You make a good point, and one that I didn’t necessarily consider.

Maybe it’s naïveté, but I do still imagine this case could be hypothetically won without trampling section 230. Mostly because we have actual evidence that Meta designs their products to be harmful: Whistleblower leaks and books hace clearly demonstrated that management works to juice profits at the cost of users. Eg: Collecting data about users with body-image issues and selling it to beauty advertisers. When you can point to actual emails between decision-makers saying “Ignore this problem, it makes too much money for us to solve”, I’d hope the case would revolve around not letting people prioritize shitty business decisions at the cost of people. Then theoretically, as long as you don’t have a bunch of lemmy mods coordinating similar practices, the case wouldn’t apply to them.

Hmm, now that I type it out, that’s definitely a naïve take. I don’t expect to see actual justice against corporations in the USA any time soon.

• Customizability (hotline numbers, etc)
• Independence from billionaire-owned supply chains
• Encourages and strengthens local support networks

Seems like the case is about inherently addictive features of the website, and not about hosted content.

the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230