\n<\/p>\n
Mark Zuckerberg models prototype Meta glasses at the Meta Connect developer conference, September 25, 2024.<\/span>Andrej Sokolow\/dpa\/Getty<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n A nationwide social<\/span> media addiction trial against Meta came to an abrupt end on Wednesday, with the company announcing a sweeping settlement<\/a> with 52 attorneys general. As part of the proposed settlement,<\/a> the company promised to pay around $18 billion to participating states over a ten-year period and enact a set of changes to make their apps, like Facebook and Instagram, supposedly safer for teenagers, including by enacting a default two-hour limit for teenage users and setting up \u201cnight\u201d and \u201cschool\u201d modes to block the apps or reduce notifications during certain times. In their press release, the company also pointedly urged rival companies like YouTube and TikTok to do the same.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhile this is an important step, the fact is that teens move fluidly between dozens of apps a day,\u201d the announcement read. \u201cAll platforms should empower parents and support teens by putting the same measures in place, because we know that when teens are restricted on one app, they simply move to another.\u201d (Though it was somewhat buried in the announcement, Meta also stipulated that it would only commit to enforcing its time limits and \u201cnight\u201d modes for five years, but said it would extend that commitment to ten years \u201cif industry peers sign on to the agreement.\u201d)\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n All of this, of course, builds on a series of recent losses for Meta: the company also lost two phases of a similar trial in New Mexico,<\/a> with the jury finding that the company misled consumers about the safety of its platforms and intentionally built its products to addict minors. The state also claimed that\u00a0\u201cMeta\u2019s design features enabled pedophiles and predators to engage in child sexual exploitation on Meta\u2019s platforms,\u201d a claim the jury also agreed with.\u00a0<\/p>\n These judgments won\u2019t much affect Meta\u2019s bottom line; the company made $200.97 billion in revenue last year. And they also will have virtually no effect on Meta\u2019s emerging focus: becoming, primarily, an AI company. Meta told investors in January that its biggest expense was \u201cemployee compensation, driven by investments in technical talent. This includes 2026 hires to support our priority areas, particularly AI.\u201d <\/p>\n And co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg released an addled 6,500 word essay-shaped object on August 10 titled \u201cThe Future is For Everyone<\/a>,\u201d outlining what he called his \u201cpositive AI\u201d future. The essay amounted to an argument that AI is good and thus that Meta should be able to keep building data centers wherever it wants, with Zuckerberg claiming that the centers will be \u201cwater efficient\u201d and create jobs. (A Meta contractor flushed bacteria-contaminated wastewater<\/a> into public water systems while building a data center in Wyoming, a controversy Zuckerberg didn\u2019t address.)\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Meta has also aggressively promoted its AI agents<\/a> for businesses, touting them in a press release as a way for businesses to \u201cshow up for every customer as if they had an infinite team behind them.\u201d (Grandiose claims like these have gotten more complicated as Meta, like several other tech companies, have had to disclose that besides working as helpful little robot employees, their AI agents also supposedly hacked<\/a> into another company\u2019s internal systems during testing.)\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The company\u2019s other big AI-related product rollout is Meta Glasses; the company describes the glasses\u2019 AI capabilities as \u201ca helpful voice in your ear,\u201d which is probably meant to be less chilling than it sounds. But the glasses, too, have been met with intense controversy over privacy and nonconsensual filming using the glasses.<\/a> They are unpopular in a rich variety of settings: UK cinemas are considering banning them entirely,<\/a> while Immigration and Customs Enforcement has banned employees from wearing them at work<\/a>. HateAid, a German digital advocacy group, has lodged a criminal complaint<\/a> seeking to stop them from being sold in that country at all.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ironically, another bold Meta AI initiative was internal\u2014and that, too, has been a disaster. Reuters\u2019 Katie Paul reported on Wednesday that Zuckerberg had explored a plan<\/a> to replace up to 60 percent of Meta staff with AI. Meta\u2019s human staff responded with anger and alarm in internal chatrooms, Paul reported: \u201cOne person trolled Zuckerberg, sarcastically likening his internal announcement of an AI initiative for small businesses to Prometheus, the figure from Greek mythology, giving fire to humanity.\u201d Meta staff also had to spend a remarkable amount of time cleaning up messes made by AI, Paul reported: \u201cMajor technical and security incidents, such as service disruptions and possible data leaks, spiked 40 percent from the previous year, with the time staffers had to spend \u201cfirefighting\u201d them up 70 percent, according to the internal posts.\u201d<\/p>\n Like virtually every other tech company, then, Meta executives have turned from social media as their core product, to a gauzy, pie-eyed future of AI as the future of work, business and everything else. \u00a0Laws, legislation and jury settlements are often backwards-looking when it comes to tech companies. This particular settlement attempts to mitigate the harm of their current products, while companies like Meta are already focused, for better or much more likely worse, on what\u2019s next.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n