Issue 017 · Sept 1st 2026
Zuck’s problems METAstasize (just let me have it)
On August 26, Meta agreed to pay up to $17.1 billion to 47 states, DC, and several territories, ending the child-safety trial before Señor Zuck was forced to take the stand. It is the largest state consumer-protection deal outside the Big Tobacco settlements of the 1990s.
In the world’s biggest shocker, Meta admitted no wrongdoing. So is this accountability, or a receipt? Consider the shape of it. About $12.7 billion is guaranteed to the states over ten years; the rest lands only if TikTok and YouTube make matching changes and pay matching sums.
At the same time, the deal forces major product changes - default time limits for minors (2 hours a day max!), overnight blocks, an independent auditor, an injunction against further deceptive safety claims - but the toughest behavioral terms expire in five years against a ten-year agreement.
Still, Meta booked over $18 billion in operating income in a single quarter. So… does $17 billion actually punish Meta? Let's get into it.
→ The money isn’t the point.
Talking about how much money Meta makes and how it can “afford” this lawsuit is missing the forest for the trees. First - a bipartisan group of state AGs put Meta under oath and made them look like absolute scum. Consider the (we can’t believe this is real) internal Meta memo - “Long Term Retention: The Young Ones Are The Best Ones" examining usage among 10-12 year olds - holy sh*t. But honestly, the bigger win is this - states walked out with enforceable design mandates and an outside auditor. This would have been pretty much impossible to pass via legislative mandate. If you could even get Congress to push through industry lobbyists, you’d still have insurmountable First Amendment challenges or at least a decade in court. Finally, by tying part of the money to TikTok and YouTube signing on, we now have a template every other platform now has to match.
← Actually… yeah, the money is the point.
This is a parking ticket, and you can tell because the stock went UP. Investors read $17 billion spread across ten years - roughly 1% of the revenue Meta will earn in that window - and decided this was great news. AND as mentioned above, Meta tied its own punishment to whether its competitors settle too. The other way to read this is that the "safety floor" is a compliance cost that hurts smaller rivals more than it hurts Meta (similar to how post 2008 banking regulation was really a boon for the big guys). And it’s not like Meta is really sensitive to this stuff. They settle all the time ($5 billion to the FTC in 2019) - and the product keeps got more addictive, more invasive, and more tone-deaf. The voluntary changes are meaningful but do not underestimate the power of incentives, unless the firm’s business model itself is fundamentally forced to change. We’ll be back with another lawsuit in 10 years.
- NYC Event to Learn More -
Angela Duckworth in Conversation with Jonathan Haidt: Situated
When: Wednesday, September 30, 8 PM, 92NY
What: Two amazing authors - with one being a major figure in the anti-social media movement (aka The Anxious Generation). This is more about Angela Duckworth’s new book - she also wrote Grit - but we can’t imagine that social media won’t play a HUGE role in this conversation about changing your circumstances to make your life better.
- Curated Articles -
Meta Just Paid…To Write The Kid Safety Rules…(Mike Masnick, TechDirt) Very cynical (but convincing) article on why this settlement is actually Meta’s wet dream - regulatory capture
Changes to FB/IG are key part… (Carolina Rossini, The Conversation) Legal article about how the implementation of these changes is crucial to whether or not this was a win for the people.
The Room at UNMUTED - Thursday, Sept 10
If you use AI, you know how tempting it is to cede your critical thinking to asking Chat or Claude. If you don’t, you don’t exist because everyone uses AI and is lying if they say they don’t! This is especially problematic in higher education - and strikes at a fundamental question: is higher education’s primary purpose to educate or to credential for employment? And in either case, will AI ultimately strengthen the value prop of higher ed, or will it expose higher ed as a base credentialing service.
Turns out you can find out the answer next Thursday, when the founder of the Princeton Review goes head to head with a former employee and current SUNY admissions director Akil Bello. First time UNMUTED moderator Radhika Rajumar and 3x UNMUTED comedian and legend Andrea Jones-Rooy will join for a battle of wits and will!
In partnership with the Future of Higher Education. If you have opinions, and more importantly, are curious why you could be wrong, join us (early bird tickets are available until EOD tomorrow)! BUT if you can’t make it, subscribe here to stay updated on all of our upcoming events.
Is this caption AI? Is this description AI? What isn’t AI?
Leave the house NEXT week in
NYC
Wed 9/9, 6:30 PM
Trump Tariffs - A Debate
Stephen Moore (Unleash Prosperity) v
Scott Lincocome (Cato Institute) +
Gene Epstein (Soho Forum)
Oxford style debate. Tariffs - more about leverage than pure economics. They usually have an after-party at Gene’s apartment (it’s big!)
Produced by Reason, The Soho Forum
Hosted at The Sheen Center
Wed, 9/9 4 PM
The Forever War and the First Amendment
A lot of freaking people.
Two day conference on 9/11 and how the War on Terror collided with journalism and patriotism.
Produced by The Knight Institute
Hosted at Columbia University
Tues, 9/14 UNCLEAR
Democracy Dialogues
Adela Raz (former United Nations) + Rebecca Blumenstein (NBC News)
Event tickets are not up yet. But looks really interesting and love the space. Could just be another journalism is under attack piece, but maybe it will be more introspective!
Produced by NYPR, URL Media
Hosted at Greene Space
That’s all for now. See you Space Cowboy…