Why the World Loves US Big Tech Outfits: The Meta Example

March 31, 2026

Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

In the annals of big tech, one more lawsuit is likely to irrelevant. Even with LexisNexis-type systems, the decision will probably be as difficult to locate as the 1868 Erie War involving that charming fellow Corny Vanderbilt. Be that as it may, I noted the BBC article “Meta Told to Pay $375m for Misleading Users over Child Safety.” The write up reports as actual factual:

A court in New Mexico has ordered Meta to pay $375m (£279m) for misleading users over the safety of its platforms for children. A jury found that Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, was liable for the way in which its platforms endangered children and exposed them to sexually explicit material and contact with sexual predators.

How nitroglycerin like is an allegation about kiddies and explicit material? Based on what I hear at the law enforcement conferences which invite me to speak, this is a topic that catches investigator attention. A couple of years ago I presented an analysis of a business person’s online service. This individual was a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He operated a data service for businesses, and he operated what I call a “ghost service” for individuals with what I called less than salubrious interests. Not only did a couple of investigators want to speak with me after my talk, I had a follow up conversation with a Federal investigator in Detroit, and a phone call from an investigator who wanted me to send my presentation to a government connected organization focused on the types of content apparently referenced in this litigation. Usually someone says, “Good presentation.” Once in a while, I will be asked to join a group of attendees in the bar to talk informally (of course).

Thanks, MidJourney. Believe it or not, Venice.ai refused to generate the image because I requested adult content. Make sense? Sure, because good enough is indeed excellence.

I am not interested in the alleged fine. I know there will be appeals. Big companies have legal resources and often deal with set backs by playing the long game or just ignoring the legal outcome. That’s what the losing company’s legal eagles beat their wings and squawk for. Yeah, that and billing. I don’t want to forget that minor detail.

I want to step back and ask this question, “What is the impact of the charges levied at a US big tech firm in other countries?” Based on my personal experience of living in another country and working in a handful of these nations, I would offer these observations:

Although heinous, this particular case provides a case study of a big tech outfit in the US doing exactly what it incentivizes employees to do. I want to be clear: The job descriptions and the incentive plans for workers allow certain steps to be taken. Thus, the behavior is emergent. Take away the lingo of the job description and the metrics for a bonus or promotion, and the worker behavior changes. Without these direct actions, certain behaviors are almost guaranteed to produce the type of issues identified in this litigation.
The managerial and leadership set up makes it possible for a senior manager to say, “Whoa, I did not know this situation was taking place.” That is probably true. The job description, the incentives, and the compounds in the Petri dish blossom with behaviors others may find egregious. This means the leadership is telling a “truth” so the firm’s lawyers can do what lawyers do. (See my comment about billing.)
Observers outside the US wonder how a company can allow certain actions to occur. Over time, if the US big tech companies demonstrate similar product and service manifestations, either fear, frustration, or distrust becomes linked with the concept of a US big tech firm. Just as a whiff of a spouse’s perfume can evoke memories or emotions, these trials perform the same function with regard to US big technology. Toss in AI capabilities and big tech becomes BAIT (big AI tech). Such associations are not helpful for American firms’ image.

The BBC article adds:

Meta is also involved in a separate trial in Los Angeles, in which a young woman claims that she became addicted to platforms like Instagram and YouTube, owned by Google, as a child because of how they are intentionally designed. There are thousands of similar lawsuits winding their way through the US courts.

That word “thousands” is shocking. The implications of the business actions of US companies could have knock on effects that the companies themselves will not recognize. At some point, fines and talk could be judged ineffective. That’s why it is helpful to look at how countries like Russia are making a tactical decision to kill Telegram. Could that happen in other countries? That’s a question worth considering in my opinion.

Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2026

Written by Stephen E. Arnold · Filed Under Business strategy, Censorship, Government, Legal matters, News

Comments

Got something to say?

Search the site
Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive

Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.