[HN Gopher] Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagr...
___________________________________________________________________
Seattle Public Schools sues TikTok, YouTube, Instagram over youth
mental health
Author : chimerasaurus
Score : 124 points
Date : 2023-01-07 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.geekwire.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.geekwire.com)
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I don't doubt that some kids are negatively harmed by social
| media.
|
| However, I'm a photographer that does high school senior shoots.
| I follow some of my clients, and the amount of support every
| single teen I've looked at gets on everything they post is
| astounding. It doesn't matter what they look like, if they post a
| picture they'll have dozens or hundreds of comments telling them
| how gorgeous they are. Even the guys get some, though not as
| much.
|
| And yeah, it's all a bit silly and vapid when everyone is saying
| that to everyone. You know it still feels good. I certainly could
| have used someone telling me I was attractive back in high
| school...as a guy the girl's hints were a bit lost on me.
| charcircuit wrote:
| This lawsuit is an embarrassment using a compilation of anti
| social media arguments including misleading ones where the truth
| is twisted to make an argument.
|
| >Meta also delays the time it takes to load the feed. "This is
| because without that three-second delay, Instagram wouldn't feel
| variable."
|
| This isn't a fact. They are literally quoting speculation from
| Vice while making it seem like an official quote from Meta.
| Twitter and Instagram take time to load the feed because it's a
| nontrivial operation. I'd expect adding fake delays to your app
| will just cause people to get annoyed and use your app less.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. like I said above: ".. you've much to learn on the
| tenaciousness of a highly focused legal team - which is core to
| this lawsuit."
| charcircuit wrote:
| That doesn't change my opinion that they are either arguing
| in bad faith or they are incompetent in the argument they are
| making.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > They are literally quoting speculation from Vice while making
| it seem like an official quote from Meta.
|
| They literally provide the exact source of the quote. It is
| speculation but it isn't unreasonable since we know they've
| made similar types if decisions to maximize engadgement.
| charcircuit wrote:
| While they quote the article they don't make it clear who
| they are quoting or that it is speculation. Yes, one can
| check the article to see if the quote is coming from
| information from Meta, but one shouldn't have to.
|
| >we know they've made similar types if decisions to maximize
| engadgement
|
| Name a similar decision. The closest thing to this I can
| think of is from gacha games and not social media sites.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| Lots of comments about this being the wrong group of people to
| initiate this. Others playing the "is it really the same thing"
| card.
|
| I find myself torn. They are often sound/reasoned arguments. But
| I also struggle because the state of play isn't right either.
| Social media engagement is now one of the leading causes cited in
| divorces. My wife and I of nearly 30 years have to battle this
| ourselves. Something seems clearly wrong with our surveillance
| economy, yet we struggle to come up with sound reasoned diagnoses
| and remedies. I guess that's why it persists.
|
| So I end up both thinking this suit is "silly" and at the same
| time cheering them on because continued optimization along this
| evolving status quo vector just seems so obviously wrong.
| jrm4 wrote:
| That's exactly it. As a lawyer, I'm aware that it's
| _technically_ discouraged to initiate lawsuits for e.g.
| "political" or "social" reasons beyond the affected parties --
| but I definitely think we're in "something has to be done, or
| at least TALKED ABOUT" territory, and I have no personal
| problem with this approach.
| luckylion wrote:
| What is it you're hoping for? Prohibition, so people cannot use
| social media platforms because they're outlawed? I don't think
| that'll work, for the same reason prohibition doesn't work for
| anything that a large part of the population wants.
|
| And what even is social media in that sense. Aren't forums
| social media? HN has a score and you and other will be told how
| "the community" values your comments. Sure, it's not emoji
| thumbs pointing up and down and a frowny face, but what's the
| difference? Should HN be outlawed because someone might attach
| their self-worth to getting upvotes? Should Reddit be?
|
| I don't think the problem around social media is the "it's a
| feed full of trivial stuff that'll steal hours of your life",
| it's that you have to be on there if you want to have an active
| social life and not be an outsider. But if you take down
| facebook, instagram, twitter and tiktok, kids will find a new
| platform to flock to and to play their social games, bully some
| and make others celebrities. It's what they do, and now that
| the tech is here, they'll use it to do it.
|
| I don't know how hard it is for today's kids, but I sure am
| glad that I went through puberty before internet was a big
| thing in my country.
| Chinjut wrote:
| What is the manner in which social media is causing you and
| your wife of nearly 30 years to have to battle divorce?
| anon84873628 wrote:
| I interpret this to mean that social media addiction (or what
| have you) is an additional burden to deal with when doing the
| day to day maintenance work of a relationship. Like, it's
| probably harder to do fun things together (especially
| spontaneously) when the other person is already entertained
| on their phone. Or maybe a partner is letting their household
| chores slip because they are spending too much time on their
| phone. (So then the other person has to be the asshole asking
| them to do it, which can seem infantilizing and create
| resentment on both sides). And making the relationship harder
| will push you more towards the "divorce" realm than
| otherwise.
|
| I've had friends mention the deterioration of their older
| parent's relationship due to phone addiction. One said her
| mother couldn't even properly enjoy a vacation because going
| out dinner dinner or a hike required putting the phone away
| for too long. Basically it is similar to the problems caused
| by any other addiction.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| I think you've got it right - they're trying to address a
| serious problem that is absolutely worth addressing, but doing
| it with this kind of a lawsuit is indeed silly. Even if they
| win, it's not going to do anything meaningful to address the
| underlying causes of social media addiction in kids. As an
| institution that has access to these kids for ~7 hours a day,
| they ought to be able to come up with a more productive
| approach.
| rychco wrote:
| So the public schools will turn a profit from the increasingly
| depressed teens... and then what? Business as usual with some
| bonus cash for counseling services? What's the real goal here?
| Precedent?
|
| I don't see the (non-monetary) benefit unless there are new laws
| introduced that severely restrict how social media is allowed to
| operate or outright ban various addictive techniques employed by
| their platforms (which will need to be constantly amended because
| they'll come with addictive ideas faster than they can possibly
| be proven addictive).
| shkkmo wrote:
| > What's the real goal here? Precedent?
|
| Precedent is a big one, but it is also possible that the court
| could order these companies to take specific steps to redress
| this harm.
| grecy wrote:
| (Honest question, I don't understand how the law applies globally
| to the internet)
|
| Given that TikTock is Chinese, what happens if they lose a court
| case in the US? How can anyone force them to pay up or change
| their ways?
|
| I assume the only outcome is either "pay up" or be banned in that
| jurisdiction? (Assuming they lose)
|
| I can't help thinking this is like the all the three letter US
| agencies trying to force US law onto countries like Sweden for
| The Pirate Bay.
| richiebful1 wrote:
| There's plenty of TikTok assets in the US to seize. They have
| an office in Culver City, for example
| grecy wrote:
| Given this particular court case is brought by Public Schools
| in Seattle, WA , does having assets in a totally different
| state even matter?
|
| It's not like the Federal Government is suing them.
| shkkmo wrote:
| TikTok has business operations in the US (including offices and
| thousands of employees).
| slavboj wrote:
| School attendance is reliably associated with student suicide
| rate. We know it's causal because the association tracks random
| variations in the school year (snow days and make-up days,
| teacher strikes, differences in district calendars, etc). So
| forgive me if I believe their concern to be less than genuine.
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/childrens-risk-of...
| tzs wrote:
| You seem to be assuming that they can't be concerned with more
| than one problem simultaneously. You also seem to be assuming
| that addressing social media problems in schools won't help
| address the suicide problem. You also seem to be assuming that
| they aren't already doing something to address the suicide
| problem.
| lordfrito wrote:
| What is it that you're suggesting? That school attendance is a
| cause of suicide? That can't be... because if so then it's a
| miracle for all of us who made it before hand that we survived
| such a dangerous place and built the modern world and all.
|
| Understand that any time you leave your house you run the risk
| of having a bad day. So for kids, who regularly leave their
| house for school, it makes sense that the primary factor
| leading to a "bad day" for a kid would occur in or around
| campus. And I can totally believe there's a causal link between
| when someone chooses to commit suicide and the kind of day they
| were having.
|
| I'm just not sure what you're suggesting. Are we all just
| supposed to stay home? That's not workable. You have to face
| the world.
|
| Also you take a chance every time you get in your car to go
| anywhere. Doesn't mean we should avoid automobiles.
|
| I'm not trying to be sarcastic... Just trying to understand the
| angle you're after with this stat.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Attending school might increase the suicide rate, but education
| doubtlessly has more than enough upsides to offset that harm.
|
| TikTok though? I don't think so. No upside of TikTok can
| compare to the upside of receiving an education.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| How many educated kids are worth 1 suicide?
|
| I mean this quite seriously because utilitarian body count
| calculations are made by the US government all the time,
| especially in the context of transportation infrastructure.
| What's a good multiplyer? 10000 kids educated per suicide?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Even if suicides were a thousand times more common, I think
| the advantages of an educated population would still favor
| keeping schools open.
|
| Of course if practical measures can be taken today which
| suppress the suicide rate while still compelling kids to
| receive educations, I support those measures. But to do
| away with compulsory schooling to suppress the suicide rate
| is throwing the baby out with the bath water. With TikTok,
| there is no baby. It's all bath water.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| In my experience, which in unfortunately way too much, people
| commit suicide when they feel trapped in a bad situation. It's
| hard to think of a more likely scenario than someone that's
| having a bad time at school. I hope every parent out there
| starts to offers up online schooling as "always an option." It
| would have saved some friends of mine.
| finnh wrote:
| Seattle Public Schools has seen enrollment drop 30% (!!!) over
| the past couple years because it is an utter shambles [0].
| (correction: many schools have that level of decline or higher,
| but the decline district-wide is much lower). Cancelling as many
| advanced classes as possible, without grandfathering, so (eg) my
| two sons were both forced to repeat a year of math when they
| cancellled year-up math. An administration that is roundly hated,
| by parent and teacher alike.
|
| This feels like grasping in the dumbest possible way while
| ignoring the actual problem: if you bore the heck out of the
| kids, the ones who can afford to leave will. Also being bored 8
| hours/day isn't good for mental health...
|
| [0] https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/public-school-districts-
| exp...
| kube-system wrote:
| Maybe the dopamine addictions that many of these kids
| experience _are_ the reason they're bored with school. Maybe
| they're a contributing reason that remote learning was
| ineffective.
|
| When I was a kid, going to school _was_ the social medium. Even
| the kids who skipped class physically came to school to meet
| up. Now that we've removed that incentive for attendance, no
| wonder kids don't show up.
| asdff wrote:
| I know for sure if I was saddled with remote learning during
| elementary/middle/highschool I would waste all of my time
| playing games and try skirting by with the bare minimum.
| After all, that's exactly what we did with the computer lab
| in the school whenever we got access to it.
| broast wrote:
| It seems inevitable we will have to adapt to the new normal
| expected dopamine frequency
| tw98521358 wrote:
| [flagged]
| themitigating wrote:
| There can be more than issue causing more than one problem.
| Thinking that problems must be solved in some sort of order is
| dumb on your part
| jeffbee wrote:
| I'm skeptical of your 30% number. Their reports seem to
| indicate current enrollment of 51608 compared to a peak of
| 53627, down 4%. That doesn't seem out of line with demographic
| processes.
| incone123 wrote:
| Linked article shows some individual schools losing more than
| 30%, but does not give an overall percentage.
| finnh wrote:
| I'm going off the linked article, which is about multiple
| individual schools with that level of loss. But I appreciate
| the correction; I should have stated that number more
| carefully.
| roody15 wrote:
| Sadly this what happens with the "equity" push is public
| schools. There is no way to have "equalized" outcomes without
| dumbing down the content. This means less advanced courses.
|
| It's sad because somehow the idea of equal opportunity has been
| replaced with equalized outcomes in education.
| tempsy wrote:
| i don't know anything about the other issues facing the school
| but to say social media addiction is a "dumb" thing to address
| seems incredibly naive to me.
|
| growing up is hard enough as it is and social media absolutely
| can be detrimental to mental health if used excessively.
|
| imo the only reason we haven't properly addressed the issue as
| a society is because it's incredibly difficult to "prove" from
| a research perspective given the newness of social media.
| finnh wrote:
| Social media is awful and terrible; no argument there. But
| SPS has much larger problems to address internally before
| tackling this broader societal issue.
| tempsy wrote:
| You can do two things at once.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| Social media addiction is an important thing to address, but
| a school district filing lawsuits against social media
| companies just seems like the worst possible way to address
| it.
|
| This is an organization whose entire purpose is educating
| kids. If they want to address social media addiction, why on
| earth would they not start by educating kids about it?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I expect that'll work about as well as gym teachers
| teaching kids not to have premarital sex or smoke drugs.
| Such admonitions might sometimes work for individual kids,
| but on the whole they don't work.
|
| TikTok/etc is unlike sex and illicit drugs in that it's a
| commercial enterprise that is operating openly and can in
| theory be sued into submission. You can't sue a plant
| anybody can grow in their closet, but you _can_ sue a tech
| company.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| Gym teachers telling kids not to have premarital sex or
| smoke drugs isn't teaching them. You can teach kids how
| condoms work and that STDs stay with them for life. You
| can teach kids that drugs these days can be laced with
| fentanyl and how to acquire and use fentanyl test strips.
|
| Those things won't stop kids from having sex or doing
| drugs, but they can certainly and do mitigate some of the
| harm.
|
| You can take a similar approach to social media. Gym
| teachers telling them not to use TikTok will obviously
| not work, but you can teach them about how their data is
| shared and monetized. You can show them examples of
| people who posted things on social media and had their
| lives ruined over it. If the leaders of a school district
| have adopted the approach that you just can't teach kids
| anything they don't want to hear, I think they ought to
| find different jobs.
|
| As for the lawsuit, sure, you can sue a social media
| company? Will you win? Maybe, after extensive and costly
| litigation. Will those companies be forced to change
| their behavior in meaningful ways that will impact your
| students? Maybe, or maybe they'll just pay a fine and
| make superficial changes that last until the next lawsuit
| concludes in half a decade, then repeat.
|
| And besides that, even if you manage to win and dismantle
| Facebook, TikTok, etc., you'll have an infinite number of
| other companies coming in to fill the void. You can sue a
| tech company, but you can't sue a general class of
| software. You can legislate against it, but at best that
| is a long, hard road.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Teach kids all you like, however you like, they're not
| going to stop using social media on their own. It's a
| digital drug engineered to be addictive, and the kids are
| _already_ hooked.
| asdff wrote:
| Exactly. A student will sit there, arms crossed,
| internally opposing everything the administrator is
| saying because they've convinced themselves already its
| bullshit. They already think they will just find work as
| an influencer:
|
| https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-
| culture...
| tempsy wrote:
| This is really silly. Putting the onus on kids to fight the
| addictive cues created by sophisticated social media
| companies that actively work to make their products even
| more addictive is absolutely not the right way to address
| it.
|
| Though I do agree that if school districts actually cared
| enough today they should start by banning social media use
| on school premises and more aggressively monitor phone
| usage during class.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _Though I do agree that if school districts actually
| cared enough today they should start by banning social
| media use on school premises and more aggressively
| monitor phone usage during class._
|
| AFAIK they do, but it is extremely challenging for
| teachers. Phone use can be very discrete, "aggressively
| monitoring phone usage" just isn't practical. And when
| teachers do confiscate phones the backlash against them
| is frequently strong and fierce. They face hyperbolic
| rhetoric about such confiscations being dangerous because
| _" what if somebody needs to call 911!?"_ Even when
| administrators don't fold to the pressure, the teachers
| still need to put up with deranged rants and accusations
| from the parents. It's much easier for teachers if they
| pretend they didn't see the phone.
|
| And schools can hardly screen every kid entering the
| school for a phone, every day. It would be invasive,
| slow, and expensive. Imagine having to go to school an
| hour early every day because you need to stand in line
| for TSA before entering the building. Not practical. We
| can't even keep cellphones out of prisons where invasive
| cavity searches are permitted. Jamming cell signals on
| school grounds is out of the question, it isn't legal. So
| given all these problems, why _not_ sue tech companies
| for making these systems and services available on school
| grounds during school hours? I think it probably won 't
| work, but it's worth a shot.
| tempsy wrote:
| Yeah that's not what I mean. I mean make it a policy to
| not allow people to have their phones out in class. You
| can also block certain sites on school WiFi networks. I'm
| sure some schools already have something like this
| already. I don't mean implement body searches.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _I mean make it a policy to not allow people to have
| their phones out in class._
|
| These policies already exist but they're practically
| unenforceable. Individual teachers are incentivized to
| ignore it because enforcing these rules causes trouble
| for them. And even the most enthusiastic enforcement will
| fall flat; discrete phone use is trivial. Even paranoid
| proctors can't keep phones out of classrooms during
| exams; asking a teacher to do such policing while _also_
| trying to teach a lesson isn 't going to work. This is
| what they're already trying to do (or were trying to do,
| before giving up) and it isn't working.
| tempsy wrote:
| Ok
| xrd wrote:
| So far, two comments saying this is grandstanding by the school
| board.
|
| If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with
| homeless people, wouldn't it be more typical for people to be
| saying that elected officials aren't doing ANYTHING!
|
| What's the difference?
|
| I have read enough to know that these social media companies are
| employing behavioral scientists that are attempting to make their
| products addictive. And, I believe teenage brains are
| particularly succeptible. So this doesn't seem like grandstanding
| to me.
| Calvin02 wrote:
| I think the premise that no social media = no depressed kids is
| pretty weak, imo.
|
| Also, what's social media? Are messaging apps not social media?
|
| This feels like another one of those 'violent video games are
| bad' arguments.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > I think the premise that no social media = no depressed
| kids is pretty weak, imo.
|
| That's clearly not the premise.
|
| > Also, what's social media? Are messaging apps not social
| media?
|
| The lawsuit makes specific claims about specific behavior by
| specific companies.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| The difference is that we aren't talking about drug addiction
| here? And I mean drawing parallels between hard drugs and
| social media is just a matter of opinion. Like if you replace
| basically any possible debate with with homeless people and
| drugs you would probably get people asking for something to be
| done, so yeah I guess?
| HideousKojima wrote:
| How would the school board sue drug cartels or hobos? Those are
| only slightly more ridiculous than suing TikTok.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Seattle schools could sue the Uncle Ike's pot shop chain that
| operates openly and mostly legally in Seattle.
| ehhthing wrote:
| I am not a lawyer, but this seems like the school board have no
| standing (in the legal sense) to be filing this lawsuit. I do
| not believe that social media companies have the duty of care
| _to the school boards_ to maintain kids ' mental health.
|
| Some of the things in the lawsuit are just stupid like arguing
| that social media causes them to need to do investigations into
| threats and such. You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for
| allowing the same thing, would you? Sure these aren't the same
| thing as social media, but whether a duty of care exists should
| be a relatively similar analysis.
| EarlKing wrote:
| Literally this. You'd have to twist yourself into a legal
| pretzel to somehow claim that because teachers act in loco
| parentis for children in their care that now somehow their
| supervisors have power of attorney over their charges.
|
| This is one of those cases where the idiots involved deserve
| to get hit with a huge fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
| No, not the school district, but those involved. Personally.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| It's an easy pretzel for teachers/school administrators to
| tie themselves into, because these people are on the
| frontline of witnessing the ways in which parents can
| neglect and abuse their kids. It's easy for teachers to
| fall into believing themselves / the state a better steward
| of children than their own parents.
| jbm wrote:
| I'm not sure if that is the case, but if it is, it is the
| educational equivalent of the police seeing everyone as a
| threat because they deal constantly with the law breakers
| of society.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's very
| similar. Teachers have to interact with _all_ students,
| not just the ones who have trouble, but the ones who have
| trouble occupy a greater portion of the attention of
| teachers. So teachers spend an inordinate amount of time
| dwelling on the matter of neglect and abuse. The saddest
| most depressing cases stay in the minds of teachers for a
| long time, while the normal well cared for students are
| soon forgotten.
| shkkmo wrote:
| How does "power of attorney" have any relevance here?
|
| The argument is simply that the school district has
| suffered damages from specific behavior by the social media
| companies, that has nothing to with an ability to make
| decisions on the student's behalf.
| tomsthumb wrote:
| >How does "power of attorney" have any relevance here?
|
| It doesn't and that's Earl's point. That would be the
| best way for them to have any standing, but it just
| doesn't line up.
| EarlKing wrote:
| It wasn't, actually. I made that comment before I read
| the complaint. The statutory basis of their complaint is
| that Facebook constitutes some specie of nuisance, hence
| my later comment that even if we took their factual
| assertions at face value the charge asserted should be
| void for vagueness.
| EarlKing wrote:
| Having read the complaint, no, it doesn't have relevance
| here (obviously I made that claim prior to reading the
| complaint), but what they do assert is even worse:
| They're trying to claim that use of Facebook, Tiktok, etc
| and consequent behavioral issues among students
| constitutes a nuisance. The phrase "void for vagueness"
| would seem to apply here.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Where are you getting this "duty of care" thing? That doesn't
| seem remotely similar to any of the legal arguments discussed
| in the article.
|
| > You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the
| same thing, would you?
|
| Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media
| companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific
| content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement.
| ehhthing wrote:
| I assumed this lawsuit was a negligence one. It's not, it's
| under public nuisance laws. I still don't understand how
| the school board should get damages paid given they aren't
| "the public", and they didn't have any of their rights
| violated.
|
| > Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media
| companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific
| content and optimize thier platforms to increase
| engagement.
|
| A school investigates all threats equally regardless of how
| they are communicated. Whether they are mailed, sent via
| SMS, called in or sent on social media should not matter.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| >seems like the school board have no standing
|
| That was exactly my reaction. If Bob Ferguson (WA AG) wanted
| to pursue such a case, he / the state would have standing -
| and as far as I know, the school board asking the state and
| getting other school boards involved in such a case would be
| the more powerful approach. This is Seattle though, with its
| particular political leanings, and/or it could also be a bit
| of a Hail Mary - do this to show frustration in hopes that
| the AG or similar parties will take action.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. chiming in: Bob has indeed been looped in since this
| suit was on the table four years ago - and participated in
| person to the 3 meetings where this suit was on the agenda.
| I have heard his comments and discussion first hand. I know
| there to be at least two of his staff handling this suit.
| It is common for these types of well-executed lawsuits
| where the named-party is a public entity - for the relevant
| legislative office to NOT present a public statement until
| several weeks after filing the suit. I can assure you that
| the AG or representative thereof, will do so in the coming
| weeks.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _these social media companies are employing behavioral
| scientists_
|
| Companies have employed behavioral scientists for at least a
| century now. Cigarette companies never got in trouble for
| hiring psychologists to devise their advertising (addiction
| triggers), but for the damage their products did. They could
| invent a new rule against exploiting human psychology but that
| does not have a precedent of illegality.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Cigarette companies were explicitly banned from advertising
| to children for this exact reason. I don't think this is a
| good example, because if they're comparable then social media
| should be banned from advertising to children also.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If hiring psychologists was why they were banned from
| advertising to children, why can Mattel advertise to
| children?
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| For the reason _that their products are harmful_ , not
| that they had hired psychologists.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Yeah that's my whole point, psychological mass
| manipulation is legal.
| sitkack wrote:
| > never got in trouble for hiring psychologists to devise
| their advertising
|
| When is the last time you saw Joe Camel?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I think it would be a bit odd to see a school district suing
| drug dealers. Seeing as weed is legal in Seattle, could/should
| the Seattle public schools sue local [state-]legal weed stores
| for selling product that will inevitably find their way into
| the hands of teenagers? I suppose they could, but it would be
| surprising to see.
|
| This said, I have a special hatred for TikTok so I wish the
| Seattle schools good luck in their crazy endeavor.
| Retric wrote:
| Yet, South Carolina schools suing e-cigarette manufactures:
|
| https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/more-sc-school-
| distr...
|
| Legally it kind of makes sense because schools have a
| responsibility to ensure the welfare of children. Thus kids
| vaping or checking TickTok at school is a problem for the
| school system. But they also list "increased security staff
| time spent addressing discipline and supervision issues, and
| increased counselor time spent speaking to addicted students
| about this epidemic."
| shkkmo wrote:
| I think if there were evidence of targeting children with
| advertising, deliberately locating near schools or other
| intent, then yes, you could see a lawsuit.
| sien wrote:
| Teenagers have changed. There are a load of interesting stats
| about what has changed.
|
| From 1994 to now.
|
| Percent with a driver's licence has gone from 84.7% to 72.7%,
| tried alcohol fro 81% to 66.1%, gone on dates from 83% to 58% and
| had a job from 71.7% to 55%
|
| https://twitter.com/AlecStapp/status/1611500829441138688
|
| Maybe less dates and less independence from adults is what is
| driving up depression. But it might be harder to sue parents.
| themitigating wrote:
| "Why aren't parents getting kids to drink more"
| asdff wrote:
| Its probably not that but more that teens are socializing
| less and spending more time on things like homework.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/20/the-way-
| u-s...
| nickphx wrote:
| What sort of mental gymnastics does one have to do to place blame
| on a third party when you have to seek, install the app and
| actively engage with? What is preventing the parents from
| parenting?
| mozman wrote:
| School officials are no stranger to mental gymnastics, there
| are a ton of problems with school systems.
|
| It's more indoctrination than anything else at this point.
| fleddr wrote:
| Had any of this harm been physical, everybody would be cheering
| to combat it. But because it's mental, it's "not real", right?
|
| Behavioral scientists can plot any metric against the last decade
| and it spectacularly deviates from what came before it, in a bad
| way. A seismic shift.
|
| It's a problem. A massively complicated problem where regulation
| will be tricky. For the record, even Zuckerberg himself has
| practically begged for regulation in response to issues affecting
| teen girls specifically.
| isitmadeofglass wrote:
| [dead]
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _even Zuckerberg himself has practically begged for
| regulation in response to issues affecting teen girls
| specifically._
|
| I recall this being criticized as Zuckerberg cynically trying
| to create an anti-competitive regulatory moat around Facebook.
| Seems plausible to me, I have a hard time believing that Zuck
| has a single sincere and benevolent bone in his body.
|
| But even if he has cynical motivations for proposing it, that
| doesn't mean the idea itself is bad.
| [deleted]
| gypy wrote:
| [flagged]
| tedunangst wrote:
| Unclear why the school has standing, except they have to deal
| with depressed students, but doesn't everybody? Can Starbucks sue
| because it's become harder to find cheerful baristas?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| They have standing because its a statutory tort and because and
| to the extent thar they allege the kind of action and injury
| that the statute makes compensable.
|
| You seem to be imaging the kind of analysis done for a suit
| that is not based on a statute providing liability, but on a
| conflict of laws trying to negate or enjoin a government action
| for violating a controlling law that does not provide a
| explicit right of action to the plaintiff to sue, but that's
| not necessary when a statute provides an explicit cause of
| action.
| EarlKing wrote:
| Their alleged standing is predicated on a single count of
| violating the Washington Public Nuisance Law, RCW 7.48.010
| (see page 86 of their complaint[1])[2]. So their torturous
| logic is that somehow not only are the defendants' services
| addictive, but that the addiction thereof spurs students to
| engage in violent and/or disruptive behaviors that interferes
| with the enjoyment of school property and the safety of its
| employees (thus violating RCW 7.48.010 et seq.), thereby
| giving these clowns standing to sue.
|
| Even if we take their claims at face value that the
| defendants knowingly created products that are demonstrably
| addictive, materially contributing to the conditions that
| occasioned this suit, the offences named in that section are
| unconstitutionally vague and, to the extent that it is those
| vague portions are those asserted in the cause of action,
| should be unenforceable.
|
| I'm having a hard time believing Seattle School District No 1
| actually thinks they'll succeed on the "merits" of this case,
| and am inclined to agree that this is nothing more than a
| publicity stunt on their part to call attention to a
| "problem" that has a fairly clear solution: students with
| behavioral issues tied to use of social networking services
| that are disruptive to school functions can and should be
| expelled. Problem solved.
|
| --
|
| [1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd
| .31...
|
| [2] https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48
| shkkmo wrote:
| I think you are confused about what "standing" means, it is
| the "legal capicity to sue". It generally means being
| directly harmed in a manner that the court can redress with
| a favorable decision.
|
| So it is quite possible that the court will say SPS has
| standing but decide against them because of the vagueness
| of the public nuisance law.
| EarlKing wrote:
| No, I'm quite clear about what standing means, thank you.
| They're predicating their standing on this being a
| violation of a nuisance statute. I didn't say they don't
| have standing under that statute, just that the statute
| is unconstitutionally vague.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| > a "problem" that has a fairly clear solution: students
| with behavioral issues tied to use of social networking
| services that are disruptive to school functions can and
| should be expelled. Problem solved.
|
| That's not the problem, and that would be a poorly targeted
| and illegal solution if it were. You can't expel a child
| from public school for having a mental health problem.
| EarlKing wrote:
| And I'm sure you can point to the statute that violates.
| I'll wait.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. as a Seattle dad .. I fucking love this awkward yet clearly
| precedent-setting case. I know most of the board and the majority
| of us are fed up and taking the power we have to task and
| accountability. This has been in the works for over four years
| and we know the end game: new laws, adopted by other cities and
| states. .. it's been a clearly focused project for over 4 years
| now. One of my friends is on the board. I knew it was coming Q1
| 2023 and glad they stayed on task. A bevy of mental health
| experts are core to this - so due diligence. I don't know the
| layout of the legal team, but was told they have put this thru
| the ringer - the goal has always been a legal precedent, then
| actual legislation then adopted by other entities as well. The
| Portland School District has a parallel lawsuit as well. The
| pushback will be WELL propagandized and vilified. I can only
| imagine what garbage FOX will spew.
| danielfoster wrote:
| The lawsuit is going to be dismissed due to lack of standing.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. it's been a clearly focused project for over 4 years now.
| A colleague is on the board..A bevy of mental health experts
| are core to this - so due diligence. I don't know the layout
| of the legal team, but was told they have put this thru the
| ringer - the goal has always been a legal precedent, then
| actual legislation, then adoption by other entities as well.
| The Portland School District has a parallel lawsuit as well
| on the tails of ours.
|
| .. I suggest this light reading:
| https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48
| danielfoster wrote:
| Thank you for the link! The evidence of negative mental
| effects is definitely there. Labeling social media a public
| nuisance is an interesting strategy.
|
| I am skeptical that courts will be willing to make a leap
| to follow this reasoning, especially when social media is
| so pervasive outside the school setting. Kids used to read
| magazines during class and this was never considered a
| public nuisance. Neither was Pokemon. These are arguably
| less harmful, but parents can also use parental controls to
| restrict access during school hours if they wish to do so.
|
| It might be interesting to explore this through the lens of
| tobacco marketing in schools, though I'm sure this was
| already considered.
|
| How many parents are using parental controls? Do they work?
| (I'm not a parent and am genuinely curious).
| tw98521358 wrote:
| If they spent an equivalent amount of effort on figuring
| out how to manage the busses out offer classes to talented
| kids all the residents would be better off
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| Is there a specific law that these firms are supposed to
| have violated? (Does there need to be? I am not a lawyer.)
|
| Does the school district have standing to sue on behalf of
| the students? (Is the injury that they pay more for mental
| health services for students?)
|
| I'm genuinely curious. There's a surface analogy to the
| cases against opioid manufacturers and distributors, but
| those are controlled substances whereas YouTube is clearly
| not.
|
| There isn't even a clear causal effect of the from YouTube
| -> depression, IMO. Research on this has been quite low
| quality.
|
| And what about the role of the parents who are the owners
| of the phones on which their children run TikTok?
|
| Again genuine curiosity here, not trying to be a jerk.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. I appended above and addressed what you are asking.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| The geek wire article mentions that they are referring to
| the public nuisance law.
| westurner wrote:
| Probably would have been more cost effective to have
| worked with Amazon in Seattle on the Kids launcher on the
| Fire OS fork of Android (the one that merges the App
| Store and Launcher for the kids).
|
| It's not safe to allow school administrators to jam and
| deny students' (possibly distracting) communications at
| least on their personal devices, eh?
|
| Perhaps students could voluntarily submit to an App
| Launcher for focusing on school that deprioritizes
| content streams that haven't been made educational while
| attending unpaid conpulsory education programs under
| threat of prosecution for _truancy_ , not nuisance.
|
| Non- FireOS Android forks have the "Digital Wellbeing"
| tools for helping oneself focus despite persistent
| distractions that will always exist IRL.
| shkkmo wrote:
| The school district isn't suing "on behalf" of students.
| The school district claim is that it has standing to sue
| on it's own behalf due to specific harms it has suffered
| as a direct result of these companies actions (e.g.
| increased mental healthcare costs.)
| shkkmo wrote:
| Similar (ish) lawsuits, (like the one against Juuls) haven't
| been dismissed. What makes you think this one is different?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| TikTok offers their service to people they know to be
| teenagers, during school hours, when those teenagers are
| inside the school building (with TikTok's tracking of users,
| they surely know it.)
|
| I don't expect this lawsuit to succeed, but it's not entirely
| without merit and I do think the school district has some
| standing if for no other reason than because TikTok is
| serving videos to, and accepting uploads from, students who
| are actually in school.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| Since Google/Apple have location services data on the
| phone, map databases that know where schools are, and the
| ability to limit use of specific apps or the entire device,
| do you figure they are similarly liable? It would seem a
| lot easier to have the platforms solve the problem once
| than delegate it out to be solved a millions times by every
| app in the store.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Yes, I think they should be.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| It seems completely wrong to me that every app should
| have a legal obligation to track the location of children
| to find out if they are at school.
|
| To me the whole enterprise is totalitarian, but if I were
| trying to build a solution, it would look something like
| this:
|
| 1) Add a school control mode to the devices, similar to
| existing parental control mode. In this mode the school
| can block categories of content or usage during school
| hours. The school administrators don't get to look at the
| student browsing data.
|
| 2) Schools can enforce a policy that unenrolled devices
| are banned from campus. The device can make it easy to
| check using something like NFC or an indicator accessible
| from the lockscreen (similar to the existing medical ID).
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _It seems completely wrong to me that every app should
| have a legal obligation to track the location of children
| to find out if they are at school._
|
| Start with the big social media apps, then work from
| there if the general problem persists (I think it won't.)
| zdragnar wrote:
| Every school system sets its own vacation days, and home
| schooled kids don't share the same set hours or days as the
| local school districts.
|
| I don't doubt that the harms are real, but I do suspect
| that you are putting an unreasonable burden on tik tok
| here.
|
| What I'm actually most curious about is when did schools
| start letting kids have cell phones during the school day?
| I was in school roughly just before smart phones were a
| thing, but texting was starting to become popular if you
| could get a plan that didn't charge per text.
|
| The expectation was your phone stayed in your locker if you
| brought it to school, and anyone caught with one during
| class or in the hallways during class hours would have it
| taken away until the day was over.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _Every school system sets its own vacation days,_
|
| You're missing the part where TikTok knows where their
| users are, and know when a thousand kids are clustered
| together inside of a known school building in the middle
| of the day in the middle of the week. It's not rocket
| science to figure out those kids are in school. They know
| it.
|
| > _home schooled kids_
|
| The inability to _perfectly_ know when a kid might be
| "in school" doesn't make much difference in my eye. They
| could easily detect it most of the time, and probably do,
| but choose to serve those kids anyway.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| They will just argue that the parents should not give children
| phones, which is actually something I agree with.
|
| We need coordinated parenting on when to give children these
| devices.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| obvious enthusiasm for a legal action by multiple teams of
| people on salary for 4+ years, does not make it effective or
| have standing
| ryan93 wrote:
| Both you as a parent and the board had the power to stop
| children from using social media; or at least severely restrict
| it. Yet you choose to waste years on a very low probability
| lawsuit?
| tw98521358 wrote:
| Someone is using this as a platform for a political career
| jbm wrote:
| What is the school doing about evidence that attending in-
| person school increases suicide? That seems like a much easier
| issue to tackle and well-within their remit. (Legit question as
| you seem well informed about their current thought process)
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| No one made your kids use their product, good luck.
| tqi wrote:
| Political grandstanding by school board members eyeing higher
| offices is abhorrent.
| bozhark wrote:
| Was wondering why this made the second page
| kaptainscarlet wrote:
| No grandstanding in my opinion. Social media is a very
| dangerous and addictive drug that is difficult to police. It
| should be heavily regulated as it's destroying society.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _Social media is a very dangerous and addictive drug that
| is difficult to police. It should be heavily regulated as it
| 's destroying society._
|
| 100% agree, but
|
| > _No grandstanding_
|
| It's definitely grandstanding. Even though they're right
| about social media, it's definitely grandstanding. A cause
| being just doesn't mean people aren't grandstanding about it.
| This is grandstanding because it's a public stunt that is
| very unlikely to bear any fruit besides bolstering the
| reputation of the people doing it.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. you've much to learn on the tenaciousness of a highly
| focused legal team - which is core to this lawsuit.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Saying _".. you 've much to learn"_ isn't evidence or an
| explanation of anything. If you have something you can
| explain, go ahead.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Well, I earnestly do wish you luck. I hope you prove me a
| pessimist.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Has there ever been a non-specious charge of destroying
| society? How can social media destroy society when rock
| music, jazz, women wearing pants, pool, single mothers, and
| novels have already done so?
| raincom wrote:
| If the drug is distributed by, controlled by, the American
| govt using its tech companies, such a drug is fine. The
| moment, the control goes to Chinese, yes, it is a big NO :)
| shkkmo wrote:
| Two of the three companies being sued are based in the USA.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| I fully support this lawsuit, and I also fully support society
| taking a stand against algorithmic social media and platforms
| like YouTube. Moreover, I am saying this as a content creator
| myself who makes money!
|
| The effects of algorithms trained to make the mind addicted are
| too subtle and too powerful to leave it to individuals to make
| their own choices about a healthy level of social media use.
| Moreover, most people already agree that Facebook and YouTube are
| not really healthy.
|
| If implementing manipulative algorithms were restricted and made
| illegal with extremely heavy fines, it would improve all of
| society, and everyone would be happier except the executives of
| such companies and the people being paid outrageous salaries to
| make such platforms addictive. As a content creator, if the
| amount of money I made decreased a little, I would gladly accept
| that if it meant everyone else spent less time on the computer.
|
| I am sickened at tech companies. Although I love programming, and
| worked as a programmer, I have vowed to never contribute a single
| line of code that could support such practices, and I suggest all
| programmers to do the same!
| shaftoe wrote:
| "The effects of [X] are too subtle and too powerful to leave it
| to individuals to make their own choices about a healthy level
| of [X]. Moreover, most people already agree that [X] are not
| really healthy."
|
| I wholeheartedly disagree with the type of argument you are
| making.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-07 23:02 UTC)