Executives from three social media companies have denied their platforms are inherently addictive to children and young people, in a combative appearance before MPs in Westminster.
Representatives from Meta, Roblox and TikTok faced robust questioning from the cross-party education select committee about the impact of screen time and social media on children.
A fourth executive, from Snapchat, had been due to attend Tuesday’s hearing but was said to have cancelled “at quite short notice”, drawing a sharp rebuke from the committee chair, Helen Hayes.
She warned Snapchat the committee would use its powers to summon a witness if they did not cooperate and agree to appear at a meeting next week.
A Snapchat spokesperson said later: “Due to unforeseen circumstances we were unable to attend today’s meeting. As we’ve been discussing directly with parliamentary authorities, we are fully committed and engaged in this process and look forward to a productive discussion next week.”
I don’t understand why, when a specific product or company is accused by scientists and others of being harmful, we give any airtime whatsoever to said product or company. Did we not learn from the tobacco industry and oil industry and pharmaceutical industry that this is either a colossal waste of everyone’s time, or allows them to muddy the waters sufficiently to continue doing more harm in the interim? Why do I need to hear from sociopathic techbros that their products are fine actually?
If someone accuse me of doing something, I should have a right to reply, this is the same thing.
Someone publicly accuse social media of deliberately being addictive, then the company accused should have the option to answer the accusation in the same way it was fires at them.
You have the right to reply, But due to obvious conflict of interest, your reply in such a situation has no value except as a declaration of self-interest.