Why NM Meta child safety verdict could be 'first crack in the dam'

Support for here and now any time comes from the VCU School of Business.

Elevate your leadership skills in 20 months with an executive MBA.

Learn alongside accomplished peers and advance your career without pressing pause.

Explore at business.vcu.edu slash EMBA.

WBUR Podcasts. Boston.

It's the first but not the last time that I think

juries across this country are going to demand real accountability

from Netta and social media companies writ large.

How New Mexico took Netta to court over claims of child exploitation

on Facebook and Instagram and one.

It's Wednesday, March 25th and this is here and now anytime from NPR and WBUR.

I'm Chris Bentley.

Today on the show extraordinary events in energy and it's not just the war in Iran.

The Trump administration is paying a billion dollar subsidy to a French company

to not build wind turbines in the U.S.

Also government payouts notwithstanding global oil and gas supplies are strained by the war

which is exposed just how vulnerable we are to shocks in the price of fossil fuels.

I feel like we've gone so far down a bad road and Iran has really demonstrated

that it can effectively close the strait of hormones that we really don't have a way to go back.

That's what really scares me.

That story coming up in about 10 minutes but first it's a big day for social media companies

though from their perspective not a good one.

In Los Angeles a jury found meta and YouTube owned by Google were to blame for the depression

and anxiety of a woman who compulsively used social media as a small child.

That verdict comes a day after a New Mexico jury found meta, the parent company of Facebook,

Instagram and WhatsApp.

Knows all about the child exploitation that goes on on its social media platforms

but doesn't do enough to stop it, prioritizing profits over kids' mental health.

Meta has been ordered to pay $375 million in damages.

The company said it will appeal.

New Mexico's Attorney General Raúl Torres brought his suit against meta in civil court

and he spoke with Scott Tong about it earlier today before the verdict in the LA trial came down.

Well meta is known for years that this is a dangerous product, an addictive product,

and a product that actually facilitates predatory behavior on the platform.

They've known that because of their own internal documents, safety experts have been

raising red flags and recommending specific changes but again and again executives including

Mr Zuckerberg have chosen and prioritized profits over safety and because of that the jury in

New Mexico found them liable, found that their actions were willful and rendered a $375 million

judgment in our favor and it's the first but not the last time that I think juries across this

country are going to demand real accountability from meta and social media companies writ large.

And for parents who are listening parents of teens who are using these apps more broadly,

what should they know about the dangers facing underage users today?

Well first they need to understand that the business model that drives this company is one that's

really centered on engagement and its engagement at all costs. They want to keep kids connected to

the platform. They should also understand that the same things that connect people with their likes

and interests also connect predators on the platform with kids that are on the platform and so

both of those things together should give parents real concern about having kids accessing

these platforms in ways that frankly at this point are not safe and they should also understand

that the company hasn't been honest about the dangers that they know exist in these spaces.

And part of your case was a state undercover operation that created a fake social media profile

of a 13-year-old girl. What did that sting operation reveal?

Well what we were trying to do through the establishment of an undercover account was to recreate

the experience of a young girl on the platform we wanted to see for ourselves what the response

would be and frankly was shocking. They were immediately inundated with solicitations for sex,

requests for graphic material and an explosive growth in the following,

a predominantly men from all over the world. And what's even more shocking is that in response to

that growth on that particular account rather than raising a red flag, the company set information

to the account about how they could grow their user base and how they could monetize that following.

That's a clear example of what's wrong at the core of this company.

They have continued to prioritize engagement over safety and we found that very clearly

through our undercover investigation. Nationally, what do you hope comes of all this?

Well, I think this is the first crack in the dam. You know, meta and other social media companies

have been hiding behind Section 230 for years despite the fact that we've known how dangerous

Section 230, which gives them some legal immunity from what is posted on their platforms, yeah?

Yeah, that's correct. Section 230 was created in a totally different era in the early days of the

internet and has become a liability shield that they've hidden behind for years and years because

this is effectively a product's liability case brought under our consumer protection laws.

There's an opportunity now to hold these companies accountable in a way that frankly has never

existed before and it's going to be a blueprint for what comes next. In terms of our own case,

we will be back in front of the district court in May on our public nuisance claim. We'll be arguing

that meta has created a public nuisance and we will in addition to financial penalties,

we'll be asking for injunctive relief specific changes to the design features of the platform,

the algorithm, elimination of end-to-end encryption for miners and an independent monitor to really

enforce those features and those changes. What it will also do is potentially create a road map

or a blueprint for how this company could change its product offerings not only around the country

but around the world. Now the jury in New Mexico has required meta to pay $375 million as you say

for violating state law. It was a fraction of what the state requested and we're talking about a

company that's worth $1.5 trillion. Financial is could this effectively be a slap in the wrist?

Well, we don't have any illusions that the fine that was rendered by the jury yesterday is sufficient

deterrence to change their behavior. But if you think about the relative size of New Mexico and the

user base here, if similar types of actions are brought in other jurisdictions, which I anticipate

they will, the potential penalties will add up really quickly and the financial impact on the

company's bottom line will add up considerably. But I also think that the wave of litigation is

going to prompt congressional action. I think it's going to prompt Congress to really re-examine

section 230 and some of the stalled legislation that's been pending there for quite some time.

And when that happens, I think you're going to realize a sea change in the regulatory space

in terms of what we expect of social media companies and the safety features built into their

platform. Raoul Torres is the attorney general of New Mexico. Mr. Torres, thank you again for joining us.

Thank you so much.

Coming up next, President Trump is a nimbi when it comes to wind farms and his backyard is the US.

Robin Young has that story after the break.

Support for here and now any time comes from the VCU School of Business.

Two hours south, Richmond feels close but not crowded. Graduate students come to the VCU

School of Business for a variety of reasons to study accounting, hone their skills and decision

analytics and marketing, or make a career change into finance or supply chain.

Classes are scheduled for working professionals with flexible evening options,

including online and on campus. The VCU School of Business is open for business,

open for opportunity. Learn more at business.vcu.edu slash GRAD.

Support for here and now any time comes from Select Quote. If you're new to life insurance,

you're not alone. Thankfully, there's Select Quote. For over 40 years, Select Quote is helped more

than 2 million Americans understand their options and get the coverage they need. Select Quote takes

the guesswork out of finding the right life insurance policy. Life insurance is never cheaper than

it is today. Get the right life insurance for you, for less, and save more than 50 percent at

Select Quote.com slash anytime. This Earth Day, a one-and-a-kind adventure begins. From WBWR,

the creators have circled around an endless thread. You prefer your fruit hot or not. Comes a new

interactive story. A hundred years into our flooded future, the Midnight Rebellion is coming.

April 22nd, wherever you get your podcasts.

Let's take a closer look now at a settlement the Trump administration reached earlier this week,

the Interior Department agreeing to pay almost a billion dollars to a French multinational

oil company in exchange for them giving up their leases that allow them to build offshore wind

farms in the Atlantic Ocean. Instead, the Trump administration hopes to direct the company's

investments towards fossil fuels. Jack Biddle has been writing about this for our editorial partner

Grist, and Jack headlining that Grist has written is pointed. It says the government is paying total

energies. That's the French company, Jake, rather. Sorry. Jake, the government is paying total energies,

the French company, to halt a wind farm. It isn't building in exchange for fossil fuel investments.

The company is already making. Can you flesh that out?

When the Trump administration began last year, Trump said, I don't want to build any more wind farms,

we're freezing all new wind sales. The industry has been at a standstill for more than a year now,

and total was not really, I don't think, planning to use this lease any time soon,

but the administration would have liked to cancel it. The point of this settlement is to say,

well, we're just going to basically refund you the cost of this lease, which is for an energy

resource that the market doesn't really exist for anyway. We're going to pay you this money to

do oil and gas investments. This is an oil and gas company. It's one of the largest oil and gas

companies in the world. They already invest in oil and gas. There's an aspect of the whole thing

with a waste of everyone's time, but there's also a publicity stunt aspect about this as well, I

think. Well, we had to flesh that out because one would think this administration couldn't just

block the development because it's against wind farms. They've tried to block the development of

other wind farms. In December, the Department of the Interior issued a stop work order for five

some of them were already active and others were extremely close to being completed.

They went zero for five in the courts on those. The courts threw those stop work orders out

immediately and those five wind farms are close to being finished. There really aren't any other

major wind farms under construction, but the administration I think saw that it can't go in and

just unilaterally cancel leases. Now it's sort of going to plan B, which is can we find a way

to put a good spin on basically giving these companies a refund? Well, how does a billion dollars

taxpayer money look like a good spin? It looks like a windfall for this company and wouldn't

other companies that maybe have been sitting on their leases as you point out because they're waiting

for the Trump administration to move on? Wouldn't they say, hey, yeah, give me a billion, too.

Right, so those are both really good questions. It's important to know that total actually did pay

almost a billion dollars for these leases, which under the previous situation with the government

that was completely uncooperative, were basically worth nothing because you couldn't build wind on

them. So the government, this I think is like even though it seems kind of like taxpayer subsidy

to not produce wind, this is basically the government preemptively losing in court and saying,

okay, fine, we'll refund you for this asset. I think you're right to say that maybe other

other companies might want refunds as well and it's possibly you'll see that, but really all that

happens there is that then the territory goes back to the government, which perhaps in some future

administration could lease it out again. Look, we are also talking to you in a moment when

we are hearing another segment on the program that with what's happening in the

state of Hormuz, there are a lot of energy companies who are saying we actually might really

want to think about shifting to renewable and wind farms and you know, we have all these new

energy costs coming, you know, AIDEDA centers, cryptocurrency, electric vehicles. What is your

sense of how other companies might view what the interior department just did through that prison?

Yeah, absolutely. So there is a broad sense globally that, you know, all kinds of energy

resources are needed to meet demand growth and many companies that have invested in U.S.

offshore wind, including Total, Equinoa, or Stead, the big ones in the East Coast, are still

investing in offshore wind everywhere else and they're even investing in other kinds of energy

resources in the United States. I mean, Total develops and sells solar energy in parts of this

country. I think this is just a huge, it's a huge hole, right? U.S. offshore wind is

uninvestable because of the animus that the administration has displayed for it. So even though you

need all kinds of energy, this is kind of the one that no one's interested in building at this

moment other than the five that are almost complete. And just briefly, this, you know,

companies secure these leases during the Biden administration. What are they saying about what's

being lost when a project like this is bought off? Right. So I think there's a huge amount of work

that goes into developing these leases, right? You do all these agreements with fishermen,

tribes. It's kind of just a waste of their time. But as the CEO said in his statement in Houston,

when he signed this deal, we believe this is a more efficient use of capital in the United States

right now. And since you can't build wind here right now, he's probably right. Yeah.

Well, look, you refer to it as total energies. I said total. The English, I also called you jack.

You are Jake. Jake fiddle, staff writer, at grist. Jake, thank you so much.

Thank you, Boku.

By the way, we reached out to the Department of Interior for comment on this story and have not

heard back. But staying with energy, the price of oil is way up because of war in the Middle East,

of course. But there's reason to believe the market is actually underpricing the risk.

Coming up, why the U.S. can't drill its way to lower fuel prices. We'll be right back.

Support for here and now any time comes from the VCU School of Business.

Many professionals work with data now. Fewer feel confident using it to make decisions.

VCU's Master of Decision Analytics Weekend Program helps professionals use data and AI

to guide complex strategies. Develop skills without stepping away from your career.

No analytics experience required. The VCU School of Business is open for business, open for

opportunity. Learn more at business.vcu.edu slash mda weekend.

Be honest. Are you happy with your job? Are you stuck in a job you've outgrown or never

wanted in the first place? Are your reasons for staying really just excuses for not leaving?

Let a career coach from strawberry.me help you get unstuck. Discover the benefits of having a

dedicated career coach in your corner and get 50% off your first coaching session at strawberry.me slash NPR.

This week, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, Fati Birlal,

pointed out the two oil crises in the 1970s, together lost about 10 million barrels of oil a day.

How does that compare to the war today? Only as of today, we lost 11 million barrels per day,

so more than two major oil shocks put together. Samantha Gross is Director of the Energy Security

and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution, and she tells Robin Young she's worried about

where this is going, because there's no apparent off-ramp in this war. We're not really seeing any of

the three parties of this war looking for an exit. Instead, they seem to be barreling down the freeway,

and the oil crisis is getting worse as we go. Well, let's talk about that. Worse than the 70s,

as we're hearing, for those of us around in the 70s, you know, first in the early part of the

decade, oil producing countries imposed an oil embargo on the U.S. for supporting Israel and the

Omkippur War. Then later, in 1979, we had the Iranian Revolution. It seemed worse. You know,

first President Nixon told gas stations to ration fuel, and people were fighting on long lines,

and some countries banned driving on Sunday in the U.S. demand for larger cars fell.

Here's a CBS report from November of 1973. But an accessory for the cars people

already own is a big seller, locking gas caps to ensure no one can siphon away that precious fuel,

more and more motorists are keeping it under lock and key. That's the late Terry Drinkwater

CBS reporting from Seamy Valley in California. You know, people were locking their gas tanks.

Jimmy Carter, you know, wore sweaters, told us to turn down the thermostat. So, long questions

to man, but why is that not happening? There's a couple of different reasons we're not at that level.

One is that we're not feeling the full brunt of the disruption yet. Companies have oil and storage.

There is still oil on the water in transit, and so we're not feeling as bad as this is going to get

if it goes on. The other thing that is true is that markets are much better at allocating fuel to

where it needs to go. We produce a lot of oil in the United States. That helps. So, I don't expect

even if this sticks around. Just see gas lines like we saw in the 1970s. But I do expect to see

very high prices. The U.S. is now the world's largest oil producer, something else that happened

after the 70s. But we understand one of the problems there is it's the kind of oil the U.S.

produces is the easy one to sell. So, the U.S. still has to import an oil because that's the kind

of refineries can turn into gas. Yes. What happened is back in the 1980s and 90s heavy crude oil,

which is generally less expensive to buy, was quite cheap. And so, U.S. refineries set themselves up.

Many of them to run this less expensive crude oil. What they didn't know was coming is starting in

the 2010s that the U.S. would have this boom of crude oil production become the world's largest

oil producer. But most of that new oil is actually light, sweet, very high quality oil. So, it's

completely sellable, but it's actually not what many of our refineries are set up to run. And so,

today we do a bit of a swap. We sell this very high quality oil and import lower quality oil

because our refineries are better at running that lower quality oil. Well, you told on the media

that markets have been nonchalant about the war. There's also been criticism of the President

that he may have been nonchalant or worse. The Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen told CNN that

President Trump was lying when he said on Truth Social on Monday that he had held productive

conversations with Iran to end the war. Fortune reported that 15 minutes before the President made

that announcement, roughly $580 million worth of oil futures changed hands in a single minute.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman said flat out this isn't just inside of trading,

meaning someone knew. It's also treason. But what does it mean to us, the consumer,

when someone's accused of manipulating the market in that way?

That trade right before President Trump made his announcement was certainly sketchy.

Overall, markets will find the price that makes sense for balancing supply and demand.

But these kinds of gyrations and the potential for insider trading

are certainly sketchy and may be making individual people a lot of money. But I don't think

they're affecting where prices are going for consumers overall. And I think that trajectory

is going to continue to go upward. I said at the very beginning of this conflict that I thought

that the oil markets were being rather nonchalant. Maybe that's not the right word anymore.

But I still feel like the market is not completely taking in what's happening here.

The market seems to be collectively thinking that this is going to be a short conflict

and that we can go back to conditions on February 27th before this all happened.

I just don't believe that. Well, this is the thing that scares you. It sounds like this

nonchalance. The Trump administration is focused on increasing fossil fuel production and

dependence in the U.S. is reversed a lot of renewable energy ideas. Your sense there, because I

thought I also heard you say that some in the industry, this is kind of a wake-up colleague,

maybe we do need the renewable energy because what we're seeing in the straight-of-our-moo's.

Yeah, the thing that really scares me is not so much that the market isn't responding. It's that I

don't see a political way out of this. I feel like we've gone so far down a bad road. And Iran has

really demonstrated that it can effectively close the straight-of-our-moo's that we really don't

have a way to go back. That's what really scares me. And the implications that that could have

for the global economy, for the U.S. economy, despite the fact that we're the world's largest

producer of oil, we're still completely connected to global markets. What about how the

administration's kind of boasting of, well, we'll use Venezuelan oil? The statement about

using Venezuelan oil to get out of this crisis makes no sense at all. The Venezuelan oil

industry has suffered from more than a decade of neglect. The industry is in bad shape, held

together with chewing gum and duct tape. And it's going to take years to significantly impact

production. If we're still in this crisis, years from now, that's a huge problem. Venezuelan

is not going to help us. Years from now jumped out at us, I'm sure, to others as well. What about

the U.S. has already lifted sanctions on Russian oil, which is, I mean, Russia wins.

Yeah, I'm immensely frustrated with the lifting of Russian sanctions and the lifting of

sanctions on Iranian oil that's already on the water. Right. Because that's the idea that

lifting sanctions on Iranian oil, because it's already going through the strait, but lifting

it on Russia, which is still waging a war against Ukraine, is that the frustration?

It's certainly a source of frustration. If you think about the Iranian oil, it was already

on the water, meaning it's already has a buyer and is reaching the market. What lifting

the sanctions does is rather than being sold at a cheaper on the down low kind of price,

it can be sold at the market price because it's un-sanctioned. The same is true with Russia.

Russia had buyers for some of its oil. It's just that it had to be sold through the shadow

fleet at lower prices because that oil couldn't go through the formal channels. If we un-sanctioned,

it means Russia makes more money. I think the big winner from all of what's going on in the

Middle East right now is Russia. Samantha, do you see anything positive on the horizon concerning,

energy security, your bellywick in this crisis? The one thing that I think this might do is actually

accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. We have been focused on oil, but this is also a

natural gas crisis for countries that use liquefied natural gas. Twenty percent of that global

capacity is offline as well. I think this will push for both more efficient vehicles and electric

vehicles on the oil side, and then also encourage more renewable electricity generation for those who

can't get LNG. Samantha Gross, Director of the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the

Brookings Institution. Samantha Grimm, you know, I'll look, but thank you so much for joining us.

It's always good to talk to you.

That's it for the show today. Here and now any time comes from NPR and WBU Arbostan.

Today's stories were produced by Wilder Fleming, Huffs of Karachi, and Jill Ryan.

Our editors were Todd Mont, Mikaila Rodriguez, and Michael Scado.

Technical Direction from Caleb Green and Matt Reed. Our theme music has been Mike Miscado, Max

Leedben, and me, Chris Bentley. Our digital producers are Allison Hagen and Grace Griffin,

and here and now's executive producer is Alan Price.

Thanks for listening. We'll be back with you tomorrow.

You