In 2004, a few years before K.G.M. — a pseudonym, because now you don’t even have to reveal who you are to get taxpayer-funded courts to hear your frivolous lawsuits — was born, three guys gave the world something called “MySpace.”

It wasn’t the first instance of “social media” on the Internet, but it was the first one to get global buy-in, with around 100 million users by 2008.

MySpace kicked off an era in which nearly two out of three humans on the planet use social media platforms to connect with others, share opinions and content, and, yes, sometimes scroll obsessively through everything on offer.

You or I may or may not like social media.

You or I may or may not use social media.

And, even though it’s pretty much the unique distinguishing development of the 21st century (everything else, including perpetual war, is just variation on eternal themes), you and I don’t HAVE to use social media.

Nor was K.G.M. forced to use social media.

But on March 25, a California jury awarded her $6 million in “damages” — half “compensatory” and half punitive —  from Google (which owns YouTube) and Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram), because she allegedly suffers from anxiety and depression and blames social media for those problems.

It’s really all punitive, because there are no “damages” to compensate for.

Google and Meta provided services which K.G.M. was free to use, not use, or use as much or as little, and in whatever ways, she pleased.

The availability of those services neither, as Thomas Jefferson might put it, picked K.G.M.’s pocket nor broke K.G.M.’s leg.

Since I don’t know K.G.M. personally, I can’t say whether she came up with the idea for this frivolous lawsuit or got conned into it by ambulance-chasing lawyers who thought they could mine moral panic for a big payday.

But the lawsuit was, in fact, frivolous and the verdict and “damages” award are, in fact, insane.

That insanity seems likely to become a trend (other such frivolous litigation awaits adjudication already), and the biggest costs won’t come out of the social media platforms’ bank accounts. They’ll come out of your freedom of choice.

Which happens to be EXACTLY what our ruling political class wants.

These platforms have opened the world up to examination and analysis. Not just by a few privileged insiders, by everyone. It’s harder for bad actors in politics, finance, etc. to hide.

These platforms have exposed their audiences to a previously unimaginable diversity of opinion. The heads of broadcast networks and publishers of newspapers no longer get to curate the viewpoints their audiences can hear, consider, and compare.

As platforms race to insulate themselves from liability to frivolous litigation, and politicians race to exploit the moral panic for control rather than mere financial benefit, our world is going to shrink back toward limited knowledge of, and enforced uniformity/conformity of public speech.

Now more than ever, we need decentralized — “ownerless” — social media platforms to make the rest of the 21st century censorship-proof … and judgment-proof.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY