Mark Zuckerberg blocked ban on plastic surgery filters despite teams' concerns for teenagers, children

In a development that is going to cause a whole lot of trouble for Meta’s Mar Zuckerberg, court documents from a recent lawsuit revealed that he vetoed Meta’s plan to curb plastic surgery filters, despite being told that it would harm children and teens. The lawsuit, which was initially filed last month and detailed in an unredacted copy distributed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alleges concerns about the potential harm to girls’ mental health caused by these filters. The unredacted version of the suit sheds light on additional issues, including the number of users under the age of 13 and whether Meta misrepresented the safety of its Facebook and Instagram platforms. The lawsuit adds to the increasing scrutiny faced by social media giants regarding their impact on their youngest users. According to the lawsuit, Zuckerberg’s decision to veto the ban on plastic surgery filters provides context for the alleged misconduct at the core of the complaint. Despite concerns raised by internal discussions, Meta has emphasized its commitment to keeping teens safe online, introducing over 30 tools to support young users and their families. California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, “Meta knows that what it is doing is bad for kids — period. Thanks to our unredacted federal complaint, it is now there in black and white, and it is damning.” In response, Meta defended its position, stating that while filters exist on every major social platform and smartphone camera, the company bans those directly promoting cosmetic surgery, changes in skin colour, or extreme weight loss. The company emphasized its decade-long commitment to addressing online safety issues for teens and stated that it aims to provide a safe and age-appropriate online experience. The unredacted lawsuit also alleges that internal company documents show Meta set goals for the amount of time users spend on the platform, despite public statements to the contrary. Additionally, the states claim that the company misrepresented the platform’s safety, as internal data reportedly indicated that users experienced disproportionate harm online. (With input from agencies)