A former Meta safety engineer has publicly questioned whether the social media giant's landmark $18 billion settlement with a coalition of American states represents genuine protection for young users or merely institutionalises existing, ineffective safety practices. Arturo Bejar, whose expert testimony proved instrumental in building the child safety case against Meta Platforms, expressed dismay this week at the terms agreed between the company and state attorneys general, contending that the remedies do little to tackle the specific harms he documented during proceedings.
Bejar's testimony before the court detailed disturbing practices within Meta's operations: the intentional underreporting of how frequently teenagers experienced harm on Facebook and Instagram, the algorithmic promotion of content designed to make young users feel inadequate about themselves, and systemic failures in handling reports of child predation. These allegations formed the backbone of the states' legal action, yet the resulting settlement appears to sidestep most of these core concerns. Speaking after the deal was announced, Bejar characterised the agreement as potentially cementing what he termed Meta's "safety theater"—superficial gestures that give the appearance of protection while leaving the fundamental problems unaddressed. He suggested that while the measures might marginally reduce time spent on Instagram, they would not meaningfully improve the safety of the platform itself.
The settlement commits Meta to paying states up to $18 billion over ten years and includes various restrictions on how teenagers can use Facebook and Instagram. However, scrutiny of these provisions reveals a troubling pattern: several remedies are measures that Meta previously considered and ultimately rejected as inconsequential to both user wellbeing and the company's financial performance. This disconnect raises questions about whether the states' legal victories have translated into meaningful change or merely formalised token gestures that Meta had already determined posed minimal risk to its business model.
One particularly revealing example concerns the hiding of like and reaction counts on posts. Meta had investigated this approach years earlier through an internal initiative called "Project Daisy" beginning in 2019, motivated by researcher concerns that social media engagement mechanics were harming teenage mental health. Internal testing concluded that obscuring like counts produced at most modest effects on user experience. A 2020 presentation to Mark Zuckerberg noted that Meta's own employees found no meaningful movement in overall wellbeing measures following implementation. The business impact was similarly negligible, with projections suggesting daily active user numbers would decline by approximately 0.09% if the feature became standard. Ultimately, Meta relegated like-hiding to an opt-in feature available at user discretion. Now, as part of the settlement, the same measure emerges as a settlement remedy—a fact that underscores how little substantive change the agreement may ultimately deliver.
The disconnect between alleged harms and settlement remedies extends to Meta's algorithmic recommendation systems. Internal Meta research, leaked by employees or obtained through litigation, has documented how the company's algorithms preferentially serve high doses of fitness and beauty content to teenagers already struggling with self-esteem issues, and how platform features are deliberately engineered to maximise scrolling duration beyond what users would independently choose. These algorithmic harms formed a significant part of the case narrative, yet the settlement addresses them only peripherally. Instead, the agreed remedies concentrate on expanding parental controls, implementing usage time limits, and improving detection of minors who misrepresent their age as adults—measures that, while potentially helpful, do not confront the underlying design choices that critics argue create the toxic environment in the first place.
The practical effectiveness of age-verification mechanisms remains particularly questionable. Meta's current approach relies primarily on user self-reporting of age, a system fraught with obvious vulnerabilities. International experience provides cautionary evidence: Australia implemented a government ban on social media use by teenagers under 16, yet regulators subsequently discovered that approximately eight in ten young teens remain active on these platforms. Enforcement efforts are now grappling with how to identify and remove underage users when the fundamental verification mechanism depends on honest self-disclosure. This structural weakness suggests that Meta's commitment to keep minors off its platforms may prove largely performative.
Reaction from mental health professionals to the settlement remains divided. Dr. Jane Conron, a clinical psychologist at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, highlighted a critical limitation in the agreement's approach: the requirement that Meta offer teenagers a non-algorithmically curated feed would only apply on an opt-in basis—a provision she predicted would see minimal uptake among users accustomed to algorithmic personalisation. The absence of a default shift to algorithmic-free content severely undermines what could have been a transformative remedy, she argued. However, Conron acknowledged that the settlement's requirement for daily usage caps on Instagram and Facebook could produce tangible effects for some teenagers, noting that several of her young patients experience such emotional dependence on these platforms that parental attempts to restrict usage trigger distress.
Conron suggested that even without explicit admission of fault from Meta, the settlement's very existence signals a shift in how society perceives social media's impact on youth mental health. The legal pressure required to extract these commitments from Meta, however modest, establishes a precedent that companies cannot indefinitely ignore documented harms to young users. She anticipates that the settlement may reframe conversations between teenagers and parents about social media consumption, potentially fostering greater awareness among families about the risks involved. California Attorney General Rob Bonta defended the agreement as instituting "real and enforceable change, real transparency, and real protections for children and teens," whilst acknowledging that legislatures and industry bodies must do more.
Meta responded to the settlement announcement by framing it as "building on our longstanding efforts to empower parents and support teens," language that masks the years during which the company simultaneously possessed internal knowledge of harms while declining to implement meaningful protections. The company's statement of gratitude toward Bejar rings hollow given his explicit criticism of the final outcome. This rhetorical disconnect illustrates a recurring pattern in Meta's approach to youth safety: acknowledgment of concern accompanied by measures calibrated to appear responsive whilst maintaining the fundamental architecture that generates controversy.
For Malaysian and Southeast Asian observers, the Meta settlement carries particular significance given the region's rapidly growing user base and limited regulatory infrastructure for social media platforms. Most Southeast Asian nations lack the legal machinery or political will to pursue comparable enforcement actions against technology companies, leaving young users potentially more vulnerable than their American counterparts. The inadequacy of the American settlement—achieved through years of litigation and insider testimony—suggests that regulatory approaches in less litigious jurisdictions will likely prove even less effective at securing meaningful protections. The lesson from Meta's settlement is not that $18 billion can purchase safety for young users, but rather that without structural changes to platform design and algorithm curation, financial penalties and marginal feature adjustments may simply represent the cost of business for technology companies prioritising engagement and profit maximisation over youth wellbeing.
