WINNIPEG – Parent Jocelyne Lalonde does not allow her kids to use social media, saying she is concerned about the impacts it could have on her children. “Social media is not an option in our home,” said the mother of three. Instead, Lalonde has conversations with her kids, who are between the ages of nine and 11, talking about media literacy and the importance of being aware of everything online. “I’ll take the opportunity to sit down with the kiddos and be like, ‘Hey, let’s look at this. Like, what kind of message do we think that this is trying to convey to us, or what they’re trying to sell to us? What is it trying to convince us?” she said. “We have lots of conversations about it in the house, but the kids are not allowed to use it, which is in contrast to a lot of their peers.” Lalonde says she has many reasons for her decision. “If they are taking in short-form video, like social media or even YouTube Shorts, then it makes other things in life boring, right?” she said. “If they’re on social media, what are they not doing? What are they not participating in?” Her concerns echo the questions now being asked at the heart of the Meta trial in the United States, and the growing debate on how social media may be affecting children and teens. A bipartisan group of 29 U.S. states is suing Meta over claims Instagram and Facebook were designed in ways that harm the mental health of young users. ‘Pretty serious claims’: professor The trial will examine claims from the four lead states that Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and teenagers, contributing to harms including anxiety, depression, and suicide. “These are some pretty serious claims,” said Vivek Krishnamurthy, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School. “Meta tried every sort of legal theory that it could to get the case dismissed before trial, and those were basically unavailing, so, there’s a great deal of peril for Meta.” Krishnamurthy says if Meta had “a watertight case,” it would have either been resolved or disposed of. “The fact that it’s going to trial, it means the judge presiding over this case has found that there are some factual disputes, and the real facts basically need to be determined by a jury,” he said. Meta has denied the claims and is expected to tell the jury in the trial that the company made efforts to keep kids safe online. Jurors are expected to deliver an advisory verdict, while U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately determine whether Meta is liable. If she finds the company responsible, Rogers could impose civil penalties and order changes to Facebook and Instagram. How the case could impact Canada “This is the reckoning that opponents of social media have been waiting for for years,” said tech analyst Carmi Levy. “This is a bellwether for the entire social media industry. This is a bellwether for us here in Canada, as well.” The case comes as Canada’s federal and provincial governments consider their own measures to limit young people’s access to social media. Back in April, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew announced his government’s plan to roll out a ban for youth on social media and artificial intelligence chatbot platforms, preventing children under 16 from using these sites. At the beginning of June, Ottawa introduced the Safe Social Media Act, or Bill C-34, which would require social media companies, such as Meta, to block users under the age of 16 from having accounts. If passed, the act would be enforced by a new Digital Safety Commission, and social media companies that fail to comply could face fines of up to $10 million. Levy says the trial in the United States could reshape the entire social media landscape. “We already have lawsuits filed by Ontario school boards against social media companies, including $4.5 billion over alleged addiction of kids, and the downstream cost of that addiction,” he said. “How the legal processes and cases that are currently in play in Canada will play out, well, largely depends on the precedent that’s set in this American case.” “There is a legal case that could finally take the company to task,” he added. “This is the payment for 20 years of essentially operating without rules. The company has been able to designate or define what those rules are and now, there’s a price to be paid.” With files from Reuters
