The heads of major social media companies aren’t taking the potential harms of their platforms seriously enough, according to a former government minister who once worked within Meta’s AI ethics team. Josh Simons, a former Cabinet Office minister, spoke out following a recent US court decision that found both Meta and Google liable for a woman’s childhood addiction to social media, a case that he believes should serve as a wake-up call for tech executives.
The jury in the California case recommended the 20-year-old plaintiff be awarded $6 million (£4.4 million) in damages. Whereas both Meta and Google have stated their intention to appeal the verdict, Simons argues the ruling highlights a fundamental disregard for user wellbeing in the pursuit of engagement and revenue. The case centers on claims that the platforms were designed to be addictive, exacerbating mental health issues in young users.
Simons, who spent three years at Meta and testified in the case, told the BBC’s Newscast podcast that he resigned from the company because his team’s recommendations for safer platform design were consistently ignored. “Every time a decision was made, it seemed like the opposite of what they would need to do to think about these harms and these addictive harms,” he said. He believes the core issue is a prioritization of profit over user safety.
The Addiction Argument and the US Court Case
The lawsuit in California, brought by a young woman who alleged that her childhood addiction to social media platforms exacerbated her mental health struggles, has opened a latest front in the debate over tech accountability. City A.M. Reported on the trial earlier this month, detailing the arguments presented by both sides. The plaintiff’s legal team argued that Meta and Google intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive, exploiting psychological vulnerabilities in young users. The jury’s decision to award $6 million in damages suggests they found merit in those claims.
Simons echoed this sentiment, stating, “I think it was so obvious to me that when you build a set of AI systems to maximize things like clicks and likes and shares and angry faces and things like that, what you’re doing is designing AI to addict people.” He believes the focus on maximizing engagement, driven by advertising revenue, inherently creates incentives to prioritize addiction over wellbeing.
Growing Calls for Regulation and Potential Bans
The US court case comes as governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate social media and protect young people. In the United Kingdom, ministers are currently consulting on a potential ban on social media for under-16s, alongside piloting other restrictions on young people’s tech employ. Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, has indicated that the US ruling could strengthen the case for tougher regulation in the UK, stating that the government will “study the decision very carefully.”
Simons himself supports a ban on social media for those under 16 and a ban on mobile phones in schools, arguing that these measures are necessary to protect children from the potential harms of excessive screen time and addictive platform design. However, he also stressed that politicians cannot simply pass legislation and then abdicate responsibility. “Politicians should not be let off the hook for improving regulation of social media,” he said.
Simons’ Past and Current Concerns
Simons’ criticism of the tech industry is particularly noteworthy given his previous role within Meta. He spent three years working for the company, and his testimony was used in the recent US court case. His decision to resign as a Cabinet Office minister earlier this year stemmed from a separate controversy involving a report commissioned by a think tank he previously led, which investigated journalists who had written critical stories about its funding. As City A.M. Reported at the time, Simons was cleared of breaching the ministerial code but felt he had grow a distraction.
In his recent interview, Simons apologized again for commissioning the report, admitting he had been “naïve” and that he never intended for journalists to be investigated. “But it’s still the case that I gave the impression that that’s what I’d intended, even though it wasn’t,” he said. “And actually, I think it was right for me to take responsibility for that, to say, appear, I’m so sorry this happened.”
Meta has been contacted for comment.
The coming weeks will be crucial as Meta and Google formally respond to the US court’s decision and prepare their appeals. The outcome of those appeals, and the ongoing regulatory debates in the UK and elsewhere, will likely shape the future of social media and its impact on young people for years to come. The focus now shifts to whether tech companies will genuinely prioritize user safety, or continue to prioritize engagement and revenue above all else.
If you or someone you know is struggling with social media addiction or mental health issues, resources are available. You can find support and information at the National Alliance on Mental Illness (https://www.nami.org/) and the Mental Health Foundation (https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/).
What do you think? Should social media platforms be held more accountable for the wellbeing of their users? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Related reading
