 |
|
|
|||||
TikTok agreed to settle a landmark social media addiction lawsuit just before the trial kicked off, the plaintiffs attorneys confirmed. The social video platform was one of three companies along with Metas Instagram and Googles YouTube facing claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum. Details of the settlement with TikTok were not disclosed, and the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials KGM, whose case could determine how thousands of other similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. A lawyer for the plaintiff said in a statement Tuesday that TikTok remains a defendant in the other personal injury cases, and that the trial will proceed as scheduled against Meta and YouTube. Jury selection starts this week in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms. The selection process is expected to take at least a few days, with 75 potential jurors questioned each day through at least Thursday. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum. KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms. Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue, the lawsuit says. Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors. Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants products, the lawsuit says. They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops. The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties. Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies, Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.” A Meta spokesperson said in a statement Monday the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people. José Castaeda, a Google spokesperson, said Monday that the allegations against YouTube are simply not true. In a statement, he said Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.” TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being. A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children. In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states. TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states. By Kaitlyn Huamani and Barbara Ortutay, AP technology writers
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration has not shied away from sharing AI-generated imagery online, embracing cartoonlike visuals and memes and promoting them on official White House channels. But an edited and realistic image of civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong in tears after being arrested is raising new alarms about how the administration is blurring the lines between what is real and what is fake. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noems account posted the original image from Levy Armstrong’s arrest before the official White House account posted an altered image that showed her crying. The doctored picture is part of a deluge of AI-edited imagery that has been shared across the political spectrum since the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. Border Patrol officers in Minneapolis However, the White Houses use of artificial intelligence has troubled misinformation experts who fear the spreading of AI-generated or edited images erodes public perception of the truth and sows distrust. In response to criticism of the edited image of Levy Armstrong, White House officials doubled down on the post, with deputy communications director Kaelan Dorr writing on X that the memes will continue. White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson also shared a post mocking the criticism. David Rand, a professor of information science at Cornell University, says calling the altered image a meme certainly seems like an attempt to cast it as a joke or humorous post, like their prior cartoons. This presumably aims to shield them from criticism for posting manipulated media. He said the purpose of sharing the altered arrest image seems much more ambiguous than the cartoonish images the administration has shared in the past. Memes have always carried layered messages that are funny or informative to people who understand them, but indecipherable to outsiders. AI-enhanced or edited imagery is just the latest tool the White House uses to engage the segment of Trumps base that spends a lot of time online, said Zach Henry, a Republican communications consultant who founded Total Virality, an influencer marketing firm. People who are terminally online will see it and instantly recognize it as a meme, he said. Your grandparents may see it and not understand the meme, but because it looks real, it leads them to ask their kids or grandkids about it. All the better if it prompts a fierce reaction, which helps it go viral, said Henry, who generally praised the work of the White Houses social media team. The creation and dissemination of altered images, especially when they are shared by credible sources, crystallizes an idea of whats happening, instead of showing what is actually happening, said Michael A. Spikes, a professor at Northwestern University and news media literacy researcher. The government should be a place where you can trust the information, where you can say its accurate, because they have a responsibility to do so,” he said. “By sharing this kind of content, and creating this kind of content it is eroding the trust even though Im always kind of skeptical of the term trust but the trust we should have in our federal government to give us accurate, verified information. Its a real loss, and it really worries me a lot. Spikes said he already sees the institutional crises around distrust in news organizations and higher education, and feels this behavior from official channels inflames those issues. Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor at UCLA and the host of the Utopias podcast, said many people are now questioning where they can turn to for trustable information. AI systems are only going to exacerbate, amplify and accelerate these problems of an absence of trust, an absence of even understanding what might be considered reality or truth or evidence, he said. Srinivasan said he feels the White House and other officials sharing AI-generated content not only invites everyday people to continue to post similar content but also grants permission to others who are in positions of credibility and power, like policymakers, to share unlabeled synthetic content. He added that given that social media platforms tend to algorithmically privilege extreme and conspiratorial content which AI generation tools can create with ease weve got a big, big set of challenges on our hands. An influx of AI-generated videos related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement action, protests, and interactions with citizens has already been proliferating on social media. After Renee Good was shot by an ICE officer while she was in her car, several AI-generated videos began circulating of women driving away from ICE officers who told them to stop. There are also many fabricated videos circulating of immigration raids and of people confronting ICE officers, often yelling at them or throwing food in their faces. Jeremy Carrasco, a content creator who specializes in media literacy and debunking viral AI videos, said the bulk of these videos are likely coming from accounts that are engagement farming,” or looking to capitalize on clicks by generating content with popular keywords and search terms like ICE. But he also said the videos are getting views from people who oppose ICE and DHS and could be watching them as fan fiction, or engaging in wishful thinking, hoping that they’re seeing real pushback against the organizations and their officers. Still, Carrasco also believes that most viewers can’t tell if what they’re watching is fake, and questions whether they would know “whats real or not when it actually matters, like when the stakes are a lot higher.” Even when there are blatant signs of AI generation, like street signs with gibberish on them or other obvious errors, only in the best-case scenario would a viewer be savvy enough or be paying enough attention to register the use of AI. This issue is, of course, not limited to news surrounding immigration enforcement and protests. Fabricated and misrepresented images following the capture of deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro exploded online earlier this month. Experts, including Carrasco, think the spread of AI-generated political content will only become more commonplace. Carrasco believes that the widespread implementation of a watermarking system that embeds information about the origin of a piece of media into its metadata layer could be a step toward a solution.The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity has developed such a system, but Carrasco doesnt think that will become extensively adopted for at least another year. Its going to be an issue forever now, he said. I dont think people understand how bad this is. Kaitlyn Huamani, AP technology writer Associated Press writers Jonathan J. Cooper and Barbara Ortutay contributed to this report.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sales reps, business owners and recruiters are documenting their cold calls online and cashing in on the viral content. Cold calling has existed as long as the telephone: Its a sales technique where a representative for a company calls an individual unsolicited to attempt to hook them with their sales pitch in the first 30 seconds or less. Some say cold calling is dead in 2026, as people pick up the phone less and less due to the increase in spam and AI bots on the other end of the line. But these days, if your phone incessantly buzzes with endless sales calls, answer at your own riskyou might end up going viral on TikTok. Across the social media platform, sales reps create compilations of clips from the weeks calls, complete with the headset, standing desk and lively salesperson energy. Some test out different openers live on camera to varying results. Others document the blunt interactions or unconventional strategies for viral content. One content creator and life insurance salesman, Juliano Massarelli, who has gained notoriety online refers to himself as The Wolf of Insurance. The 18-year-olds most popular cold call to date has over 16.3 million views. In between hang ups, he bounces around his bedroom, embodying Jordan Belfort-esque energy. In another video, with 5 million views, Massarelli is shirtless and flexing in front of the camera before hitting the call button. After the woman hangs up less than a minute in, rather than be disheartened, he hits play on the music and dances at his desk. Massarellis boundless enthusiasm is so infectious, some have since parodied his content. Unfortunately this is the sales attitude you need, one person commented. This is at a time when a lot has been made of Gen Zs general aversion to phones. Almost a third report having phone anxiety at work, according to recent research from Trinity College London. Still, for those who work in sales, mastering the art of the cold call is non-negotiable, even in the year 2026. Other sales reps online choose to lean into the funny side of the incessant rejection that comes with the job. Would it absolutely ruin your day if I told you this was a cold call, one sales rep opens with in a viral video. Yes, the person responds. OKthen I just wont tell you its a cold call, he swiftly replies. Quick question: do you wanna hear what Im selling, or no? he tries in another video. The answer this time, is surprisingly yes. Its an undisputed fact: most people dont enjoy getting unexpected phone calls and many simply wont give cold callers the time of day. Still, over 50% of B2B leads still originate from cold calling in 2025, according to a recent report from lead generation company Martal.AI. Almost half of B2B buyers prefer to be contacted via phone first, and 82% accept meetings from cold outreach, the report found. And for the times cold callers get rejected, posting the clips online creates a feedback loop for promoting their products, businesses, or just themselves, to an audience of millions, whilst simultaneously cashing in on the viral content. Here, every no really is one step closer to a yes.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||