Generally, I'm for less regulation. But I'm in favor of this. Social media is terrible for kids and needs restrictions.

BREAKING: Meta reaches a $17 billion settlement with dozens of states to resolve teen social media addiction cases. https://t.co/uA4Szmfj0D

— The Associated Press (@AP) August 26, 2026

The Sun said:

---

Too bad none of that money will go toward what those states sued over. Just more funds in the general coffers.

---

True, but the money still leaves Meta, and more importantly, it forces changes, which is what the end goal has always been.

Simply put: Had Meta done things better when they were brought to their attention, none of this would have happened.

Read the fine print: "on its apps".

So don't use the apps, use your web browser.

This was a payoff.

javajaws said:

---

Read the fine print: "on its apps".

So don't use the apps, use your web browser.

This was a payoff.

---

I'd be very skeptical that that's how it will work, especially since it's going to be tied to accounts that are underage.

Waffledynamics said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Read the fine print: "on its apps".

So don't use the apps, use your web browser.

This was a payoff.

---

I'd be very skeptical that that's how it will work, especially since it's going to be tied to accounts that are underage.

---

100%. No way Meta tries to skirt the spirit of the agreement like that.

It's a bad settlement. New Mexico just won almost a billion in their lawsuit versus Meta. Why is Texas only getting up to a billion? And it's spread out over 10 years as well.

Then the restrictions will only be in place for 5 years. Florida's AG was right to not be a party to this.

I will say Meta was smart pushing for a settlement now, so politicians can get a headline "win", but Meta will just rollback these measures 5 years from now.

double aught said:

---

Generally, I'm for less regulation. But I'm in favor of this. Social media is terrible for kids and needs restrictions.

BREAKING: Meta reaches a $17 billion settlement with dozens of states to resolve teen social media addiction cases. https://t.co/uA4Szmfj0D

— The Associated Press (@AP) August 26, 2026

---

Restrictions are up to the parents. They proved that Meta used behavioral psychology practices to increase it's usage and engagement. There is none of that if the parents have boundries and refuse to allow their children to have social media until their brains are more developed. I suppose you could argue that adults didnt fully understand the impact a decade ago, but now they do or should.

Where will this money go? Who gets it? And who will it help?

Probably no one on which the judgement was based on. Unless it goes to mental health resources for anxious, depressed, and listless adolescences -- but then who is the benefactor? People that sell drugs to "fix" this? Or counseling and intervention to get kids to put down their phones.

The Anxious Generation was an excellent read on this; Their parents grew up when there was very little internet, maybe some myspace/facebook. What it has spiraled out of control and into, I dont think they truly understand. It has had an extremely detremental impact on our children's, I wouldnt even say psychology as much as I would say brain chemistry.

How much did the parents of the teens have to pay in settlement for allowing their kids to be on social media for too long that they became addicted?

No Spin Ag said:

---

The Sun said:

---

Too bad none of that money will go toward what those states sued over. Just more funds in the general coffers.

---

True, but the money still leaves Meta, and more importantly, it forces changes, which is what the end goal has always been.

Simply put: Had Meta done things better when they were brought to their attention, none of this would have happened.

---

Yeah...

But, isn't this just an extension of the vendettas against rock music and how it affected kids? They just didn't sue about it then. <I used an example you probably remember>

I mean, if you want to sue because things are addictive, then here's a short list:

1) Apple - iPhone: People weren't glued to their phones until this came out. Young kids included.
2) All video game makers: Lots of people spend way too much time playing video games. Young kids included.
3) TV - All sorts of shows: Lots of people binge watching. Young kids included.
4) [Insert next thing]



You could make an argument that every one of those were designed to "hook" people onto their product...


That's why I think this is a really bad thing.

ETA: Hell, TexAgs, too. We all spend a lot of time on here...

ETA2: What about sports in general? Lots of people get REALLY invested in their teams. And the goal of the sports leagues is to encourage that....

Mets should be burned down to the ground.

Instagram is an awful platform that destroys the confidence, self-esteem and well being of young girls.

It's awful. They should have had to pay a trillion dollars or more. **** Zuck.

Yup. Big tobacco had to pay $250B in their settlement 25 years ago, Meta got off cheap.

I'd prefer principals of Meta sent to prison. Then maybe bad corporate behavior would stop.

these restrictions sound good but workarounds will be found easily. this is better controlled by parents. no kid needs a smart phone before 16 at least. if they absolutely need communication, get them a dumb non-smart phone.

Why are states getting money when they aren't the harmed party?

Won't have any impact but good to see the Zuck squirm.

I'm hopeful it will have at least some impact. It's one step to help this problem. If nothing else, maybe it'll give some parents pause before they let their kids run wild online unsupervised.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Why are states getting money when they aren't the harmed party?

---

statutory damages for violating consumer protection laws

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Why are states getting money when they aren't the harmed party?

---

Via representation of their citizens?

Quote:

---

This was a payoff.

---

Bingo.

The state AGs get some headlines, some money gets thrown into the general funds, and, in states like Texas where the AG is cozied up to the plaintiff's bar, the trial lawyer hired as outside counsel get 10% or more of the settlement. Ken Paxton has sent hundreds of millions of dollars to the plaintiff's bar through these suits. That's why they supported him in the impeachment.

GenericAggie said:

---

Mets should be burned down to the ground.

Instagram is an awful platform that destroys the confidence, self-esteem and well being of young girls.

It's awful. They should have had to pay a trillion dollars or more. **** Zuck.

---

but then your daughter hates you cause she can't have it any all her friends do. No win

Parents have to parent. Good parenting solves a lot of problems. Good parenting starts with mom and dad being 1) married and 2) having a good marriage. Really hard to be good parents when the marriage is rocky.

AgShaun00 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Mets should be burned down to the ground.

Instagram is an awful platform that destroys the confidence, self-esteem and well being of young girls.

It's awful. They should have had to pay a trillion dollars or more. **** Zuck.

---

but then your daughter hates you cause she can't have it any all her friends do. No win

---

I have a policy, I don't negotiate with terrorists. And if my daughters biggest complaint when they are talking to their therapist at 35 is that mean ol dad kept them off social media, I have won.

But what was the crime? That they designed their products so well that kids got addicted? Maaan. Preventing that is the job of the parents, not the company.

I did not give my kids phones until high school and in junior year they only got flip phones. My kids are not addicted and I have banned them from posting pics of them online especially my daughter. Her classmates and friends all post stuff that they should not be posting (for likes/attention).

But it is not the job of the corp to parent anyone's kids.

Everyone knows I hate corps but on this I am probably on Meta's side.

That said, arrest Zuckerberg.

Quote:

---

But what was the crime?

---

this was not a criminal case.

GenericAggie said:

---

Mets should be burned down to the ground.

Instagram is an awful platform that destroys the confidence, self-esteem and well being of young girls.

It's awful. They should have had to pay a trillion dollars or more. **** Zuck.

---

Right.
I've banned my 18 year old daughter from posting pictures of herself on Instagram. All her friends do, and some post pics they should not be posting. I am not their dad so it is none of my business.

I did not just ban, I explained the rationale. I told her why girls post and that she should be getting the same attention/adulation not from showing her body but from achievements. She is now a Computer Sc freshman at a Top 15 US school. I don't know the future, but until now, I think I did well.

PS: There is no 100% and there are ways to get around and loopholes, but overall its been effective. I've explained to her that if she effs her, she is ruining her own life and I cannot save her at that point. As she gets older, she has to decide for herself but she will do so as a more mature adult, not a child.

AgShaun00 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Mets should be burned down to the ground.

Instagram is an awful platform that destroys the confidence, self-esteem and well being of young girls.

It's awful. They should have had to pay a trillion dollars or more. **** Zuck.

---

but then your daughter hates you cause she can't have it any all her friends do. No win

---

Be a man. Be her dad. She has no other person to protect her but you.

I am such a parent. I told my daughter that she cannot have a smart phone until soph HS when all her friends had it in Jr high. That is the rule of the house. No arguments. Doesn't matter if Olivia, Eva or Dhruvi has one.
But I did explain to her why, and said it was not a punishment, it was to protect her. And that she was a good kid. She probably did not understand the logic at that time but felt good that she wasn't being punished.
I also joked with her that I "did not care" if she hated me... she would laugh but the hidden implication was it did not matter what her friends did, I am there to protect her.

If your kids turn out well, it is a win. Not popularity or being the cool dad/mom.

The messaging is critical. It is not "You cannot have it because I say so". That leaves a lot of doubt and may cause low self esteem or rebellion. Instead the message should be "You cannot have it because it is not good for you, you are not being punished, I am protecting you because I love you". That will yield better results.

I get it that my approach is very different from most parents, even my friends would be shocked or pretend to be, when I'd tell them. They would be boasting about how their kid would demand the latest iPhone.

infinity ag said:

---

AgShaun00 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Mets should be burned down to the ground.

Instagram is an awful platform that destroys the confidence, self-esteem and well being of young girls.

It's awful. They should have had to pay a trillion dollars or more. **** Zuck.

---

but then your daughter hates you cause she can't have it any all her friends do. No win

---

Be a man. Be her dad. She has no other person to protect her but you.

I am such a parent. I told my daughter that she cannot have a smart phone until soph HS when all her friends had it in Jr high. That is the rule of the house. No arguments. Doesn't matter if Olivia, Eva or Dhruvi has one.
But I did explain to her why, and said it was not a punishment, it was to protect her. And that she was a good kid. She probably did not understand the logic at that time but felt good that she wasn't being punished.
I also joked with her that I "did not care" if she hated me... she would laugh but the hidden implication was it did not matter what her friends did, I am there to protect her.

If your kids turn out well, it is a win. Not popularity or being the cool dad/mom.

The messaging is critical. It is not "You cannot have it because I say so". That leaves a lot of doubt and may cause low self esteem or rebellion. Instead the message should be "You cannot have it because it is not good for you, you are not being punished, I am protecting you because I love you". That will yield better results.

I get it that my approach is very different from most parents, even my friends would be shocked or pretend to be, when I'd tell them. They would be boasting about how their kid would demand the latest iPhone.

---

i told them 18 for social media. My daughter is a freshman I caught her on the browser and she created a instagram account. I am doing what I can to protect her.

infinity ag said:

---

But what was the crime? That they designed their products so well that kids got addicted? Maaan. Preventing that is the job of the parents, not the company.

I did not give my kids phones until high school and in junior year they only got flip phones. My kids are not addicted and I have banned them from posting pics of them online especially my daughter. Her classmates and friends all post stuff that they should not be posting (for likes/attention).

But it is not the job of the corp to parent anyone's kids.

Everyone knows I hate corps but on this I am probably on Meta's side.

That said, arrest Zuckerberg.

---

Ding ding ding.


This is the job of the parents.

Hell, kids could get "addicted" to video games, sports, TV, their iPhone, etc...IF their parents don't do their job.

TRM said:

---

It's a bad settlement. New Mexico just won almost a billion in their lawsuit versus Meta. Why is Texas only getting up to a billion? And it's spread out over 10 years as well.

Then the restrictions will only be in place for 5 years. Florida's AG was right to not be a party to this.

I will say Meta was smart pushing for a settlement now, so politicians can get a headline "win", but Meta will just rollback these measures 5 years from now.

---

New Mexico had first mover's advantage.

AgShaun00 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Mets should be burned down to the ground.

Instagram is an awful platform that destroys the confidence, self-esteem and well being of young girls.

It's awful. They should have had to pay a trillion dollars or more. **** Zuck.

---

but then your daughter hates you cause she can't have it any all her friends do. No win

---

Well, that's parenting. Mine were easily the strictest of my friends growing up and made no apologies for it. I was not allowed to do some of the same things my buddies were.

I turned out fine according to me.

Yep. Definitely the parents' job. The frustrating thing is that when some parents won't step up and enforce boundaries, it makes it more difficult for those that are trying.

But the case against meta was that they were intentionally designing their platforms to be addictive and manipulative. And that they tried concealing the harmful nature of the products.

The agreed upon restrictions are reasonable and just, and make it a little more of a fair fight for parents. In my humble opinion of course.