So if I write a book that your kid just can't stop reading it over and over again because I deliberately made it compulsively re-readable, and then your kid develops some kind of issues because my book is so interesting to him, you can sue me and win?

I don't like that idea. Personally, I value free speech more than some supposed "harms" done to children by content. Content that they can easily stop consuming by just closing the app.

Agreed, this is just setting the stage for requiring age verification (and surveillance) under the pretense of "saving the children".

There's an appreciable difference between creating a compelling work within an established medium like literature and inventing a (digital) machine that exploits psychological vulnerabilities (ie intermittent reward cravings) to keep the target engaged.

> Content that they can easily stop consuming by just closing the app.

If staying away from social media is this trivial to you I applaud your self discipline but googling 'social media addiction' suggests a very real phenomenon where people, children and adults alike, often find themselves incapable of self regulating their usage.

It's established that exposing children to bad things causes harm. This isn't specific to technology. "Free speech" isn't a concept that applies to the exposure of harmful speech to children.

I agree, I should be allowed to give children my amazing crystal meth, it's such an untapped market.

I don't think this has to do with free speech. If companies can deliberately harm kids, they should be regulated.

Yup! I hate meta too but this case wasn’t the right way to take them down. Glad they got away with it.

[flagged]

Yeah, and all you perverts stop telling Grok to produce kiddie porn, because Elon is a free speech absolutist who absolutely believes in his own free speech, and your own personal responsibility to close his kiddie porn generation app. So if somebody uses it to generate pictures of your children, you can easily stop consuming by just closing the app.