In a pivotal trial that could drastically alter the landscape of social media, former Meta Platforms engineering director Arturo Bejar has testified that CEO Mark Zuckerberg prioritised user engagement and business expansion over the safety of young users on Facebook and Instagram. Bejar’s allegations were made during his second day of testimony in a case brought by a coalition of states, including California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, which accuses Meta of designing its platforms to attract and manipulate young users, with potential dire consequences for their mental health.
Allegations of Exploiting Young Users
Bejar’s testimony comes amidst claims that Meta’s platforms contribute to anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation among young users. The coalition of states is asserting that Meta not only failed to protect children but also misled parents regarding the safety of its platforms. The trial, which commenced at a federal court in Oakland, California, is expected to span six weeks and will ultimately result in an advisory verdict from jurors. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will then determine if Meta is liable and what, if any, penalties will be imposed.
During his testimony, Bejar highlighted Zuckerberg’s significant influence over company decisions, asserting that changes to product design would only occur at the CEO’s behest. “If Mark makes something a priority, mountains move in months,” Bejar stated, challenging Zuckerberg’s past assertions that Meta had actively sought to enhance safety features on its platforms.
Disputing Zuckerberg’s Claims
Zuckerberg has previously claimed that Meta continuously utilises research to improve its products, a statement that Bejar vehemently refuted. He recalled having directly communicated his safety concerns to Zuckerberg via email. “It’s so false, every part of it,” Bejar remarked, expressing his mistrust in Zuckerberg’s commitment to child safety. His experience at Meta, spanning from 2009 to 2015 and later as a contractor until 2021, endowed him with insights into the company’s internal operations and its disregard for user safety, particularly regarding adolescent users.
Bejar recounted an unsettling personal experience involving his daughter, who encountered harassment and misogynistic comments shortly after he helped her establish an Instagram account. “I kept an eye on how distressing it was for her,” he shared, noting that while she gained a following, it came at a considerable emotional cost.
Critique of Meta’s Safety Measures
Under cross-examination, Bejar acknowledged that Meta employs numerous safety professionals he deemed competent. However, he maintained that the company’s culture deprioritises safety initiatives in favour of engagement metrics. He described Meta’s user break reminder feature as “designed to fail,” since it is not the default setting and is easily overlooked by users. Bejar’s testimony highlighted a broader trend within Meta, which he claimed operated under a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding users under the age of 13. He contended that this approach was adopted to maximise profits, despite the availability of technology that could identify underage users.
Following Bejar’s testimony, jurors also heard recorded statements from Elena Davis, a Meta researcher who examined the addictive qualities of social media. Davis indicated that the platform could be modified to reduce its habit-forming potential and better support users seeking to moderate their usage.
Ongoing Legal Challenges for Meta
The current trial is just one of many legal challenges facing Meta, with similar lawsuits alleging harm to children proliferating across the country. Bejar has emerged as a crucial witness in multiple trials against the tech giant. Notably, one case initiated by New Mexico resulted in a staggering US$942 million in damages and mandated reforms to Meta’s operations within the state.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this trial could set a significant precedent in the realm of social media regulation, particularly regarding the protection of minors online. With growing scrutiny on the mental health impacts of social media, this case may catalyse important changes in how platforms are designed and operated, compelling tech companies to prioritise user safety over profit margins. As society grapples with the implications of digital engagement on youth, the revelations from this trial may influence not only legal frameworks but also public perception and corporate responsibility in the tech industry.
