Meta’s settlement is not the end of the debate, but maybe it is a start

Meta’s recent 18 Billion dollar settlement after a lawsuit filed by 29 US states over allegations that their social media platforms were designed in ways that fostered addictive behaviours has been presented as a landmark moment for platform accountability. As part of the agreement, Meta has committed to introducing daily usage limits, restrictions on notifications during school hours, enhanced parental controls, and the choice, rather than necessity, to restrict engagement with algorithms and filters.

While these changes are long overdue, the settlement can be seen as a strategic move to limit further public and legal scrutiny of the company’s business model. The settlement not only bypasses an examination of platform practices but also the possibility of a legal precedent that might have driven more substantial reforms to Big Tech companies and helped develop new regulations in the country where these companies can more easily be made accountable. Although the agreement introduces measures such as nighttime curfews and additional safety features, it overlooks wider concerns about the effects of social media on users’ digital engagement, safety and wellbeing. As a result, key questions remain unaddressed, including how harmful design should be defined, and, where appropriated, excluded rather than restricted by age; where responsibility lies when commercial incentives conflict with user welfare; and which standards should align with platform practices across national and international jurisdictions as a recognition of the globalising effect of digital technologies.

It is important to note that the debate remains focused on users’ actions, especially those of young people [the hint is in ‘choices” to opt out of features and ‘restrictions’ based on age and rather than actual design changes]. In so being, problematic engagement patterns, algorithmic governance, misinformation, emotional manipulation, and unhealthy digital practices are only superficially addressed, if at all. Additionally, these issues affect not only young people but also every digital user. It is thus crucial to remember that adults are equally vulnerable to the impacts of such technological designs and the experiences developed therein, including exposure to influencer culture and content that creates social pressures, and the impact of algorithmic amplification that leads to exposure to narrowly curated content, i.e., echo-chamber experiences. The agreed technical protectionist measures then overlook the broader implications of platform design and the quality of digital practices as intersujective experiences.

And this is where the debate should now be directed to. The key issue is not simply how much time people are spending online. Rather, it is what they encounter while they are there. In other words, it is not just about the quantity but also the quality of the experience. In this regard, the quality of experience should become another key focus of policy and legal discussions. Time limits may provide momentary relief, but they do not necessarily address the core issues. (Young) Users may spend less time online yet still be exposed to harmful content, manipulative influencers, misinformation, harassment, and exploitative commercial practices. A healthier digital environment cannot be achieved solely through restrictions on access. It requires greater scrutiny of content production and (monetary) intention, distribution, and amplification, as well as healthy social interactions.

As a result, regulators should start paying more attention to the (bad) actors permitted to operate within these digital platforms. Digital influencers, and content creators in general, advertisers, and recommendation algorithms collectively shape the quality of users’ digital experiences. In doing so, they influence public understanding, behaviours, aspirations, and even social values. Their reach extends far beyond young people and increasingly affects education, politics, (mental) health and wellbeing, consumer behaviour, and civic participation.

Let us be clear: digital influencers are increasingly intellectualising the public. Even though the jury is out on whether this is a good thing, they are influencing how people understand themselves, others, and the world around them, often without much of a counter narrative. Yet unlike teachers, doctors, academics or serious journalism – occupations that (are expected to) carry recognised public responsibilities, they often operate with limited scrutiny and few consequences for disseminating misleading, harmful, or unethical content. The challenge is not so much the influence itself, but the absence of accountability.

Much of the digital influencer economy is driven by visibility, monetisation, and personal branding. Success is frequently measured through reach, engagement, and commercial returns rather than social responsibility or value (see example here). This creates powerful incentives to privilege polarising and emotionally charged content over accuracy, reflection, or care; content that can have a huge impact one one’s wellbeing as well as safety. If we are serious about creating healthier and safer digital environments, then regulation has to move beyond questions of access and screen time, i.e., the human-computer interaction paradigm. We need to start having more complex conversations about responsibility in digital content production, the ethical obligations of those who profit from public influence (which is not just monetarily), and the values that platforms seek to promote and reward.

When problematised this way, the question then changes: it is not only about how long people spend online, but who is affecting their experiences, under what conditions, and to whose benefit. From this perspective, what is clearly absent from the US settlement is a discussion about meaningful sanctions and accountability mechanisms for those who profit from harmful forms of influence, both the platforms and the creators. Just as broadcasting, advertising, and financial promotions are (supposed to be) regulated, there is a case here for stronger, multi-actor regulation of digital influence and attention economies.

Also important to note is that this case is not only significant for the United States. It shows that such lawsuits can shake the structures these tech companies have been relying on, leading to quicker changes. That said, for policymakers in the Eurozone, the UK and further afield, Meta’s settlement highlights the limitations of addressing global digital challenges through national legal systems alone, as the social media bans are already showing (see Australia’s example).

Even though Big Tech operate across borders, regulatory authority remains primarily national. As a result, protections available to users in one jurisdiction may not automatically apply in another. Indeed, some of the measures announced as part of the settlement are expected to be implemented only in the US.

This raises difficult questions about regulation and digital rights. If social media harms are global, shouldn’t protections be as well? The asymmetry between international digital platforms and nationally bounded legal frameworks points to an urgent need for stronger forms of international cooperation and international law. Existing regulatory developments in the EU and UK represent important steps, but they also reveal the complexity of governing platforms whose reach transcends national or physical borders.

That said, regulation alone is insufficient when it comes to healthy and safe digital engagement. Alongside legal reforms, there is a clear need to invest in educational opportunities for young people, parents, educators, youth workers, mental health professionals, and others working at the front line of digital life.

Navigating complex online environments requires more than simply avoiding harm. It demands cultivating the knowledge, critical awareness, and ethical judgement that empower users to participate meaningfully in digital society.

A pedagogy of empowerment offers a sustainable way forward. Rather than positioning individuals merely as passive recipients of protection, an empowerment approach seeks to develop agency, critical thinking and critical digital literacy. It equips people to understand how platforms work, recognise harmful design features, question algorithmic recommendations, evaluate information critically, and make informed choices about their and other’s digital engagement.

Empowerment does not mean transferring responsibility from corporations to individuals. Platforms need to be accountable for the environments they create and profit from. Rather, empowerment recognises that healthy digital engagement emerges when technical protections and individual capabilities develop together.

Meta’s settlement may mark a significant legal milestone (in the US). But it should not be mistaken for a definite resolution. If anything, it reveals how much work remains to be done. The debate needs to move forward to also consider the quality of users’ experiences with content, the accountability of those who shape such experiences, and the collective responsibility to foster digital environments that support humane interactions rather than merely maximising engagement for profit. Only then will we begin to address the deeper issues that this settlement lifts the lid on but does not really address.