Zuckerberg's Defense: Social Media Isn't Addictive, It's Just Better
Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in a landmark social media addiction trial this week, offering a defense that reveals much about how Big Tech views its responsibility to users, particularly young people. His testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court positions Meta's platforms not as engineered addiction machines, but as naturally engaging products that have simply evolved to be more valuable than traditional entertainment.
The Value Defense
"You should try and create something useful, and if you do, people will naturally want to use it," Zuckerberg told the court. This framing is central to Meta's defense strategy, positioning prolonged platform usage as a natural consequence of quality rather than manipulative design.
The Meta CEO compared social media engagement to television viewing, arguing that "TV hasn't got better over time but social media has quite a bit." This comparison, however, sidesteps a crucial distinction: television doesn't collect vast amounts of personal data to optimize for engagement at the individual level.
The Teen Revenue Argument
Perhaps most revealing was Zuckerberg's business-focused defense regarding teenage users. He emphasized that less than 1% of Instagram's revenue comes from teenagers, arguing their limited purchasing power makes them less attractive to advertisers. "From a business perspective, attracting teenagers is not meaningful in the short term," he stated.
This economic argument, while potentially factually accurate, raises troubling questions about platform responsibility. If teenagers aren't profitable, why do these platforms continue to capture so much of their time and attention?
The Broader Context
The case, brought by a 19-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., alleges that social media platforms have knowingly designed their systems to foster addiction among young users. The plaintiff's legal team argues that Meta deliberately maximizes young users' time on platforms to drive revenue, regardless of the psychological impact.
Recent data from Common Sense Media underscores the stakes: teenagers now spend an average of nine hours daily on entertainment media, while children aged 8-12 spend six hours. These numbers represent a significant portion of young people's waking hours.
Industry Accountability
Meta isn't alone in facing scrutiny. While TikTok and Snapchat have settled their cases, Google's YouTube remains a defendant alongside Meta. YouTube argues its platform operates differently and shouldn't be grouped with other social media companies, a distinction that may prove crucial as courts grapple with varying platform designs and business models.
Zuckerberg did acknowledge some evolution in Meta's approach, noting the company has "evolved over time to add a lot more controls," including removing accounts of users under thirteen. However, critics argue these measures are reactive rather than proactive, implemented only after public pressure and regulatory scrutiny intensified.
What's at Stake
This trial represents more than a single lawsuit; it's a test case that could reshape how social media platforms operate and face regulation. The outcome may influence future legislation around platform design, particularly regarding features that capture and hold user attention.
Judge Carolyn Kuhl's strict courtroom protocols, including bans on recording devices and AI-enabled glasses, underscore the high stakes and intense public interest in these proceedings.
As this case unfolds, it forces a critical question: Should platforms that profit from user attention bear responsibility for the psychological effects of that engagement, particularly on young people? Zuckerberg's defense suggests Meta believes the answer is no, as long as users derive value from their experience. Whether courts and regulators agree may determine the future of social media as we know it.