Daily Take: What Just Happened in the Meta Trial

0:00Quince has the everyday essentials I love with quality that lasts. Lightweight cashmere sweaters, short sleeve mongolian, cashmere polos, linen bottoms and shorts, tees, and 100% pima cotton and European jersey linen. These are the versatile pieces that make a wardrobe actually work season to season. The clothing is rated between 4.5 and 5 stars by thousands of people wearing it every day, including me, and the only partner with factories that meet rigorous standards for both craftsmanship and ethical production. I'm one of those people who's always cold, so I love their cashmere sweaters. I have several in there, my go-to's. Right now go to quince.com slash Tom THOM for free shipping in 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it. And you will. Now available on Canada too, by the way. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to qince.com slash Tom THOM for free shipping in 365 day returns. Quince.com slash Tom.

1:00What just happened in the meta trial should set off alarms everywhere. A Monday a new Mexico jury delivered with a coalition parents SOS called a watershed moment, finding that meta, you know, Facebook and Instagram, knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what its executives knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms. After nearly seven week trial, jurors agreed that meta engaged in unconscionable trade practices that preyed on the vulnerabilities and inexperience of children. They found thousands of separate violations and applied the maximum $5,000 penalty per violation arriving at a total of $375 million. Now the penalty phase of the trial begins, which cost meta millions or even billions more. You think a verdict like that would rattle a company, but as NPR reported, meta stock actually jumped 5% in after hours trading following the verdict indicating the shareholders were shrugging the whole thing off.

2:02And why wouldn't they? As long as section 230 of the Telecommunications Act remains on the books, meta and every other social media giant knows that $375 million is a little more than a rounding error for a company currently valued at $1.5 trillion and its billionaire owner. The verdict landed like a parking ticket on a Lamborghini with a screw you custom license plate. That stock market shrug tells us everything we need to know about why these companies keep harming our children and promoting right wing and Russian propaganda for profit. It's not just that their executives might be uniquely evil people, although evidence about what they knew and when they knew it is genuinely damning. But the law has been written in a way that makes them pretty much untouchable, and they know it. It all has to do with that notorious section 230. The Republican case against regulation of business is always boiled down to arguing that when people are harmed by a company's behavior, they can sue for big bucks. If a car company knowingly markets a defective car, they can be sued by people who sustained

3:06injury. If your hospital kills a family member because they didn't sterilize things properly, they can be sued. If your local restaurant makes you violently ill from food poisoning, you can sue them. But the morbidly rich CEOs who run the world's biggest social media platforms occupy a unique space in American law. They can't be sued, can't be arrested, and can't be held accountable for almost anything happening on their platforms, even if they knew all about it and failed to refuse to stop it. Nor can their companies, or any of their employees or shareholders. This is because of this bizarre provision, section 230, the Telecommunications Act that Congress passed in President Clinton signed in 1996, who was supposed to help jumpstart the internet. But what it really did was make Mark Zuckerberg into the richest millennial in America. He owns about 2% of all wealth held by American millennials. And since then, it's led to a nationwide mental health crisis and the election of Donald Trump twice. The language of the law, Clinton's side, is explicit.

4:06While a newspaper, radio station, TV station, or even sub-stack writers like me and my colleagues can be held responsible for what they or we publish and its consequences, Facebook can't be. Section 230 says it clearly, quote, no provider or user of an interactive computer system shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider, end quote. The issue is only mildly partisan. Supporters of renewing section 230 mostly seem to be those legislators who take money from social media giants. Those who don't take the cash are genuinely concerned. Consider the case of Chuck Grassley, the 91-year-old Trump supporting Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and not exactly anyone's idea of a radical reformer. He published a Q&A article on his official Senate website, late last year, calling out section 230 by name and calling for its end and then co-sponsored the bipartisan Sunset Section 230 Act to repeal it entirely. In his own words, quote, the outdated law shield social media platforms and prevents

5:10parents and victims from seeking justice from online harm. Fast forward three decades, many of these entities are among the most powerful profitable companies in the world. They use section 230 to evade badly needed accountability. Big tech is profiting at the expense of the American people, especially young people. Section 230 allows online predators to sexually groom and extort kids. Predators create and distribute AI-generated deep-fake pornography, drug traffickers sell fentanyl-laced pills to teenagers, impressionable adolescents experience harm to their mental health. End quote. But against worse, not only does section 230 turn the web into a stalking ground for sexual predators, it's also given Russian President Putin cheap and easy access to individual Americans and access he's been using for years to tear our country apart. According to the Mueller report, in the FBI, Putin's 12 forms and farms have been targeting Americans via social media for years. Mueller indicted 34 individuals and three Russian businesses for their works spreading lies

6:11and disinformation that succeeded in helping get Trump elected in 2016. And supremacist groups in America regularly get boosts from Putin's troll farms who have the power to make messages go viral. But were the social media platforms that hosted those lies ever punished? Did they have to do anything to repair the damage Putin did to America via their companies? Is there even a regulatory agency that has the ability to control them the way the FCC can, a radio or TV station? The NHTSA does car manufacturers or the way the FDA oversees the pharmaceutical industry? No, on all counts, all because of section 230. And the social media companies know this, it's intrinsic to their profit-making strategies, in fact. An internal Facebook document from October of 2019 leaked to the MIT technology review and written about by Karen Howe found that around 15,000 different foreign troll farm run Facebook pages, slash group slash sites reached 140 million Americans every month.

7:16The foreign run pages included the largest Christian American page on Facebook, 20 times larger than the next largest, reaching 75 million US users monthly. They included the largest African American page on Facebook, three times larger than the next largest. The second largest Native American page on Facebook, the fifth largest women's page on Facebook, reaching 60 million US users monthly. When that report was written of the top 20 American Christian sites on Facebook, 19 were Russian troll farm run, 10 of the top 15 African American sites on Facebook, including the one that sits at number one, were similarly run by foreign, mostly Russian troll farms. Is it any wonder given this that evangelicals have bonded to Trump and the black and Hispanic boat moved in his direction in the run up to the 2024 election? The Facebook internal memo written by former senior level data analyst Jeff Allen didn't dive into possible political motivations, although the Mueller report made clear that similar non-US activity on Facebook and other social media exploded prior to the 2016 election,

8:22reaching tens of millions of Americans in helping make Donald Trump president. So that America has allowed this situation to exist and fester for 30 years now is beyond bizarre. I used to think a mattress was just furniture until I got my ghost bed. Less tension, better temperature regulation, just waking up, thinking, oh, so this is what a good sleep feels like, because ghost bed doesn't just build mattresses like furniture. They build engineered sleep systems. Their beds are serious health equipment, beds designed for relief and recovery, not looks and not fluff. Your body should be healing while you sleep, not fighting for comfort. I noticed the difference right away. If you're waking up stiff, tossing and turning, sleeping hot, even reaching for a pain really or before bed, hoping tonight will be different. That's not aging. That could be your mattress talking. And here's another thing I love about ghost bed. You get 101 nights to try it at home. If you don't feel the difference, you can send it back risk-free. Ghost bed is offering my audience. You, they're the lowest prices of the season, plus an extra 10% off.

9:23Order ghostbed.com slash Tom and use the promo code Tom, T-H-O-M. That's ghostbed.com slash Tom and use the promo code Tom. Check it out. This program is brought to you by native path grass-fed collagen for better bones, joint skin, hair and nails. Here's something that genuinely surprised me. Calcium supplements, the ones millions take for their bone health, may not be doing much at all because bones are 90% collagen, not calcium. Not the collagen scaffold to attach to, calcium has nowhere to go. That's where today's sponsor comes in. After 30, our bodies produce 1 to 2% less collagen every single year by 60. Most people have lost half their collagen, and it's nearly impossible to get a back-through diet alone because it lives in the parts of the animal we don't eat, the bones, cartilage and tendons. Thousands of customers report less joint pain, stronger nails, younger looking skin, better sleep, and even improved bone density scans. Try a risk-free with a 365-day money-back guarantee, head over to getnativepath.com slash

10:25Hartman. It's G-E-T, N-A-T-I-B-E, p-A-T-H dot com slash Hartman with two ends at the end. Getnativepath.com slash Hartman. Consider this thought experiment that hopefully makes the entire situation clearer. Friday night, your neighbor puts a sign out in front of his house saying, big party tonight, no rules, everybody welcome. By 2 a.m., the whole house is filled up with criminals doing their thing. One guy is selling child porn in the kitchen, a bedroom has turned into a shooting gallery filled with addicts, while a dealer in stolen guns has taken up residence in the living room. There's a bloody knife fight going on in the backyard. When the police show up, they'll not only bust the reprobates, they'll also haul off your neighbor, after all it was his home, and he knew that criminal activity was going on inside it. That's not particularly controversial. It's been an aspect of the law since at least 1275, with the introduction of the castle doctrine into British common law, and probably for millennia before. You have control of your castle, but you also have responsibility for what happens in it.

11:28The same is true of businesses. If the manager of your local home depot decided to open a large space inside the store, to after our criminal activities, she or he would go to jail along with the criminals themselves. But here's where it gets weird. What if instead of a physical location, the home or party venue or business is online and called Facebook or X or TikTok? Back in 1996, a handful of geniuses in Congress thought, hey, let's do away with the entire concept of the homeowner or business owner having responsibility for what happens in their place. Seriously, selling drugs, trading in guns and ammunition, human trafficking, planning terrorist attacks, all good. No problem. You can bust the bad guys, but not Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk or Donald Trump, who own the houses of Facebook, X, and Truth Social. No matter what happens on a social media platform, the owner, the person who opened the place to the world and put up a big party sign, there's no responsibility whatsoever for what goes on inside. None.

12:28Untouchable. The police can bust the clerks, but they can't arrest the guy who owns the online castle and literally makes billions from the criminal or anti-democracy activity that happens on it. The court has any authority to try him, and he'll never, ever see even one day inside a jail cell no matter what happened in his place. Sounds crazy, right? But continuing that metaphor about your home or place of business being your castle, that's pretty much exactly what Congress did with Section 230, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It wasn't always this way. Back when the internet started, before hypertext markup language HTML was invented, there were really only two big castles on the internet, CompuServe and AOL. My old friend and business partner, Nigel Peacock, and I ran forums on CompuServe starting around 1980, right up until 1996, as did our colleagues, Sue Netherkut, who helped out on other forums. Nigel and I ran the IBM PC forum, the Macintosh forum, and about two dozen other places where people interested in ADHD, desktop publishing, UFOs, the Kennedy SS, nation, international

13:31trade, and a bunch of other topics were discussed. CompuServe paid us well because we had to make sure nothing criminal happened in any of the forums we ran. We kept the online places safe and open. After all, it was CompuServe's castle, and they were paying us big bucks to make sure nothing illegal happened inside it. Until 1996, that is when they decided they didn't any longer have to pay to keep the home safe and crime free. Shortly after Section 230 went into law, CompuServe stopped paying us for the work we did, and most of their moderators simply drifted away, some replaced by community-minded volunteers like those who today run groups on Facebook. The impact of Section 230 is obvious today. Facebook is now so powerful, and it's impact so far flung that it literally helped cause a mass slaughter, a race-based genocide in Myanmar, the Slesh Burma. Zuckerberg, our country's richest millennial, who owns 2% of all millennial wealth in America, had a secret dinner with Donald Trump and held multiple meetings with the right-wing

14:32politicians, reporters, op-ed writers, and influencers, according to Politico. I can find no record of him having similar private dinners with either Obama or Biden, and over the any groups of progressive journalists, writers, politicians, or influencers. Numerous sources identify Facebook as one of the major hubs of organizing for right-wing events, including January 6th, the rise of QAnon, and the contemporary militia and white supremacist Nazi movements. The criminals can go to jail, but the billionaires who own the internet castles where the transactions take place are almost entirely immune. In 1997, in the case of the Zero-N-V America Online, the fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that Section 230 is written so tightly that even when an online service and its executives are knowingly allowing law-breaking, they can't be held criminally accountable. And the harms keep piling up. Just this month, Tennessee teenagers filed suit against Elon Musk's XAI company over AI-generated child sexual abuse material, produced by its GROC chat box.

15:33More than 40 state attorneys general have now filed lawsuits against meta-alone. The New Mexico trial examined internal meta-document showing the company knew that its algorithms were pushing harmful content to children, but chose to jack up their profits and make Zuckerberg richer anyway. This will lower our touro, Bihar, and others laid out in painstaking detail what executives knew and when they knew it. And yet meta-stock went up the day the jury announced its verdict. That tells you where Wall Street thinks this all ends up. Section 230 is still intact and the company is still untouchable. Section 230 lives on. I wrote a book that covers it, The Hidden History of Big Brother, how the death of privacy and the rise of surveillance threatened us in our democracy. So did Josh Hawley, the Republican Senator from Missouri, who hopes to be the next Trumpi president. And his book's take is pretty much the same as mine. Section 230 is toxic at the very least. Fixing or simply avoiding Section 230 is a place for internet savvy liberals like Amy Klobuchar and far-right conservatives like Hawley and Graham can find considerable common

16:37ground. The bipartisan sunset Section 230 act introduced last December by Graham, Durban Grassley, Wallbuchar, Hawley and others would repeal Section 230 immunity entirely while giving companies a two-year runway to get their houses in order before victims would finally be allowed in a court. Grassley put it plainly on a Senate website quote, the day is long overdue to open the courthouse doors for victims of online crimes and exploitation and seek justice and hold wrongdoers accountable. This is one of those genuinely rare moments when progressives and conservatives are saying the exact same thing and it matters that Congress actually do something with it. It won't be super easy and it's going to require some serious discussion and debate about the limits of both surveillance and liability as the Electronic Freedom Foundation points out about the latest attempt to protect children on the internet. And the social media companies and their morbidly rich owners, raking in billions in profits every month, have so far stymied all efforts to do away with Section 230 or regulate their behavior by taking advantage of the Supreme Court's legalization of political bribery.

17:43Silicon Valley is now one of the larger players in a lobbying and campaign contributions game. Nonetheless, something must be done about these cyberspace castles, especially given the demonstrable harm Section 230 is allowing to happen to both our kids and our democracy. If Zuckerberg and his peers have to start hiring people to do what Nigel and I did for copy-serves years ago, it may reduce their income from tens of billions to mere billions. And society will be better for it, our political landscape will stabilize and fewer children will die. But Jury in New Mexico just reminded us what's at stake. Thousands of violations, but the stock went up anyway. That's not the sign of a healthy industry operating inside reasonable legal limits. That's the sign of an industry that knows it's above the law and has been doing so with absolute arrogance, making billions every year for 30 years. It's well passed time to change that. Tell your members of Congress at 202-224-31-21 and tell them that you want them to co-sponsor and vote for the Sunset Section 230 Act and let them know that the next time a jury says

18:44a company prayed on innocent children, you want that company stock to go down.