/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23951403/STK051_VRG_Illo_N_Barclay_10_tiktok.jpg)
TikTok has to face a lawsuit from the mother of 10-year-old Nylah Anderson, who “unintentionally hanged herself” after watching videos of the so-called blackout challenge on her algorithmically curated For You Page (FYP). The “challenge,” according to the suit, encouraged viewers to “choke themselves until passing out.”
TikTok’s algorithmic recommendations on the FYP constitute the platform’s own speech, according to the Third Circuit court of appeals. That means it’s something TikTok can be held accountable for in court. Tech platforms are typically protected by a legal shield known as Section 230, which prevents them from being sued over their users’ posts, and a lower court had initially dismissed the suit on those grounds.
I’m gonna take the side that tok is potentially liable on the algo argument but these parents also failed their children. Teaching your kids to avoid replicating unsafe internet content should be just as primary as looking both ways before crossing the road.
As a society, we’re responsible for all our children. The point of child protection laws, and population protection in general, is to support and protect them, because often times, parents are incapable of doing so, or it’s social dynamics that most parents can’t really understand, follow, or teach in.
Yes, parents should teach and protect their children. But we should also create an environment where that is possible, and where children of less fortunate and of less able parents are not victims of their environment.
I don’t think demanding and requiring big social platforms to moderate and regulate at least to the degree where children are not regularly exposed to life-threatening trends is a bad idea.
That stuff can still be elsewhere if you want it. But social platforms have a social dynamic, more so than an informative one.