Photo by Politico
By Karolina Granda, Editor-in-Chief
Zuckerberg’s influence on social media platforms
Mark Zuckerberg runs the virtual sites that Moraine Valley students lean on when not using MVCC Connect. He is the founder and CEO of Meta Platforms, previously known as Facebook. He also owns and operates Instagram, responsible for its recent prosperity. Since 2012, the platform has grown from 30 million users to a grand 2 million. However, with digital prosperity comes psychological disparity. Such disparity presents itself within the arguments that sparked the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) v Meta January 2026 trial.
Social media and mental health
The National Library of Medicine explains that internet usage, particularly that of excessive time spent on social media results in early cognitive hinderances that are necessary to individual development. Children and teens who routinely use social media platforms, such as Instagram and Facebook, observationally act on impulsive, aggressive behavior on account of prolonged disconnection from reality. While social media is positively recognized for its genuine original social intentionality, connecting individuals with distant family members or close by communities, its adaption to addictive qualities outweighs these positives in the present day. So, the question lies in why we don’t set a limit on who can use these platforms. If children and teens take the time to develop into well-rounded individuals, they should conceptually be able to manage social media as well, right? Well, this is where the conflicting arguments presented in FTC v Meta stem from, as although “most social media platforms have a required minimum age of 13, almost 40% of children between the ages of 8 and 12 use social media,” (John Hopkin’s Medicine, 2024).
The evolution of FTC v Meta
The ‘Zuckerberg trial’ is not 2026 news, as this case dates back to 2020 where it was dismissed on account of Section 230. Section 230 law provides immunity to online organizations, such as social media platforms, for being held accountable for the content that is published on their platforms. So yes, a terrorist threat posted to Instagram or Facebook cannot be tied back to the responsibility of Zuckerberg himself. But, to claim that algorithms of such platforms do not promote content that is damaging and addictive to the developing and developed mind is a false defense. In the age of the internet, its generational accessibility has profound implications on social consequences. Zuckerberg has and has had the power to influence such consequences and has done so in a manner that depresses and discourages our society. Six years later, his fictitious ignorance on the matter is being legally held accountable.
FTC v Meta 2026
The plaintiff (KGM), is in the same age range as our campus’ students. She is a 20-year-old woman who claimed that social media formed continued distraction in intended connection throughout her childhood, and testified against Meta CEO Zuckerberg in the January 2026 trial. She claims that the structure of her early social media usage resulted in “exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts.” The unfortunate widespread relatability of such thoughts and feelings is what transformed her experience into a necessary legal matter. KGM’s testimony consisted of arguments that a censor did not exist for the content so readily available to her and other young viewers alike. That being said, it seems that the legal seriality of these reoccurring effects has not exacerbated at the same rate as its psychological consequences as the trial’s results favored Meta. The courts ruled that Meta was not to be held responsible for social networking taking place within social platforms. A lack of accountability is evidently equivalent to a lack of reform. Knowing this information and adapting personal experience, Moraine’s students must ask themselves who should be held responsible for the deteriorated mental states caused by social media?
You must be logged in to post a comment.