← Healthy Screen Habits Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:03]
A
Typically at Healthy Screen Habits, we stay away from kind of keeping up with the latest news and doing all of that stuff. There are several other podcasts and platforms that do a much better job of that. I had a unique opportunity this week to talk to Juliana Arnold. And Juliana has been attending the court case that has been going on in downtown LA against the big tech companies, the social media companies. And the conversation that we had, I think is kind of enlightening to see just what parents of online harm, you know, surviving parents of kids who have suffered online harms have been up against. So this is part one of a two part conversation. This week I'm talking to Juliana. Next week we'll be hearing from both Juliana Arnold and Don Weibel on the work that the online harms prevention group at Fair Play is doing. But I think you'll benefit from hearing just, you know, how how Big Tech is coming to have to answer for some of their addictive designs in the following episod. Today I am doing something a little bit different. If you're familiar with Healthy Screen Habits, you know that we are located in Southern California and to have something that is happening on our doorstep that it's so important it's difficult not to highlight it. And this is just. I would like to kind of do a brief catch up on what has been going on in Los Angeles at the landmark trial over whether tech companies like Instagram and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly promoting a harmful product and addicting users to their platforms. There are many of the families who have paid the greatest price, and they are the ones that are, you see, with the signs supporting demonstrators and providing faces to the deadly consequences of these platforms. And a lot of them are voices that you've heard here. So today I'm joined by Juliana Arnold, a parent who is marching the front line. And Juliana, can you tell us about your connection to this issue, especially as Coco's mom?
- [02:45]
B
Sure. Well, obviously, like, none of us really, you know, thought we'd be in this position ever, or that we would become advocates or activists or whatever you want to call us. But we are. And so I got involved in this, obviously, because I lost my daughter Coco in 2022. She was just a couple weeks after her 17th birthday when she was approached unsolicited by a man on Instagram who befriended her and pretended to be like a big brother friend and got her trust. He groomed her, lured her to meet him, said he had a Percocet, something that was good for anxiety and she made a bad decision and she left the house that morning at, like, 11 o', clock, saying she was going thrifting with her friend, and she never came home. Whatever she was given, the pill was not. Not Percocet. It was Fentanyl. And. And she died from fentanyl poisoning. So that brought me to try to figure out what I wanted to do, you know, like, my whole world was completely, like, blown up, and I really didn't know what would have meaning for me after that. And all I knew, though, is I was so angry about so many things. But the thing that always had, like, really angered me was, like, watching what was going on online, both with the way that it becomes so addictive to my daughter. And I thought for, like, certain types of kids that are vulnerable, whether that means they have, you know, something like ADD or a learning disorder or something, not that it doesn't affect, you know, other kids because they're all vulnerable, but really, it really hooks these kids because it's like they found their place or they can get that constant, you know, dopamine rush, and everything's new and everything's fun, and it's just very easy for them to kind of fall into that trap. And that's what we saw. And also, I saw what was going on, especially on Snapchat with, you know, a lot of the drug stuff, because Coco had tried marijuana. And as soon as that happened, I saw a flood of dealers come in with ads and videos, and I was constantly reporting them. And I basically cut down her Snapchat time to, like, two minutes to say hello to friends, and that was it. So I was monitoring things. But as we all know, I mean, it's like, whack a mole, you can't keep track. Maybe they have more than one account. You know, they're better at this than we are. And I did the best I could, but it was so frustrating. And I kept on thinking, like, if I'm feeling this way, you know, then what are other families feeling that maybe don't have access to the resources? I mean, like, maybe education or the language or, you know, know, not just financial, you know, and it really concerned me. And then I met a fellow survivor mom, Deb Schmil, who we had a mutual friend, and dad's like, hey, come on, like, join us. It was just kind of. It was like. I think it was late, late 2002, and I got involved with the online harms prevention group and then started learning about this. And before I knew it, we were taking a trip to D.C. to advocate for the Kids Online Safety Act. And then from there it was just like natural, like it would just kind of flow that I knew I was in the right place, doing the right thing, even if I didn't want to be in this group.
- [06:21]
A
Right.
- [06:22]
B
I knew that if I was going to advocate and wanted to do something meaningful, this is what it was going to be.
- [06:30]
A
Yeah, yeah. And it was right in your backyard. I mean, you mentioned dc, which is of course the. The place where you think to go for federal legislation. But why was downtown LA chosen as the location for this case?
- [06:48]
B
Well, California does have, you know, a reputation in their superior courts to being more open to a lot of these issues, you know, so I think there maybe had been. But what this case is, is really a case is just. It's just basically the cases that are involved in this are from California and it's hard. The JCCP versus the MDL is a different. Their typist. They're not a class action. They're like a group lawsuit where you have one plaintiff. And so we're not the plaintiff in this case. There's, you know, one plaintiff and then there's the rest of the group, which we have like almost a couple thousand cases. But this, she's been chosen as the bellwether case. So that bellwether case will get decided alone, totally separate from us. But that would then inform what was going to happen with the rest of the cases that are in that JCCP group.
- [07:47]
A
Okay. So that would act as the precedent case.
- [07:51]
B
So what I heard, I mean, I'm not. I'm not an attorney, obviously, and I probably can't explain it as well as other people, but under my understanding, because the MDL is a national case and the JCCP is state by state, so it's a state case. So. But both of the cases that. The first two that are the two bellwether cases that are going to be heard this, you know, spring and summer one is a JCCP that's here down in Los Angeles.
- [08:21]
A
What does JCCP stand for? Do you know?
- [08:23]
B
I should. I like. Yeah, let me look it up. I'm so bad I should know this. Oh, like, ridiculous that I don't know this. I do know it, but I can't remember it.
- [08:31]
A
Oh, that's a whole other thing. Clearly I don't know it. So that's why I'm having to ask.
- [08:36]
B
Okay, so JCCP is a judicial council coordinated proceeding. It's a legal mechanism that consolidates multiple civil cases involving common questions of law or fact into one superior court for Efficiency. It's used for complex litigation like mass torts, wildfires, or class actions.
- [08:58]
A
Okay. And it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the judge in la, it was the. The previous case, he kind of put a pin in it and said, this is not a Section 230 issue. This is a product safety issue.
- [09:24]
B
Exactly right?
- [09:25]
A
Am I right?
- [09:25]
B
No, no. It's like all taking the. I mean, the approach that they've taken because most of the cases that have even tried to go and get, you know, move forward immediately, get, you know, sent out of court, don't even make it there because of 230. So the social media companies will plead, you know, 230. So therefore, they don't have any liability for any content, as, you know, on their platform. So, yeah, sorry, you can't sue us. And like, with that case, I know that judge was like, I'm not really sure that that's really the case. You know, and that's the Neville versus Snapchat. Right. And then this lawyer, Carolyn Kuhl, she also was very open to wanting to hear this case. So at every moment, you know, the tech companies were trying to find a way out of this, right? Trying to, like, play every card they had. And she just repetitively said, no. Like, I mean, this is a product liability case. I'm to hear it as a product liability case. This is not a content case. This is about the way that they design their platforms. And that's how it's been, you know, carried out in. In court. Because anything that comes, like, up about content, you know, they're like, okay, that's 2:30. We're not talking about content. So it's really not focused on content, which, of course is difficult to, like, you know, maneuver, but that's what they've been doing. And it's solely about the design of the platforms and that these companies knew the harm that their platforms are causing, but intentionally designed them to be addictive so they could increase their viewership among young users and then increase their profitability because they've monetized their platforms by the number of eyeballs they have, so they can sell that to advertisers. And hence, that's where the profit's coming from. So. So that's kind of been the difference. And I guess maybe in California, they found judges that are more open to hearing these cases. So this case, that, the Neville case, is now in discovery as well. But those are some of the first ones that have been able to go to Discovery. And that's what's so meaningful is just because when they go to discovery, these companies will try to fight back and not produce documentation like internal documents, but they've been forced to because she's been very much like, no, let's, let's. We got to see what we got to see. We've got to, like, you've got to act. There's. You don't get any special preference. And so she's been really amazing and just wanting to hear this case in. In an unbiased way, but also not taking in 230 words. The plaintiff has no case whatsoever.
- [12:12]
A
Right.
- [12:12]
B
So, so now all this information's coming out, which is crazy because it's like a lot of the anecdotal information that survivor parents and other parents that kids have been harmed on the platforms have been talk, but it's really providing the internal documentation that is really starting to show that this, in fact, was an intentional design feature and that up to the highest level. And, you know, and there's just never been anything to stop them because they have signed full immunity behind 230. So.
- [12:50]
A
Right.
- [12:51]
B
It's a unique approach to take on a private product liability versus just a, you know, content, you know.
- [13:00]
A
Right.
- [13:01]
B
Approach.
- [13:02]
A
Right. So just to bring everybody up in case you're not familiar with what Section 230 is, for years, like Juliana has said, for years, social media companies disputed allegations that they harm children's mental health through these deliberate design choices to addict kids to the platforms and fail to protect them from predators and dangerous content. Despite the reports from inside whistleblowers, I. E. Francis Haan and many others who have come forward since then. You can go back and listen to Francis's interview with me earlier in an earlier season. And families who, quite frankly, have lived and know the difference. And social media platforms continue to hide behind this Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency act, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms. So it's called. It's also referred to as like, the blackboard rule because it treats online platforms like a public chalkboard or a bulletin board rather than, say, like a newspaper editor. It establishes that these platforms are just intermediaries. They're not publishers. They're not legally liable for content written by third parties. So, like, if anything, if there's a blackboard in a coffee shop and somebody writes something illegal on it, the owner isn't liable for that message. And that's what big tech has been hiding behind. And that's why this product, like. Like the twist in it being product, not content, is so key. Juliana, is there. Were there any aha moments or turning points for you? I know Mark Zuckerberg came up and spoke and I. My heart is heavy for you. Like, were there any things?
- [15:20]
B
I mean, it felt like. I mean, I was sitting there. So the first week, they didn't have a lottery system. They had first come, first served. And so that Monday, when, you know, we were together, the opening statements, it was not first come, first serve, but it wasn't as crowded. So we were able to get in. We got there very early in like the very early morning, I'd say like 4 o' clock in the morning. And we were able to like, go in line. It was very calm and we were able to get in. And then we were not there on Tuesday. And the word on the street was that whether it was true or not, that the tech companies had gotten placeholders, like people to come and stand in line so other people would not get the seats because there's only 15 seats in this. At the beginning it was 12, and now it's like extended to 15. So it's a very limited number of seats.
- [16:12]
A
Oh, I had no idea.
- [16:14]
B
So we had survivor parents in town for a couple of weeks. They kind of shifted in and out. But yeah, we had survivor parents. So. So we decided, because we had heard that there the court had started talking about going through a lottery, you know, system, which would mean it's like luck of the draw. Like, it doesn't make a difference how early you get there. So when we knew that Adam Mosseri was testifying on that, this was two weeks ago, Wednesday, we decided like the night before, like, okay, well, we really, really, really felt strongly that the first thing he saw was a whole row of survivor parents just present. And in order to do that, it turned out that we really, we got hotels downtown. We were planning on going there maybe at two, but when we drove by, we saw a couple people there. So we're like, oh, we're going now. So Basically it was 11:11. Lori shot, ran up. We were like, we got it. Like, we're here and thank good. And I don't think we would have got in, but that next morning when Adam Mosseri testified, we were the front row. And he was looking at, you know, 12 survivor parents. And I think he knew exactly who he was looking at. Like, it felt palpable, that he understood. So we wanted to send that message that we're not going to be so easily distracted. I should Say, and so that was fantastic. I think that really, even though it was hard and we were tired, and it really kind of gave us a sense of, like, power, I think that we can fight back and we're not going to back down, which was. Which was good. Now, his testimony didn't really give us much to go by. I mean, they've all been very coached and trained to answer these questions in a way where they're not purging themselves, but they're not really answering the questions. And we're finding that with every executive that's been, you know, on the stand, that they all have a way of, like, not lying, quote, unquote. Right. But not also telling the truth. And so these documents are put in front of them, and quite often they were compared to maybe a testimony that they did at a congressional hearing, especially with Mosseri and Zuckerberg. Right. Because they referenced a lot with Zuckerberg, the January 2024 hearing in which he was forced to apologize to the survivor parents. And we actually all were there with our, you know, photos of our kids, and they just managed to skirt the issues. I mean, it was obvious, in my opinion, you know, what they were doing. It seemed very like, okay, this is what you guys always do. You come out with some, like, after they get busted for something or something comes out that's negative the next day, there's always some big press release or some new safety product, or Adam Mosseri is on, you know, the Today show, talking about, you know, Instagram teens. And, you know, so it was more of the same, which. Which I don't know if I expected anything differently. But what is out there now are these documents that they can't refute, that they exist. So they're still there, and they're going to keep on. There's, like, thousands of more that are being released just this week and with every trial, because there'll be, I think, eight bellwether trials in the next two years, more and more documentation is going to get released. And so that's kind of our hope, is that as parents and legislators start to see more and more of what really the inner workings were going on in these companies, that they're not going to be able to, A, take money from these companies or B, work with them in a, you know, a compatible way. But also they're just going to have to, you know, put their foot down and do their jobs, which is, you know, put guardrails on these companies so we can keep our kids safe and force them to design products that, you know, are not deadly or harmful, you know, to our kids.
- [20:41]
A
Thank you for doing the hard work, for showing up day after day. Oh, no.
- [20:46]
B
It's actually quite fascinating. I mean, I was so totally. I mean, talk about addicting. I was like, oh, my God, I was totally hooked. Yeah. Like, I was like. Because also, the litigator for the plaintiff is so he. He was trained as a pastor, and he's from Texas. He just presents everything in a way. He's telling a story, and he. He. He very much understands that different people learn in different ways. So some it's auditory, some it's visual, you know, so some of it's tactical. So he uses all these different styles to get the message across and really has a. An amazing way to make something that's probably pretty complicated, pretty simple.
- [21:32]
A
Oh, that's a gift, right?
- [21:35]
B
Oh, my God.
- [21:35]
A
So, like, the complex and making it understandable, that is.
- [21:39]
B
And he does it. He's such a, like, great delivery, too. Like, you just want to listen to him. So I think it's been fascinating to see him at work, you know, and taking these difficult issues. And, you know, you really got to think about how you're going to approach this, because it's like a fine line to not go into content. You know, it's really like, you have to keep it really narrow. And even today, something came up about bullying and stuff, and that's really content. You know what I mean? So it's like, you got to steer away from that. Even though we know we have a huge issue, you know, with a lot, especially the illegal content that's on these platforms, which they're not doing anything about.
- [22:23]
A
Join us next week as I continue the conversation with Juliana Arnold. And we're joined by Don Weibel, who is a co leader of the online Harms Prevention work group at Fairplay and a tool they have created within their work group to help families who are concerned about any one of a variety of topics of online harms. Thanks so much for spending your time with us today, and we'll meet again next week.