Ryan Knudson

How did Zuckerberg respond to that?

He says a couple things.

He says people under the age of 13 are not allowed on our service.

It's really hard to identify these people when they're there because they don't have a driver's license.

They don't have any form of identification.

And so if we identify people under the age of 13, we'll remove them.

But it's hard for us to do that.

Zuckerberg would say sometimes, you know, these are documents from over 10 years ago.

So he says, I can talk to you about what we do now and what our practices are now.

How much would that even really matter, though, if Meta says that it's changed now and it doesn't do certain things now?

Because this case is ultimately about things that happened in the past that did have an effect on real people.

Right, right.

And that is sort of the point that the plaintiff's attorney was trying to make was these things happened and Zuckerberg is trying to bring it into the present and say this is how we address it.

But to your point, these are things that happened in the past.

Was Zuckerberg ever asked directly in any sense about whether Meta designs Facebook and Instagram so that people will want to spend more time on it?

Yeah, they didn't get into specific features like the infinite scroll or the autoplay.

What they did talk about was the beauty filters.

Zuckerberg said he was aware of the research the company commissioned showing beauty filters could be harmful, but he decided to bring it back anyway.

He said, quote, "...I felt like the evidence wasn't clear enough to limit people's expression."

And so I thought that was really interesting in that to him, a lot of these things are, and this kind of gets to the crux of the case, right, is for him, he's trying to weigh giving people freedom of speech and freedom of expression versus keeping people safe.