Meta has agreed to pay $18 billion to 47 U.S. states to settle claims that its social media platforms have harmed children. The tech giant, parent company of Facebook and Instagram, also committed to a significant overhaul of its safety features aimed at protecting underage users. However, some parents are expressing skepticism, viewing the settlement and new restrictions as inadequate.
Nicole Noble, a mother of two, described the settlement as "cutting down a single tree in a forest" and suggested that legislation and changes often lag behind technological advancements. "Right now, it might not make a difference," she stated.
Ruthie Friedlander, a mother and founder of a luxury branding firm, echoed these sentiments, arguing that Instagram has not implemented sufficient safety guardrails for children. "I’ve watched it affect me, as an adult with a fully formed brain and a professional reason to understand exactly how the feed works. And I’m supposed to believe a 10- or 11-year-old is going to be able to contextualize a social platform? No," she said.
The new safety measures introduced by Meta include daily two-hour time limits on Facebook and Instagram for minors, mandatory pauses to prevent continuous scrolling, restricted access between midnight and 6 a.m., and a halt to weekday notifications during school hours. The company also plans to strengthen age verification, enhance content safeguards, and restrict content that promotes poor self-image, such as certain beauty filters and the visibility of like counts.
Phil, a father of a 10-year-old, welcomed stronger protections but questioned the underlying premise. "The question isn’t only how many hours children should be allowed to spend on these platforms; it’s why platforms designed by some of the world’s most sophisticated companies require children to exercise extraordinary self-control in the first place," he said. He emphasized the responsibility of technology companies to create environments that do not exploit the vulnerabilities of developing brains.
Experts and parents alike suggest that industry-wide standards may be the next necessary step. Michaeleen Doucleff, a parenting expert and author, called the limitations "lipstick on a pig," expressing doubt that Meta can effectively control content to protect children. "Kids are exceptionally good at getting around these types of restrictions," she warned.
Clinical psychologist Julie Kupfer highlighted that concerns about social media's impact on children are not isolated to a single platform. "The content kids encounter often finds its way to YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok, and whatever platform comes next," she explained, adding that safeguards must address the broader digital ecosystem.
Some parents believe the changes are a positive first step but may not significantly impact most teenagers. Todd Cretacci, father of 13-year-old twins, noted that forcing Meta into changes could serve as a template but won't alter the behavior of many teens.
Los Angeles mother Amber Feld stressed the importance of hands-on parenting over platform restrictions. "Involvement is the most important thing — kids will always figure out a way to watch social media," she said, advocating for supervised viewing as a parental role that social media companies cannot fulfill.
Eric N., a parent of three, agreed that parents are responsible for determining children's readiness for social media, access, and screen time limits. He also raised concern about parents' own screen time and its impact on their children's attention.