Yes: censorship is prohibited, at least outside of specific narrow circumstances. Advertising regulations specifically regulate advertising products. Neither of these translate into regulating what can and cannot be said on social media, outside of narrow cases like promotional or sponsored content.
Who said this had to do with censorship of content? The issue with social media is algorithms have been fine tuned to incite FOMO, narcissism, self-esteem issues, etc., and keep people addicted/endlessly scrolling.
The above commenter mentioned censorship. Regardless, the usage of algorithms doesn't mean there's a different set of rules the government can use to regulate it. The incentives you mentioned aren't limited to social media. Traditional media also has these same incentives, and tunes their headlines to be more sensational and attention grabbing. For example: https://blog.tjcx.me/p/new-york-times-ab-testing HN discussion at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26419070
No idea what you're saying. The NYT A/B testing headlines is not something that impacts teen mental health in the same way that social media impacts mental health.
We're talking about two different things. You're focused on the legality of this lawsuit. The only thing I'm pointing out is that it isn't very difficult to believe social media has a negative impact on mental health in its current form and is likely the source of teen self-esteem issues, body image issues, and inability to concentrate.
"it isn't very difficult to believe..." is an incredibly weak statement. People believe all sorts of demonstrably false things. I expect much more robust argument than assumptions and speculation. The actual study [1] that kicked off this moral panic, in fact, found that Instagram was more likely to make people feel better than feel worse - despite most media outlets claims the opposite.
Why are you unironically using data from FB themselves?
I wasn't presenting myself as a subject matter expert. I'm speaking as an individual who has lived through the evolution of social media and can see how and why Instagram and TikTok are as addictive as they are.
There absolutely needs to be more research done in this area. Hoping this lawsuit will shine more light on the connection between mental health, concentration issues, and social media.
> Why are you unironically using data from FB themselves?
This was the study that triggered all the "Facebook knew Instagram was harming teens' mental health" stories. It was also the study that formed the basis of the whistleblower's argument.
Practically all social media revenue is derived from advertising, and the lawsuit specifically references advertising regulations. The regulation of advertising would seem to necessarily imply the regulation of any ad-funded social media.
> The regulation of advertising would seem to necessarily imply the regulation of any ad-funded social media.
No, it would imply the regulation of advertisements that are displayed on social media not the actual content or algorithms of social media. Advertisements are regulated, the rest of the content people put on social media is not (outside of very narrow things like credible, true, threats).
Content doesn't suddenly become saddled with the same regulations as advertisements themselves just because it's hosted on an ad-supported platform.
No, they exist as instances of rationalized disobedience. If the founders had meant something other than "Congress shall make no law," nothing stopped them from saying so.
