Yet another article written by Mike Masnick, tech reporter with a huge conflict of interest (he's a Director at Bluesky, a social network).

The classic case with Meta is that many of its efforts to study how to make its platforms safer were used against the company as proof that “they knew!” their platforms were unsafe!

The lesson for the rest of the tech industry is grim and unambiguous: never study whether your own platform is causing harm. The mere existence of the research will be turned into Exhibit A that “they knew,” both in the court of public opinion and in actual courts.

What strange framing.

Meta wasn't learning about safety out of the kindness of their hearts. They were identifying harmful features and keeping them. They were identifying addictive features and focusing on building them.

We don't know this because Meta wanted us to know. It's whistleblowers who testified about it.

there are some oddly specific requirements:

Meta SMPs will disable Teen Users from applying Cosmetic Procedure Filters to their content.

The agreement clarifies that this means:

… any digital filter or augmented reality (AR) effect that distorts, sculpts, redefines, or idealizes a user’s face in a way that cannot be achieved without cosmetic surgery or extreme makeup techniques.

And, sure, I can understand why such content might be unhealthy for teens. But it is, in fact, Constitutionally-protected speech.

This is such a reach. The best argument Mike can give in favor of face filters is that they're free speech, apparently, which is dubious (we've already decided that under-13s don't get any social media "speech" at all). Maybe Mike is in favor of removing that caveat too.

This is such a reach. The best argument Mike can give in favor of face filters is that they're free speech, apparently, which is dubious (we've already decided that under-13s don't get any social media "speech" at all). Maybe Mike is in favor of removing that caveat too.

It's also wrong. Meta has no obligation under the US constitution to protect anyone's speech, nor does any private individual or business. This is just a case of "free speech absolutism" (aka "freeze peach absolutism").

What might (and likely would) be unconstitutional would be a law forbidding children from posting modified pictures of themselves anywhere online.