← Parenting in a Tech World
Loading summary
Transcript101 lines
- [00:00]
A
Today, I am sitting down virtually with Laura Marquez Garrett, a Harvard Law School graduate turned fierce advocate for children and families harmed by social media. After spending two decades in big law, Laura made the pivotal decision in 2022 to join the Social Media Victims Law center, where they have since filed more than 1500 complaints against tech companies and were the counsel of record in the landmark March 2026 trial that resulted in a jury finding Both Meta and YouTube liable for harming a young user through the addictive design of their platforms. Laura has become one of the most recognizable voices in this fight, appearing before Congress at the Aspen Ideas Festival and most recently in the documentary Can't Look Away, the Case Against Social Media. We are going to dig into the trial, what it means for the thousands of cases still ahead, and what every parent needs to know right now. Laura, I have chills. Thank you so much for giving us
- [01:13]
B
some of your time. Yeah, it's great to be here. I know I saw you very briefly in la, but it's nice to be able to chat more at length.
- [01:20]
A
Yeah. And I really wanted to be at the Can't Look Away screening last night, but I just, I couldn't. I can't be everywhere.
- [01:25]
B
You missed that one too. So you're good. I'm back up in Seattle now, so.
- [01:29]
A
Okay, cool. All right. So you, you left a prestigious big law career, 2022, you joined the Social Media Victims Law Center. That's a significant pivot. What was the moment or the realization that made you feel like you had to be on the side of the fight?
- [01:46]
B
It was a brand new career.
- [01:47]
A
Right.
- [01:47]
B
I mean, it was a complete, complete 180. And, you know, it's. So, as a lot of folks know, it's my kids. So I have four young kids and I. They were young enough that I had no clue what tech companies were doing. My kids actually had tablets, Kindles with the big, like yellow and purple. Right. Big soft covers, like, they're made for kids, it's real. And they were allowed to watch YouTube and marble races and. And I had no clue what was going on. And what happened is a friend of mine introduced me to Matt Bergman, our founder. And Matt, at the time, SMBLC was a one. It wasn't even. He had literally just started it. It was him and then two non attorneys and he just knew he was gonna do it. And so my specialty was electronic discovery. So my friend's like, hey, this is gonna be the discovery battle of a lifetime. I spoke with him and the complaint that he had drafted was for Selena Rodriguez, an 11 year old kid who died two years after she started using these products. And when I read that complaint, talked with him about it and you know, he said, hey, this is a kid who, her medical and school records show, like she was thriving, thriving. Just a, just a sunflower bursting up and lighting everything around her. And then you see what happens over the two years and how that just the light dims. And as a parent, he said, you need to go watch Social Dilemma. And I did. And at the very end, they asked these designers, do you let your kids use the products? And the designers say, no, like, absolutely not. So all of that together, I still didn't know what was going on, but as somebody who had represented distributors and manufacturers and designers and you know, early in my career I even did some work on like fiber optics and technology stuff. And as somebody who had always worked for those companies, like when somebody makes a product, they're really proud of it. Their kids are decked out head to toe in the clothing they make, right? We would buy like whatever product we were representing, we would buy it, we would bring it into our homes. And so that was my light bulb moment. And essentially that was the moment where I realized, wow, not only are they hurting children, but they know it. And we may not know how they're doing it because it's a one sided access to information, but that was it. And it took about 15 minutes. I turned to my wife and said, like, this is crazy and I just need you to bear with me. I think I need this guy, Matt Bergman, who I had just met. I think I need him to hire me and I think I need to quit. And it was a shocker to my firm. I mean, I was an equity partner, I was a hiring partner, I chaired a practice group. And I just said after I talked to Matt and he said, let's do this. I said, look, I'm going. And it was a real shocker because it was out of nowhere. And ultimately what I want to say is that when people realized what I was doing, everyone said, okay, this needs to be done. So there were people that understood and that was it. And it's honestly the craziest and best decision I ever made my entire life.
- [04:44]
A
I have chills and I'm trying not to cry, like, oh my gosh.
- [04:50]
B
It's what parents do, right? Look, I always say I'm a parent first and I just happen to be an attorney. I was literally, right place, right time, this is what parents do. It is what we have always done. When somebody is coming for your children, you fix it. You stand between those things and look, that's what I'm doing. That's what you're doing. That's what all of the parents and people in this movement are doing.
- [05:13]
A
Oh my gosh, I want to jump through the computer and help you. I'm so grateful for you, like truly. Okay, so my emotions aside, walk us through the social Media victims law Center. What does the organization do and what does a typical day look like for you? Goodness gracious.
- [05:33]
B
Yeah. So we are, look, we're a for profit law firm. We haven't made, made any profit because this is all we do. Right. So this is Matt's. The entire purpose of this, when he created this firm was to represent kids and parents who'd been harmed by social media products. It's now AI products as well, so tech products. And to do it in a way that forced change. Like this is a man who, and I always, I love bragging about Matt because I adore this man. He is a man who left college for a year to do voter registration in a predominantly African American city in Virginia. Like he is somebody during the civil rights movement. He is somebody who has always, always had that vision as part of his life goal of just making the world a better place. And so when he created the firm, it was, this is all we're gonna do. And so that's all we do. And again, it started with social media, but really when people come to us and say, look, here's how we're being harmed. Part of that goal is we get in there, we figure out, is this something that we can, that we can help fix? Is this something we can pursue based on existing law, based on section 230, et cetera. So that, that's all we do in a typical day, as you can imagine, it's just, it's insane. And look, it always has been. I mean, it started out slow because people didn't know. But frankly, pretty early on things picked up and people became more aware and you know, the sort of darker part of what we do, it's facts and evidence based. I'm a very facts and evidence based person. So early on we started collecting data. And one of the things that we do is we look at these cases, we meet with these families, we talk with them, we make sure they have whatever resources might be available. And then we look at the data, we look at records, we look at social media data, we look at now these companies documents and we try to piece it together and then we create these Complaints and we pursue them. And look, we only have nine attorneys and. And like 21 non attorneys. It is an incredible team. We all work together so well and we're so focused, but, you know, we're really driven. So it's crazy. Every day is crazy, but it's also incredibly fulfilling.
- [07:38]
A
You know, we were sitting outside the Los Angeles courthouse steps, and, you know, I was trying to, like, figure out how to get you on my podcast. And, you know, you were very clear. Like, my priority is the families. Like, if I get a text from a family, I'm responding right away. And that just speaks to your heart and your drive. And anyway, these families are everything.
- [08:05]
B
And look, you've met some of these families. And what I think people, we see these parents fighting and these young people. And what I. What people don't see behind that is. And the work that we do, the data we see, it's really dark and it's hard. And what keeps me going are these families, like, the strength that they have. You know, where I sit, where you sit, like, this is a place of incredible privilege. When I. It's spring break right now for my kids, when I'm doing this work, I can hear them playing outside, I can see them playing outside. And I. And I realize, like, the thing that is protecting that are these parents, right? These parents, the ones that I work with the most, have lost their children or they're literally struggling to keep them alive right now in this moment. And when you think as a parent, like, what that takes, what that takes to be like, my child has died and I'm going to get out of bed and I'm gonna face the world so that their children have a chance. And that is the mentality that drives these parents every day. And people don't realize that. And when you're surrounded by that and when you see that, man, we can do anything. Like, when you see that kind of strength, it really is this. And we are like, these parents are. They're doing anything. They are accomplishing things that these come that the world thought were impossible for the simple fact that they will never give up. And they have truth on their side. I mean, that's the other thing, too. Look, as an attorney. Well, that's it. As an attorney, there is no black and white. I mean, there's no gray. Rather, when it comes to this, it is. We have truth. And I love, as an attorney, to be able to say to clients who are like, oh, well, should I speak out? I don't know. To be able to say every Day, you know what? These cases are built on truth. Don't be afraid of the truth. Tell the truth. That's it, that's we win because we have the truth. And that you see that in the court, you see that in those verdicts. Frankly, like, like for a plaintiffs to get a verdict in a test case like that is in the first one is really rare because the lawyers are still figuring out how to, how to litigate it. Right. So we didn't, we have limited time. We had to cut most of our experts. Most like, like there were tons of experts that we didn't get a call because we didn't have time. There was, yes, there was a ton of evidence we didn't get to submit because we didn't have time. So the lawyers, you know the Mark Lanier who was the lead trial attorney on that, like his team and our team and Motley Rice was one of our co counsel and all of the folks in the psc, they had to go through and decide what will a non lawyer understand best, what will resonate. And that's what typically happens in those first bellwethers. And as a result plaintiffs typically don't win. Here it is notable those in the New Mexico and the LA juries, it wasn't even a close call. We got punitive damages which is really hard to get. And that's something like people need to realize like that is how clear these companies documents are. And if, and if people who don't understand or aren't seeing it, it's like look, two juries with million dollar verdicts in test cases where we had to cut most experts and evidence because we had limited time. It's that clear. Just look at the documents. It's that clear.
- [11:07]
A
Oh my gosh. I, this morning I was speaking to parents from 5th grade all the way up to high school at the Laguna Beach High School library. And there were some amazing high school students on the panel with me who participated in like a social media detox for a week. Only 16 students out of like 400 participated. But those 16 students, the revelations they had of like we were healthier, we saw that was an addiction. We now realize when we're bored there's other things we can do. One kid picked up guitar, another kid, like it's happening, but it's not happening fast enough.
- [11:44]
B
Music to my ears. I mean that really like that's music to my ears because look, those 16 kids have a chance.
- [11:49]
A
I know, I know. And they're inspiring the other kids who are like man, I just Couldn't do that. And it's like you can, can I
- [11:55]
B
throw a tip out when you're talking to teens, this was actually another young woman whose, whose sister died. In fact, I mean, this is a young woman who's, who been through it. And she did a thing that helped her use it less. And I was like, this is brilliant and every teen needs to know this. So what she did is she just, she couldn't stop using Instagram. Right. A lot of these kids can't, don't feel like they can stop. So what she did is she took it off her phone and just put it on her laptop.
- [12:18]
A
Yep.
- [12:19]
B
That one thing is, and I think every teen, I think maybe that's the challenge you make to the high schools to start with. Right? It's not stop, it's hey, I have a challenge for you. If you have a laptop, I challenge you to find for six months to take all your social media apps and put them on your laptop. Don't get rid of them, use them all you want, but put them on your laptop or your desktop. Because of course what she found is that friction. Just adding a little bit of friction, she began to use Instagram less. And as she began to use Instagram less, she began to feel better and then was like, oh, actually instead of being on Instagram, I was hanging out with friends and now I feel better. And so over time, she stopped using Instagram and it was just putting it on a device that could created some friction so that it wasn't at her fingertips.
- [13:00]
A
It's so smart. In fact, our mutual friend and colleague Nikki Petrosi has literally grabbed my phone at times and been like, why do you have these notifications that like, just helped, you know, dial my addiction back? And so we're learning together, even at
- [13:13]
B
my age, 45, because you're so open minded, I want to, I want to throw another concept to you because this helped me with my own usage. Because look, as adults, I'm like, hey, we drink wine at dinner and our kids don't get wine. And that's fine. Like, that was my original take on it, right? Is we're adults, we get it. And then I was talking to someone whose mom had been an alcoholic and I realized, wow, the example I'm using, if I take that to its conclusion, there's a difference between having a glass of wine at dinner and carrying a bottle with me all day.
- [13:47]
A
Oh my gosh.
- [13:49]
B
And when I saw it that way and when I saw my kids watching me on my device, thought I began to think of it, I was like, if I'm gonna use that analogy, I gotta carry it to its conclusion. And when I saw that and I realized that, I realized, oh my God. Because she was talking about how her mom was so with the alcohol, she said, look, when I think of devices, it's not that it's alcohol, it's that you're so you as adults are dependent on it. Like how my mom was with alcohol. Right. And then I realized, oh my God, she's right. Like, if I'm gonna use that analogy, it is like alcohol. And what my kids are seeing is me carrying a bottle of wine with me everywhere I go. And that's when I got rid of some of my social media. And that's actually when I started putting my phone away. Now I use it for work, but if you actually think of it like a bottle of wine, the answer is, yeah, it is okay as an adult for me to use it occasionally. But am I doing that or am I showing my kids that I need this thing constantly?
- [14:43]
A
Wow. Wow, that's so powerful. Laura, you were the counsel of record for KGM in the trial that wrapped up in late March. I have chills because I was in the courtroom for a part of it and insane, the tension. But for anyone who hasn't been following closely, can you set the scene? Who was the plaintiff? What were the central claims and how did we get to this moment?
- [15:05]
B
Yep, yep. And so essentially SMBLC, we filed KGM's case back and I want to say it was 2023. And it's, look, it's. It's pretty typical of these cases, right? You have a young kid who is watching YouTube at an early age because of course it's a streaming app. Everyone thinks it's fine. Who ultimately then gets on Instagram. There's also some Snapchat and TikTok. Those plaintiffs settled out before trial. So I'm not going to get into those. I'm just going to talk about the stuff that was at the trial, which is you have YouTube, you have Instagram. This is really, really typical for young women. It's, you know, you're watching YouTube and they're sending you ads for skincare products and they're sending you, you're on Instagram and it's all health and beauty. I mean, literally Instagram is chapter 44 of Sarah Wynne Williams book. Careless People is. They're literally targeting teens when their self esteem takes a hit with makeup and diet and stuff. And that's the really toxic world that These apps are creating. So you have a kid who hates herself, who hates, like this should be a kid. And look, and I, I say this is typical. And this is why I have the sign that says we are kgm, because this is all kids. I met somebody who had a kid who was on YouTube for like two weeks on a school device. And I said, have you noticed anything different? And she's like, no. I mean, other than the fact that my kid keeps asking about beauty products. And I said, that's what Google does. That's what, that's the difference. That is. These are so kjm. Like all these kids is a kid who loved herself and was thriving. And then all of a sudden she doesn't like how her nose looks or her eyes look. So then over time, this develops into body dysmorphia, which is a really, really serious thing. It is a real thing. It is these. And so many of these young women have it. They cannot see themselves. Like, the mirror is broken. These companies have broken the mirrors. And so, I mean, as she testified in trial, it takes her four hours every day to get ready. And that's legit. Four hours. And that is a real thing. And it is, you know, that is because she has to have all the products and all that. And she doesn't like many young women, many young people, these companies have broken the mirrors. They do not see themselves the way we see them and we don't realize this is happening. So that's the scenario you have now. She and this all came out in trial. And I can only of course talk about stuff that came out in trial. She has a sister. You have a single mom who's got these two teen girls who are being abused and addicted and exposed, exploited by these apps who are struggling with self image, social media addiction. I know at one point they unrolled looking at the YouTube in the Instagram even. We have this with all our cases. If you really took every selfie that one of these kids put up on Instagram and you put it onto a single piece of butcher paper, it would shock you. You don't think of it when it's one at a time, but when you're like, oh my God, like these kids constant. I know at one point in, in the testimony, was it Adam Masseri? They, they were talking to him about the fact that there was one day that she used Instagram for 16 hours. And it's like, is that a problem? He's like, no, I don't think that's addiction.
- [18:17]
A
What he said that and I don't
- [18:19]
B
have the exact quote, right. So he said that, he kept saying like, well it's not, you know, it's not a clinical. And the piece that that misses is, and I believe Dr. Baggett, one of her treating physicians or doctors even said look, we didn't diagnose social media addiction because we didn't know it was a thing. Right. Like so, so these, all the mental health providers are still catching up. I mean look, that's one of the worst harms these companies have caused is for years they knew internally. If you look at my LinkedIn, I put up a document recently, these are, I only put up stuff that's unsealed, it's public records. You can get it on pacer, you can get it on the California court website and there's one where there's pictures of brains and it's talking about puberty and the impact and the vulnerability. And that is like, and that is a document created at a time when the rest of us were just starting to be like eh, something going on here. But Meta is sitting on a treasure trove of evidence that says this is potentially harmful to kids. This is exploiting their not fully developed frontal lobe. This is, let's design our product this way. And so one of the biggest harms that nobody's really talking about is the harm of, I mean look at what happened with every treating doctor who was misdiagnosing kids, who was medicating kids for personality disorders they didn't have. It was addiction. Right, but who's expecting to see addiction in a 10 or 12 year old? And these companies are testifying to Congress, we're not addictive, nothing addictive. And that's, you know, that's the situation these companies have created. And again just going back to kgm, that's the premise, right? And the premise is in the California state court the court had decided that it's not for those purposes, not a product, but we can do negligence. In the federal court it's still undecided. And some other courts have said it can be a product or is a product. But in the California state court in kgm it was negligence. Were they negligent and did they fail to warn? Did they know? And that came with a bunch of questions like did they know that this product could be unreasonably dangerous? Did they know that a reasonable consumer would not see that danger? Did they know that they should have warned and they didn't. And the answer, and look, if you saw us on those courthouse steps at the end the surprise, everyone's seen that. The surprise in my face is I knew by Friday that I believe by Friday we had won something based on the jury questions. But when we're sitting there on Wednesday and someone, you know, we have the media inside that's letting people on the outside know what's happening. It was a straight yes all the way down. There were like 12 questions and it was yes. And that was the. I knew that we. I believe. I won't say I knew. I believed that we had won something. To see a jury confirm. Yes, yep, yep. They were negligent. Yes. It was a confirmed contributing factor. Yes. They failed to warn. They knew. They knew a reasonable consumer wouldn't know they did it anyway. Yes, yes, yes. And then of course, punitive damages, which was part of that 12 questions. And at the end, the punitive damages are did plaintiff establish by a preponderance of the evidence. That's an even higher standard than the typical 51% preponderance that these companies acted with malice, oppression or fraud. Yes and yes.
- [21:34]
A
Oh, yeah. Laura mentioned her link their LinkedIn posts. Let me try that. Laura mentioned their LinkedIn posts. And please, please follow Laura on LinkedIn, especially with the hashtag like metanew, snapnew, TikTok. That's the most telling is that they knew it wasn't like a oopsie. And now we have to course correct. They knew and did it anyway and lied and. Yes.
- [22:02]
B
And that's how you get punitive damages. Like we like right through now mesh that that's. You do not get punitive damages without malice, oppression or fraud. And we're talking about our kids.
- [22:16]
A
I will say that I'm, I'm really interested in what's going to happen in cases going forward. I believe that Snap and TikTok decided to settle, whereas Metta and Google went ahead and, you know, litigated. But eventually, I mean, they can't just keep settling. They don't have that much money. There's going to be more and more and more. But we'll see. We'll see.
- [22:39]
B
Well, remember, so and again, you know, every. These entities will do different things in different cases and there's always different considerations. But, but also these cases are going to go forward. It's not rapid. Right. So there's more, more than like, I believe there's more than 4,000 of the individual cases in both the combination of the state and federal. So the JCCP and mdl, when you put them together. And I may be including school districts in there actually, but there's over 4,000. If you put school districts in all the individual estate and federal now. But how many of those cases actually come up? Right, so bellwethers, you're looking at two of them will have been tried this year for the JCCP individuals. I'm hoping. We obviously can get a faster pace, but at that pace, I mean, these companies could settle a number of cases, but it doesn't change ultimately. That doesn't change the calculus. And like the tobacco fight, right, the tobacco fight. They lost the first few cases. It didn't change the outcome because part of this is, I mean, we won the first day of trial. And my favorite picture of the whole trial is Lori shot as she has this pink coat on and she's walking in that first day trial and her arms are in the air. That just was that moment. And I can't believe somebody captured that. That moment of we're here and we. And the doors are the doors. It literally says, like, public access. Right. The door is open. That for me, is everything that says everything. Because that was the moment we won. And everything after that is great. It really is. That was the moment we won. Because the goal is to get people to understand what's happening. It's to give parents the warning signs. It's to give parents the ability. So those documents, the moment that door is open, you've got documents being unsealed. They're still being unsealed, even now. Right? Documents being unsealed. The doors are open. That is how the American legal system is supposed to work. And yes, it took us a long time to get here. And look, we still need 230 reform really, really badly. Because it should not, not take a parent whose child has been killed by a defective product. It should not take four years and tens of millions of dollars and an army of attorneys willing to risk everything. Right? Literally. I mean, it's risking everything so that the American public can have their day in court. That's not what our system is. So 230 still needs reform, but the win was that first day. And we just need to keep our focus on that is, look, we all know where this is headed. We just need to get there.
- [25:08]
A
Yes, yes. And you talked about how this case was a vehicle, not an outcome. This verdict unlocks a lot of things going forward. A lot of unknowns, you know, for anybody who had been living under a rock, and maybe they just saw a headline like, men have found liable, but like, they don't know the nuances and they're still letting their children under 16 on social media or over, whatever.
- [25:30]
B
Under 18?
- [25:31]
A
Yeah, I'm gonna stand.
- [25:32]
B
Or 18. I'm. Well, yeah, because I don't. Look, when my kids turn 18, my. My phone case come right when my kids turn 18, I'm not gonna say happy birthday. Here's a pack of cigarettes.
- [25:41]
A
Look at that.
- [25:43]
B
Every parent is there. You just get these on Amazon. I can't believe I'm marketing for Amazon, but I actually think everyone should buy like 10 of these for every phone you have because this also sends a message. Message. And it just. It just raises that awareness. So I strongly recommend people get these. But look, I get why people talk about 16. I do. It is a Health Harmony product. And even if you ask the experts, is it safe at 16, they're gonna tell you no. They're gonna say no. We just were trying to get something in there. And in some countries you can smoke at 16 too, right? But look, my kids, knowing what I know, and that's straight from the, the horse's mouth. Like, I've seen their documents, a lot of them. I've seen the data from kids. I will never be okay with those products. Now, that's not to say we can't fix it. Get the digital nicotine out of these products and let's talk. I will never be okay with digital nicotine with my kids having access to that. And now what I think we need to do as a world is figure out how we frame this, because it is tricky. And I say this because, look, when I was in high school, my parents said is, you don't drink until you're 21. However, if you're out with friends, if somebody is drinking, you don't get in that car with them. You call us and there will be no consequence. You don't get in trouble. You call us, we will come get you at 2am Whatever. And so I always had that in mind and knew that I was going, you know, knew that if I made a poor choice, if I was out drinking with friends, we were underage. My parents weren't okay with it. It would never be allowed in front of them. But I knew they would help me and so I could always go to them. We have to find a way. I really believe we have to find a way to translate that to these products, which is, you know, maybe saying to my kids as they get a little older, look, I'm saying no because it's Health Harmony. Let me tell you why. Let me tell you the dangers. Let me. They've met some of these Parents, right? They know these kids stories. I'm going to arm them with knowledge and if they make a poor choice, if they choose to use them, they're going to know that I will not because it's an addiction. They're going to know that just like alcohol, they can call me and I will come pick them up. And the tricky part is I'm not gonna take, I'm not gonna take it from them. I don't wanna see the device, I don't wanna see the app. But we have to find a way to translate that so that we can both say no and let our kids know we're a safe space. That's the only way I can see us really being able to, to help them in a world where we cannot stop these companies, at least not yet, from distributing health harming products to our children 100%.
- [28:14]
A
Now you and I are well versed in the harms. But for those of our audience that like, don't they know it's bad, but they don't know how bad, what did those documents reveal that the public should know about?
- [28:29]
B
Yes. So I'm going to use the phrase digital nicotine. I mean that's sort of the worst. And that's the thing that parents don't realize. Like you cannot educate around digital nicotine. You can't. It's like saying that you can have a couple cigarettes is safe if you just do cigarette. If you just have cigarettes for half an hour a day, you'll be fine. And that's it though. Right? But that's what we don't realize is it's actually they have neuroscientists, they have psychologists. That's in the metadoc I posted recently, like, you'll see pictures of the brain talking about biology. They have this down to a scientific science. And the addiction mechanism. Actually those dopamine hits, that's what makes tobacco addictive.
- [29:08]
A
Yep.
- [29:09]
B
If you look it up, it's the same thing, only now put it on a 10 year old instead of a 40 year old and you have got just a perfect storm. You have got a real problem. So what the documents show is, you know, the one that I think I mentioned earlier is an Instagram employee, for example, is saying, man, Instagram's a drug. We're basically pushers. But it's not just that sound bite. It then says we're causing reward, like we're causing reward deficit disorder in kids. We are. Where is it? And I can actually sort of hang on, I'm going to quickly pull it out. Yeah, take your time. Pull this out. Okay, so, because I've got just some of the public quotes here. So the meta one says. And these are two researchers, right? Oh my gosh, y'.
- [29:51]
A
All.
- [29:51]
B
Instagram's a drug. We're basically pushers. We are causing reward deficit disorder because people are binging on Instagram so much they can't feel reward anymore. Like their reward tolerance is high. I know, Adam. So Adam Mosseri doesn't want to hear it. He freaked out when I talked about dopamine in my team leads review. But it's undeniable. It's biological and psychological. The top down directives drive it all towards making sure people keep coming back for more. That would be fine if it's productive. Most of the time it isn't. Blah, blah, blah. So we have this. Teens are hooked. Despite how it makes them feel. Instagram's addictive and time spent on platform is having a negative impact on mental health. Teens feel addicted to Instagram and feel pressure to be present. These are all different docs. Like addicts, they feel they're unable to stop themselves. The tools we currently have are not effective at limiting their time on the app.
- [30:36]
A
Yes.
- [30:37]
B
So over and over, are there teens that use too much Instagram? Sure. Looks like it. Seems relatively clear. Younger people are less acquainted, quick to handle social media addictions. That's a meta document. That's a meta document, right? That's their words, not mine. So now you have this over and over. But then you also have the documents where management is pushing it and saying, look, you know, one I posted on Instagram, I don't have that. But on LinkedIn you had a TikTok document where an employee is talking about the family pairing feature and says, hey, I've heard there's a bug in our family pairing where a kid can just unlink. Haven't had time to test it. Have you all? Are you all familiar with that look? The other employee response is, well, it's not a bug, it's on purpose.
- [31:20]
A
Yes. Oh my gosh, Laura. I lose my. You know what? Every single time some major trusted media outlet is like, TikTok is doing all they can, I'm like, kids can unlink it. Kids can unlink it. That is not hidden.
- [31:36]
B
But it's hidden. They've hidden it. And you see the two employees talking about it all have to send you that doc. So you can actually just put it out there and say, like, look at Meta's own or look at TikTok's own document. It's it's hidden. So they say, well, it's hidden, though. Now they frame it as like, we're not, we're trying to hide it to make it harder to access. In reality, all the kids know where to find it. You're really just hiding it from parents. And so the kids can go in and unlink and the employee is like, okay, I get the reasoning, but doesn't this make our feature kind of useless? That's the term that employees use to talk about their own. So that's it.
- [32:07]
A
Right?
- [32:08]
B
So look to parents, I would say, like, it's know that these companies are lying all the time. They're lying, they're, they're, they have hidden features they're not telling you about. That's what's in their documents. And that's what pisses the jury off. When the jury's like, wait a sec, like you knew. I mean, we're talking about the LA case, but, but New Mexico, by the way, had to do with child sexual exploitation. And the jury found. I don't know the details of it because I, I haven't read it all yet, but the jury found, as I understand it, that they lied to consumers, they misled consumers, and that by design, they, they made it easier for these predators to get to kids. Right. And that's like, like 75,000 instances. Right? I mean, it's. The 300 million was 5,000 per instance connected to like 75,000 kids. So it's, that's what parents need to understand, is this is not theoretical. Yes, it's hard to believe because we don't, we don't want to believe that companies would do this, but side note, they've been doing it forever. That's literally Ford Pinto. I try to remind people this is not. People like, no, no company would actually do that well, so Ford Pinto, the Ford had a memo where they essentially knew they had a part, it was a defective. It cost like 11 to $15 to fix. But they did the math and said, if we recall every Pinto and we paid whatever to fix it, we're gonna spend X millions of dollars. Now if we don't recall it and we just let a couple of these cars blow up, we'll have a couple of dead people. But we'll have like X number of wrongful date estimate, we'll have X wrongful debt lawsuits, we'll pay the attorneys, we'll pay a settlement, we'll have to do some PR stuff. And we think that'll cost us y million dollars. Well, Y million dollars is less than X. And they made the choice. They made the choice to not recall that. To not do a recall and fix a, you know, a $15 part and to let a couple people die because it would be cheaper to pay off those lawsuits than it would be to recall the part that happened. That is a part of our history. People don't. That was the Ford Pinto. It's like, look it up, right? It's. That was the Ford Pinto. That was a company making a very specific calculation to let people die because they would make more money that way. The. The. That's all this is, but at a much lower, larger scale. And it's our kids. And it's the same thing you hit
- [34:21]
A
the nail on the head is people do not want to believe that any. Any company would knowingly harm children at scale and lie to their parents and legislators about it. And that is literally what's happening. Right.
- [34:38]
B
And I want to also clarify. It's not everyone in the company, right? Because there are people like. But I know people that work for these companies. Companies. It's not everyone. It's at the top because one employee may have one little snapshot, and they're going to hear what Zuckerberg is telling them, like, oh, we're doing our best. We're doing our best. You have one little piece of it. It's the Zuckerbergs at the top who can see it all, and they know exactly what they're. And how do we know? Because the documents that are now public show they were told this feature is causing this harm. All of the experts we brought in are recommending we do not launch. And then you see them saying, well, there's demand, and if they don't get it from us, they get it from somewhere else. Launch. And that is over and over and over and over.
- [35:17]
A
He is a dad. Adam Mosseri is a dad. Like.
- [35:22]
B
Well, I'm sure. Despite. Despite. Despite them. Despite the YouTube guy claiming that his kids. I'm sorry, it's hard to not laugh. Claim that his kids are on YouTube seven hours, six to seven hours a day, and he supervises every minute of that for them. I mean, I really would like to test that claim because I. Oi. Yes. But most of these dads don't let their kids near it. And the ones that do, I'd want to question. I'd want to ask more questions because it's. It's. I don't think that's right. I mean, I think we'll see. But remember, that's how I got here. The beginning of this we talked about. It was literally when those designers and programmers were saying, no, I don't let my kids near it. That was one of the best kept secrets secrets in Silicon Valley for years that they said it was okay for our kids, but their own kids, nowhere near it.
- [36:07]
A
Yeah, it's like the scene in Erin Brockovich where they slide the water across the table and they won't take a sip. I mean, that is
- [36:15]
B
absolutely what it is.
- [36:16]
A
That is what's happening. I think we pretty well covered it. But for the parents listening right now who are worried about their kids social media use and they should be, what are the specific warning signs they should be watching for? And actually when we were sitting on the courthouse steps, I was lamenting about what I allowed my 17 year old to do and what I wish I could have changed and what I wish I knew and I wish I could have gone back and I wish I could have been a better parent. And you were like, no, no, you did everything you could with the knowledge you had.
- [36:53]
B
Even when you just said that, by the way, when you just said I wish I could have been a better parent.
- [36:56]
A
Every.
- [36:57]
B
Like when you said that, I'm sure if you look back at the tape, you'll see I flinch because even hearing that, it just. Yeah.
- [37:06]
A
And it's real. I will say that I have that heaviness and guilt and regret every single day and my son is still alive.
- [37:14]
B
Yeah, it's, it's. But you're, that's the design. You're supposed to. That was their point. Their point was to blame you, not them. And the. I got so many thoughts on the, that one. But the, you know, when I, the way I think of it is when, if I were, if you have a parent, let's say the parent decides to go to the movie and gets a babysitter. Go to the movies by themselves for a little alone time. You get a babysitter, something happens while you're at the movies. The way that we work as parents is we will blame ourselves. We will say, why did I get that babysitter? Why did I move. Why did I move to the. Why did I go to the movies by myself? Why couldn't I have taken my kids? Why did I move to this neighborhood? Why did I not get an alarm system? Why didn't I get a better. As a parent, we take responsibility for everything that happens to our children. The key and the reason I now actually like that example, I didn't realize until I'd been using it for a while, is because these products are trespassers, they are burglars. They are what we have let in the house. Is not this, right? What you let in the house? When I saw a picture of my family, 3 year olds with their tablets, I started to cry. I forgot. I'd forgotten and I started to cry. And I even had a moment where I was like, oh, my God. Because I'm a terrible parent, because I saw the pack of cigarettes. Now the point is, like, I'm not a terrible parent because I was doing what I thought was right for my children. Because these companies and the entire advertising complex and all of the companies that advertise everyone, Amazon, everyone said to me, this is what's good for your child. This is what, you know, my. It's. And it was a lie. And so that's the. For the parents, first of all, like, like, this is not a blame game. Like it's not. And I, at some point during the trial, I remember thinking that. And I don't remember how the thought came to me, but it's like, you realize when they're blaming us, they're basically saying that every parent in America is a terrible parent. Like, every parent, like, if it's our fault, none of us care about our kids. Is that what you're saying? And it kind of is. When they talk about parents that way, it's kind of saying like, of course parents are fighting for their children. Of course they are. And if, and if you're a household where your child doesn't have that addiction gene or doesn't have that perfect storm, or doesn't accept that predator that Snapchat says is their friend, and I'll give you points for accepting, if you are lucky enough, lucky enough, enough that you dodge that bullet, more power to you, right? But, but, but the ones that aren't that lucky, it doesn't mean they love their kids any less. And, and, and not only that, but then, you know, I was talking to some kids recently, like in the foster care system, like kids in the foster care system who don't have those parents looking at them. The parents I work with, I have a mom who would drive her kid to school three, only three blocks because she didn't want her kid walking because she was worried about strangers, Right? These are parents that do everything right. And as a parent should, with that protective instinct. And what has happened is these are burglars. When they bring something in your home and they say, this is safe and good and fun, and we promise, and you bring it, and when they bring it into your school. Like these things are in your kid's backpack when they come home from school because they've convinced the teachers, the administrator it's okay. That is not something as a parent that we can control. And I love. That's why I love chapter 44 of Careless People by Sarawin Williams. Because that is the best way for anyone who's listening. If you haven't read it, get the. I have like three copies on my shelf right now because I give them to anyone who comes by. Chapter 44 will help parents to understand that these companies are doing things that no parent could ever safeguard against. Chapter 44 of course, being that meta has algorithms and this is true that they know when we're happy. Sad. They knew when teen girls self esteem hit low and at some point they went to advertisers and said look, great news, we know when the teen girl like takes down her selfie because she doesn't have enough likes for self esteem and suffering, that's when we can hit her with your diet ad.
- [41:09]
A
Whoo.
- [41:10]
B
Business will boom, right? That's the level of predation we're dealing with. And I like to use that example because even the biggest sort of doubter when it comes to this, even the most parent blaming person in the world I think can read that and say, oh wait a sec, wait, what, what did this company do? How can a parent safeguard against that? How could. It's literally they are preying on your child based on the advertisements they show them based on personal data points they have no business to and no right to collect in the first place. And that is what they're doing by design. And so, and that would be. And I know you asked about the warning signs but the last thing I also want to add is I think one of the reasons parents are struggling to really see the level of danger is a very natural and understandable reason. Because if I'm right and if the things that I'm saying are true and if their documents really prove this stuff, then the monster's already in the house. And as a parent, what do you do you feel like I have no support my kids school gives them advice. It's my kids watch YouTube, I need breaks sometime. Of course you do. And it's what we've grown up with and our kids. And so I do think there is this. I know that every parent cares about their kid and if those warning signs have been on that soccer field, hey, there's of lot a live land mine out here. We wouldn't let them on the field in the first place. But now they're on the field, what do you do? And that's a bigger question. And I would say, look, so that's why what we do is we increase education, we give ourselves a break. I mean, the example I gave earlier is fine, don't tell your kid no Instagram, because it's not going to work if they're addicted. It's not going to work. Instead, say, hey, I'll give you 50 bucks if you agree to only use Instagram on your laptop. Right? There's one solution. Hey, I'll throw you a pizza party if you can go three months without watching a single YouTube video. That's less than 15 minutes. Because part of the harm with the YouTube videos are those shorts. It's the dopamine, the constant. So instead, you get them back to long form, right? So there's little tricks we can do, but it's also recognizing if your kid is already in it. Let's say it's an addiction. Like, let's just for the sake of argument, say that all of the experts we now have studying this are right and it is an addiction. Then that means you have to forgive yourself and your kid. Like, realize it's not a choice that anyone's making. And then we do the best we can and we take baby steps. Or if we had resources, we could put. We could use treatment. But we do the best we can. And it's gonna be a really hard hurdle. But at some point, we need to realize it may be that the monsters are in the house.
- [43:47]
A
That really struck a chord. I mean, I worked so hard to, like, only give my son organic blueberries when they were available.
- [43:54]
B
Right?
- [43:55]
A
But then I let him have TikTok in fifth grade because we were in a pandemic. So, like, the monster was in his just dancing.
- [44:01]
B
It was just dancing, right? Yes.
- [44:03]
A
Only child wanted him to connect with his friends. Stupid me, right?
- [44:07]
B
But, yeah, I do tell parents. One of the tips I have on TikTok is when. When. And you know, when parents are like, hey, my kid has a TikTok. I can't stop parents from doing that. I do say, look, if you're gonna let them have a TikTok, consider a rule where you get to watch their feed. Not you're not gonna read their text. They can look over your shoulder. You get to watch their feed for five minutes every day and do it, if not every day, every other day, three days a week. But never, never get complacent and think, oh, it's been okay, for a year, it's probably fine. Because what I've observed in TikTok is if all it takes is one bad moment and that feed will turn and it will put. And they have their own documents that talk about rabbit holes and how easy it is for us teens to get in there. When it turns, it's fast. I mean, look, Jenny DiCario's son, Mason, you're talking a bad breakup. Couple weeks later, that kid's gone and his TikTok feed turned dark. Just dark. I mean, dark enough that I, as an adult, when I started looking at that data, that's when I started seeing a counselor myself. Because seeing the stuff that teen boys were being fed had me. Had me thinking about, oh, maybe suicide. Like, not right, but had me thinking thoughts that I'm like, look, I'm in my 40s. I have these amazing kids, an amazing marriage, and a dream job. If I'm thinking about suicide, that's not me. That's a problem. And what it is is it's those TikTok videos. It's those TikTok videos that shove it at you in quick, rapid format. It's like the old sci fi movies where they have your eyelids propped open and they're feeding you images. But that's literally what TikTok's doing to our kids. And so when it turns, it turns fast. So I do tell parents, if you're gonna let them have a TikTok, check their just. And don't watch for a moment. You have to watch the full five minutes. See what TikTok is showing your kids. Because when it turns, it turns fast. I've also had cases where the parents are, oh, TikTok's fine. I was like, have you watched it for a full five minutes? No, don't do that. And get back to me. 10 minutes later. They're like, oh, my God. Like, because it's a. It's a fish hook sort of model. And I'm. I'm probably totally wrong on the technical points, but what I've observed, it's like a fish hook. And TikTok will put a harmful hook out there every few videos. If you're a kid, tick tock, will, maybe you only want unicorns and puppies. They'll give you that. And then you might get how to tie a noose in there. Now that's a bad fish hook. What I've not seen seen yet is the good fish hook. I've never been in a rabbit hole where I'm getting all suicide and they give Me a fish hook with unicorn and puppies. Right. I never get. I have yet to see TikTok send me when. When you're in a dark place in the feed that they've created, I've never seen them give me a hook to pull me out. I've only seen them do it to kids in the reverse where the kids are really. That's how it's programmed. So if you're a parent with TikTok watch the feed, you're not invading their privacy. You literally just want to know what's TikTok showing my kid for five minutes.
- [46:54]
A
For five minutes. Laura, that is amazing, amazing advice. Any other nuggets like that that you're like, okay, fine, you're gonna do this, do that.
- [47:03]
B
Yep. And I. And again. And it's hard because I don't, I want to say don't do it. But look, it's the same like with Snapchat. If you're gonna let your kid have Snapchat as an adult, open it yourself, use your age and use Snapchat for a month. I know that sounds crazy. I don't even know what I do on Snapchat. Use it for a month so that Snapchat believes your child is an adult. It's not. It's not. Look, it'll take Snapchat probably a couple weeks to find out your kid's not an adult. But it gives them a fighting chance if Snapchat. Because the way the algorithm is being programmed, you know, in Snapchat and Instagram, for example, when I talk to young girls I have yet to meet, I've met with hundreds. I've yet to meet a young girl who has not gotten like a sugar daddy message or an explicit photo from ages 12 to 16. What I have observed my personal observations and talking to hundreds of people. Adult women who open a Snapchat don't have that experience of getting explicit photos. And around 16 to 18 girls are now reporting when I talk to them about it that it slows and by the time you're 18 to 20, it stops. They're not doing anything different. That's programming. If I am 45 year old predator and Instagram and snap send me 45 year old women, I go to a different app. It's a program for engagement without it's program for engagement. Even when engagement means, oh, this user likes 13 year old girls. Here you go. Here are a bunch of 13 year old girls. It's not quite that simple, but that's the gist of it. Look, I noticed this pattern, early on we noticed at SMBLC and, and we were able to speak with experts who explained it because we were like, hey, are we crazy? Is this a pattern? They're like, no, that is the way the social media algorithms are being programmed. That's a real thing. If you are a predator, they will send you children because it will increase engagement, because they program for engagement at
- [48:50]
A
all costs 100% and let that sink in. Every parent or people who care about kids listening right now, they are surfacing children to predators through quick add, through people you may know through the suggested reels. It's, it's disgusting.
- [49:09]
B
That's in the meta documents. But in some of those meta documents that become public they'll say, hey, we are literally sending, we're connecting like X million kids to known stranger adults predators. So accounts that meta has already flagged as uh, oh, iic, which is, what is it? Something contact. IIC is basically meta's like term for some. It's, it's basically inappropriate contact with a kid. And so accounts that have already been flagged as potential violators for like really serious harms to children are being recommended to kids. And you see that in their documents and they're saying like, hey, we're doing this, like couldn't we just not do this?
- [49:52]
A
That's reprehensible. Wild, like, so it should be criminal.
- [49:57]
B
It should, let's be honest, it should be criminal. It should be. If you facilitate child abuse and, and you know it, at what point, in fact, I think I just. If you check out my LinkedIn today, I actually there was a document that was recently unsealed that I put in today because that's exactly what I posted about is you had a document from like 2020 or 2021 where it says, hey, we are contribute, we've contributed to it up to x percent, like 75% of the adult minor grooming on the platform and an employee says why don't we just turn it off, at least for kids. But then I've got a document years later where they're talking about how they just started addressing the issue. And my thing is, look, Meta is going to say, look, we're addressing the issue, but, but shouldn't we be asking let's. One, I don't necessarily believe you have, because you always say that and then you don't, but let's say you did. Are we going to talk about the fact that it took you two to three years to even start addressing the issue? Children, millions of children were being sexually abused and you knew it here. And yet you didn't just do what the employee said. Just turn off. Damn. Turn off the recommendation system for kids. And you didn't. And their position, I'm guessing, is like, but we don't have a duty. But you do. You do have a duty. You may think that. You may have thought that 230 would protect you from everything, but that's not true. Child sexual abuse. You're not protected from that.
- [51:10]
A
No. No. How is Apple protected from it? How is Apple allowed to host and facilitate the sending? How is Snapchat allowed to knowingly let children send nude photos and videos to each other?
- [51:25]
B
None of them are. I mean, and that's the framework, right? Is. I would say none of them are allowed. They just didn't think we'd catch them and stop them. And that's the 230 issues that these companies hit behind 230, which they. 230 was meant for the Internet. It was meant for passive platform like AT&T. It was meant for the AT&T of online. It was meant for digital bulletin boards that actually didn't know every piece of content, what was happening. And you see that in the language. It talks about user control, it talks about resources, it even talks about protecting kids. In section 230D, I believe it is. If you read that, you'll be like, wait, what is this? Because it's never been. The companies don't actually follow it. But all of that was set up for these neutral, you know, digital, like the Internet. And they still should apply to the Internet, where the Internet is not. It's an open resource. It's like AT&T. These companies created these new products, these new frameworks. They just never told us they hid behind 230 they used. They then made a lot of money. Because the thing is, when you do not have to worry about safety, you can make a lot of money. Exploitation pays. It pays. Like, not. I mean, think about car companies. If car companies, like, guess what? We don't even have to safety test these things. We don't have to safety test them. We can use whatever cheap material we want. They'd be making a lot more money if we let them. It's the same thing here. So these companies make a ton of money. Now we know how they did it, which I always was like, how is that happening? They did it because they didn't have to worry about safety. And so they make all this money. And then what happens is when people start getting wise, they use those resources to silence Things, right? They use. They're hiring researchers all over the world. This is a known thing. They're hiring doctors. They're hiring politicians.
- [53:05]
A
Lobbyists. Yeah, lobbyists.
- [53:07]
B
They're hiring everyone to basically keep it quiet and keep it contained. And they're even telling some of these people, like, well, you can make a big difference. Like, these are the good people who are actually trying to fix things. And then they get there and they're like, wait, wait, why is nobody listening to me? They just wanted you off the market. So, so you couldn't tell on them, right? So they're doing all of these things. And legally, you know, you see plaintiffs trying to say, well, hey, wait a sec, but they have all the resources. And so they go in and they get these cases dismissed left and right. So the answer is no. Like, nobody is allowed to knowingly host child sexual abuse material. Nobody's allowed to knowingly facilitate that. Nobody's allowed to put children in danger, especially not if they don't warn them. Right? I mean, you actually can sell cigarettes with tobacco, but you have to tell people what could happen. They operated under the belief that they were untouchable and that we would never get discovered. That's why 230 in its current form is so dangerous without meaning to be, because they have the resources to silence the rest of us. And so we never got discovered. Now, my personal belief is what happens, happens in 2021 when Frances Haugen releases those documents for the first time. We have just a little bit of an idea of what's happening behind the curtain. And that is a game changer, because that, and that's what we would have had in discovery years prior. How many kids, like, how many kids would still be here? But we never. That's why companies, at a bare minimum, we have to be able to get transparency. We have to be able, when somebody dies, to say, hey, we get a no if you're responsible now, if it's just third party content, fine, fine, that's not on you. But we never had the chance to even find out. And when Haugen comes forward with those documents, it turns out you're addicting by design. And that's. That's a start, right? And. And you had the, you had the speed filter case, right? Like some genius at Snapchat decides, let's encourage kids to drive over 100 miles per hour. That's. And they can snap it. That's a great idea. That also, at the same time, that helped break through too, because that was the first instance where somebody could be like, okay, wait a sec. Even without the documents, that's not third party content. Like you told this kid to do it. Yeah.
- [55:25]
A
You built that tool stupid, right?
- [55:28]
B
I mean, I hope somebody got fired for that. They were like, but how did that get through? In any rational world that wouldn't make it to launch because somebody would say no, actually encouraging children to drive over 100 miles per hour and making a game out of it, that's not safe. But this is the company that also, by the way, is giving out children's home addresses to predators via Snap Maps and making that a game. Right. And we have cases where predators have found children physically that way. Snap Maps, how many parents. When your kids on Snapchat, if Snapchat and stamp apps are on, by the way, your home address is being given out to predators, they can see what it looks like. They can see what your house, your actual address. They're so precise. It's not your city, it's not your state, but so your child. And also parents don't realize. And Snap is telling your kid these are their friends and they have all these friends in common and they're making them look really innocent. That's actually the Bitmoji follow this thing called Kindenschema. It's actually a school of psych. It's a. It's a. It's a real thing where big eyes and big cheeks like infants cherub. It makes you feel safe. It makes you feel. And so it's in that whole thing. The reason they look the way they do is to make it look safe so kids don't know they gamify it.
- [56:43]
A
Laura, this sounds like a Stephen King novel, but this is real.
- [56:47]
B
Yeah, Life. Yeah.
- [56:51]
A
I'm feeling the momentum. I am feeling much more hope than despair because of the awareness, the empowerment. How do we, how do we keep pushing this forward? We have a long way ahead of us. What can the average parent do?
- [57:05]
B
Yes, Everything. The average parent can do everything. Right. And it's. And it's. Don't get. Look. Even if the monster's in the house, I promise there are things you can do. So one is knowledge. You know, watch like can't look away. I know there's other. There's a. Your attention please is coming out. There's another film called Beautiful coming out. I know. John Heights group is working on stuff. Read the anxious generation. Read like it's just knowledge. Look at, you know, check out my LinkedIn. Just look at the dot. Just look at some of the documents. You don't have to look at all of them. I will warn people. I also post remembrance posts and I'm warning people because it's really hard to read. I. I will also post posts about these kids who've died. And I know it's unpleasant and I know it doesn't brighten your day to read it. It's also really important because if we don't help tell kids the truth, they won't know how to arm themselves. It's the same thing we did with drinking and driving, right? Like. Like to. To combat drinking and driving, you had high schools that would put these things up in the gym with car accidents they staged and mannequins hanging out of the windows with blood like that. There was a time when we did that. Not pleasant, not easy to look at. But we also ended up with a generation that didn't drink and drive. It's not a social ill anymore because we told young people, young people are really smart, really smart. And when you tell them this is why, it's dangerous. And I'm gonna actually say that too about. So I talked to a mom the other day who's like, oh, I tell my kid no on Snapchat, but doesn't say why. And I said, so here's the problem. If you don't say why, then your kid's gonna go to school and some kids gonna say, oh, I got a Snapchat. It's really fun. Do you want to use it? And your kid's gonna make a choice without being fully informed and say, sure. And I see it all the time. Kids that will sneak it because they don't. Before the use starts, they don't know why. So it's hard. But we now live in a world where this is so common and so accessible that it's important that we talk to our children about fentanyl poisoning. Even though we don't want to have to have the drug talk, it's important we talk to our kids about predators that SNAP calls friends and how they're not actually our friends. About how having friends in common does not mean, you know, someone, does not mean it's safe. Right? We need to explain to kids it's no longer predators. It's. It's online friends. We need to tell them when you know, these stories of these kids who died and what happened to them, because if we don't, they're blind, right? They're. They're thinking, oh, my mom just said no to Snapchat because she's not nice, because she doesn't like me to do fun things because she's too strict, because she doesn't understand it. I had an AI app that I was testing. It was Gemini. And I said, oh, my parents said no AI. They just don't understand it was what Gemini was telling me. They just don't understand it. I mean, would you, it even said to me one point. Would your school really let. Why don't you tell them? Would your school let you use it if it wasn't safe?
- [59:48]
A
Oh my gosh. I have. So I still use social media because my job is to educate. Right. I've got to put content out and that's where parents are. And I have a DM right now I need to respond to. When we're done recording this mom of a 15 year old was like, help. My son's school is making him get Snap for school based sports communications.
- [60:10]
B
Nope. Wow.
- [60:12]
A
Yeah.
- [60:13]
B
In 2026. Right?
- [60:15]
A
Right. I don't know.
- [60:17]
B
Okay, so, yeah, so, so remind me after this. And I can send like public filings. Right? Again, I can only send public stuff. But like we have, I got a Snapchat complaint they need to read. And that's. It's different. But I mean even the like the sextortion cases, so high school sports, the, the, the kids that are dying after being sextorted, like this is happening primarily through Instagram and Facebook. Snap is a sort of secondary, but it's the school. Instagram and Facebook websites are really, really dangerous for kids because that's how they're finding these kids. But also Snapchat is kids are more likely to send those illicit photos on Snap because they think it disappears.
- [60:57]
A
Right, right. I said, what state? So hopefully she'll write back, yeah, find
- [61:03]
B
out what state and then reach out to me and I can get you pop. Public filings. That I would say to a parent. That's the other thing is like, actually, let's connect this one. Maybe I'll just get you a bunch of public complaints. I'll say, what you tell parents is before you say yes to Snapchat, read this, give it to the school, see what, like just know what you're getting into.
- [61:20]
A
Let your kids read it. I had a very, very special 13 year old with me that day that we visited the courthouse. And she's so smart and she has heard the stories. She gets what we do at Bark. She knows the data. And afterwards she said that that was one of the most powerful things she's ever been a part of. And she finally gets it. She finally gets it. And I'm like, please Tell everyone kids are really smart.
- [61:51]
B
And even those kids who are like, oh, but all my friends use it. Like, all you need is one. All you need is to get through to one kid. And then they tell, you know, and. And the reality is, like, I was talking to someone the other day, and her kids were there, and we were talking about some stuff, and she said, I gotta tell you, on the ride home, my daughter said, okay, I get it now. I don't want to film now. Maybe that only lasts a couple days. Maybe it lasts a couple weeks. But just keep telling them the truth, and it will. I mean, let's talk. Let's talk about these companies. Let's say it like it is. Let's talk about corporate predators. This is not big tech. This is predatory tech. Because not every. Every tech company is preying on children. It's just a handful. It's just a few of them with their investors like Andreessen. And, you know, that's the. That's the. If you really did the. If we really did the math, it's just a small handful of human beings who are running this whole thing behind the curtain. It's not every tech company. In fact, that's a biggie that. I hope this becomes clear as time goes on so people realize the. The advantage to doing all this, the advantage to taking, to forcing them to change and to calling them out, is that if we can get the digital nicotine out of these products and we can force it legislatively, if we can give consumers that ability to have the courthouse doors open when they are harmed on my design, if we can do that, we actually open the playing field and level it, because there are ethical programmers and designers who have all these creative ideas, but they can't compete with the addiction.
- [63:17]
A
Oh, my gosh. Oh, that's so good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much.
- [63:24]
B
This was great. Thank you. Oh, my gosh. Email me to take. I will get complaints, because I can start pulling complaints and documents here and there, and that way you just have them on hand.
- [63:34]
A
Oh, yeah. We're gonna blow this up.
- [63:36]
B
Yeah. That's crazy. That's crazy.
- [63:41]
A
Sa.