren, if they stopped pretending to be people and businesses they are not."

The Empress of Facebook: My Befuddling Dinner With Sheryl Sandberg; Wired, December 7, 2018

Virginia Heffernan, Wired; The Empress of Facebook: My Befuddling Dinner With Sheryl Sandberg

"When you’re making money hand over fist, and your company seems to be on the right side of history, it’s natural to think you’re a very moral and whole person, who has made some lovely decisions, and who has a lot to teach other women about work and families. But what about … when the company founders?...

“You know, when I was a girl, the idea that the British Empire could ever end was absolutely inconceivable,” Doris Lessing once said. “And it just disappeared, like all the other empires.”

Empires vanish. The memes that kept them glued together for a short time—from "Dieu et mon droit" to "Bring the world closer together"—are exposed as fictions of state. And the leaders are, surprise, mortals with Napoleon complexes."

Emattled and in over his head, Mark Zuckerberg should — at least — step down as Facebook chairman; The Washington Post, November 19, 2018

Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post; Emattled and in over his head, Mark Zuckerberg should — at least — step down as Facebook chairman

"Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg once set out a bit of digital-world wisdom that became his company’s informal motto: “Move fast and break things.”

After the past week’s developments, the 34-year-old should declare mission accomplished — and find something else to do for the next few decades.

Because he’s shown that he’s incapable of leading the broken behemoth that is Facebook.

Leaders — capable leaders — don’t do what Zuckerberg has done in the face of disaster that they themselves have presided over.

They don’t hide and deny.

They don’t blame-shift."

Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘War’-Like Style Is Driving Top Executives Out: WSJ; The Daily Beast, November 18, 2018

The Daily Beast; Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘War’-Like Style Is Driving Top Executives Out: WSJ

"In June, with Facebook under siege for its role in the Cambridge Analytica debacle, CEO Mark Zuckerberg gathered top executives in a previously unreported meeting to tell them that the company was at “war” and that he would change his leadership style accordingly, according to The Wall Street Journal. Zuckerberg’s shift to a more aggressive leadership style has led to “unprecedented turmoil” in the upper ranks of the tech giant, the Journal reports..."

Facebook deserves criticism. The country deserves solutions.; The Washington Post, November 18, 2018

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; Facebook deserves criticism. The country deserves solutions.

"WHAT HAPPENS now? That is the essential question following the New York Times’s troubling investigation into Facebook’s response to Russian interference on its platform. The article has prompted sharp criticism of the company from all quarters, and Facebook deserves the blowback. But Americans deserve solutions. There are a few places to start."

Yes, Facebook made mistakes in 2016. But we weren’t the only ones.; The Washington Post, November 17, 2018

Alex Stamos, The Washington Post; Yes, Facebook made mistakes in 2016. But we weren’t the only ones.

"Alex Stamos is a Hoover fellow and adjunct professor at Stanford University. He served as the chief security officer at Facebook until August...

It is time for us to come together to protect our society from future information operations. While it appears Russia and other U.S. adversaries sat out the 2018 midterms, our good fortune is unlikely to extend through a contentious Democratic presidential primary season and raucous 2020 election.

First, Congress needs to codify standards around political advertising. The current rules restricting the use of powerful online advertising platforms have been adopted voluntarily and by only a handful of companies. Congress needs to update Nixon-era laws to require transparency and limit the ability of all players, including legitimate domestic actors, to micro-target tiny segments of the population with divisive political narratives. It would be great to see Facebook, Google and Twitter propose helpful additions to legislation instead of quietly opposing it.

Second, we need to draw a thoughtful line between the responsibilities of government and the large technology companies. The latter group will always need to act in a quasi-governmental manner, making judgments on political speech and operating teams in parallel to the U.S. intelligence community, but we need more clarity on how these companies make decisions and what powers we want to reserve to our duly elected government. Many areas of cybersecurity demand cooperation between government and corporations, and our allies in France and Germany provide models of how competent defensive cybersecurity responsibility can be built in a democracy."

 

To regulate AI we need new laws, not just a code of ethics; The Guardian, October 28, 2018

Paul Chadwick, The Guardian; To regulate AI we need new laws, not just a code of ethics

"For a sense of Facebook’s possible future EU operating environment, Zuckerberg should read the Royal Society’s new publication about the ethical and legal challenges of governing artificial intelligence. One contribution is by a senior European commission official, Paul Nemitz, principal adviser, one of the architects of the EU’s far-reaching General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect in May this year.

Nemitz makes clear the views are his own and not necessarily those of the European commission, but the big tech companies might reasonably see his article, entitled “Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence”, as a declaration of intent.

“We need a new culture of technology and business development for the age of AI which we call ‘rule of law, democracy and human rights by design’,” Nemitz writes. These core ideas should be baked into AI, because we are entering “a world in which technologies like AI become all pervasive and are actually incorporating and executing the rules according to which we live in large part”.

To Nemitz, “the absence of such framing for the internet economy has already led to a widespread culture of disregard of the law and put democracy in danger, the Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal being only the latest wake-up call”."

Facebook and the Fires; The New York Times, November 15, 2018

Kara Swisher, The New York Times; Facebook and the Fires

"Don’t Be Afraid of Self-Reflection

That man in the mirror is typically a man, and a young, white, privileged one, whose capacity for self-reflection is about as big as Donald Trump’s ability to stop hate-tweeting. But self-reflection is the hallmark of maturity and good decision-making. Of all the interviews I have done in Silicon Valley, I keep coming back to the one I did with Mr. Zuckerberg this summer, in which I pressed him to reflect on how his invention had caused deaths in places like India and Myanmar.

After trying several times to get an answer from him, I got frustrated: “What kind of responsibility do you feel?” I said I would feel sick to my stomach to know that people died possibly “because of something I invented. What does that make you feel like? What do you do when you see that? What do you do yourself? What’s your emotion?”

Mr. Zuckerberg’s answer left me cold. And also more than a little worried for the future of his company. It’s bad enough not to be able to anticipate disaster; it’s worse, after disaster strikes, to not be able to reflect on how it happened.

“I mean, my emotion is feeling a deep sense of responsibility to try to fix the problem,” he said. “I don’t know, that’s a … that’s the most productive stance.”

But it’s not the most productive stance. As with those California fires, putting out the flames is important. But understanding how they got started in the first place, to stop it from happening again, is what actually keeps us from hurtling over the edge."

Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis; The New York Times, November 14, 2018

Sheera Frenkel, Nicholas Confessore, Cecilia Kang, Matthew Rosenberg and Jack Nicas, The New York Times; Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis

"Like other technology executives, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg cast their company as a force for social good. Facebook’s lofty aims were emblazoned even on securities filings: “Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.”

But as Facebook grew, so did the hate speech, bullying and other toxic content on the platform. When researchers and activists in Myanmar, India, Germany and elsewhere warned that Facebook had become an instrument of government propaganda and ethnic cleansing, the company largely ignored them. Facebook had positioned itself as a platform, not a publisher. Taking responsibility for what users posted, or acting to censor it, was expensive and complicated. Many Facebook executives worried that any such efforts would backfire."