If a child found Mr. Kipling cakes particularly addictive and began overindulging to the point of becoming overweight or unwell, would we be right to sue the baker? Or would it make more sense to ask whether the parent had enabled the behaviour by leaving the packets within easy reach, refusing to set limits or using them as a convenient babysitter?

A Los Angeles jury has just delivered a landmark verdict against Meta and Google, finding both companies negligent for designing addictive platforms that harmed the mental health of a young user, known as Kaley. The £4.5 million awarded in damages, with Meta shouldering the lion’s share, has been hailed as social media’s ‘Big Tobacco moment’. Tech firms, it’s argued, acted recklessly in knowingly hooking children with infinite scrolls, auto-play and algorithmic dopamine hits, and so they are therefore fully responsible for the depression and anxiety that ensued.

It is a seductive narrative. It’s also a comforting one, because it shifts responsibility away from the place it is most uncomfortable and most necessary to look at: the home. 

When parents treat screens as electronic babysitters from infancy, they are not victims of Big Tech

When parents treat screens as electronic babysitters from infancy, they are not victims of Big Tech

As a foster carer who has spent two decades watching the rise of screen addiction surpassing other forms of neglect, I question whether the tech companies are solely........

© The Spectator