The Social Media Trial Is Missing the Real Defendant: Us

A Los Angeles jury is weighing a question that could reshape the technology industry: Were major social media platforms deliberately designed to be addictive and harmful to young users?

The case has been framed as a potential “Big Tobacco” moment for tech. Companies such as TikTok and Snap have reportedly settled, while Meta and YouTube continue to fight in court.

The allegations are serious. Plaintiffs argue that platforms such as Instagram and TikTok use artificial intelligence to maximize engagement at the expense of young users’ mental health. AI is not incidental to the product. It is the engine. It curates feeds, predicts what will hold attention, ranks content in real time, and targets advertising with precision.

But persuasion did not begin with algorithms.

I worked on dozens of political campaigns that relied on shoe leather and clipboards. I walked precincts with paper sheets, marking down everything in plain sight: an American flag on the porch, a yellow ribbon in the window, a pickup truck in the driveway, kids’ bikes on the lawn, a corner house that could hold two yard signs instead of one.

Those details shaped the message. A home displaying military symbols might receive mail about veterans’ benefits. A family with children would hear about education funding. A truck or large SUV household might get a message about gas taxes. Data was gathered, sorted, and used to tailor communication to the household. The objective was simple: understand behavior and increase persuasion.

Political campaigns were not unique.

Grocery chains have tracked consumer behavior for decades through loyalty cards, logging what families buy and how often they buy it. Coupons reflect purchasing patterns. Direct mail companies like L.L. Bean and Lands’ End segmented households by geography and income, sending different catalogs to different neighborhoods. Television networks studied Nielsen ratings obsessively. If a show held teenage viewers, advertising followed. Programming shifted based on audience retention.

The methods differed. The goal was the same: capture attention and shape behavior.

The difference today is scale and speed. Artificial intelligence performs in milliseconds what once required clipboards, spreadsheets, and weeks of fieldwork.

If targeted communication itself becomes evidence of wrongdoing, we are not just putting social media on trial. We are questioning the basic mechanics of modern marketing, politics, and media.

Which leads to a harder truth: this isn’t only about design. It is about responsibility.

I remember my parents warning about too much television. They worried video games would rot our brains. They were skeptical of rock music, violent movies, and later, the internet itself. Every generation confronts a new medium that feels dangerous.

But my parents did not sue television networks. They did not demand courtroom intervention over Nintendo. They set rules. Screen time was limited. We were told to go outside and play. Certain movies were off-limits. The TV went off at a specific hour.

Responsibility sat at the kitchen table, not in a courtroom.

If social media is harming children, why is litigation the first instinct rather than parenting? Why are smartphones in bedrooms at midnight? Why are nine-year-olds on platforms that require users to be thirteen?

Yes, digital platforms are engineered to hold attention. So is television. So are video games. That reality does not eliminate risk. But no courtroom can replace the boundaries set at home.

If everything that captures attention becomes a legal liability, where does that stop? The deeper issue is what parents are willing to enforce. It is whether we are prepared to say no, set limits, and accept that raising children has always required supervision and discipline.

This case may produce settlements. It may even produce new regulations. But no verdict will decide what happens in our homes. That decision belongs to parents.