What it means that Meta and YouTube lost in court

Social media companies have long seemed impervious to legal threats. Meta, YouTube, Snap, and the rest have long waved off criticism of their platforms on free speech and Section 230 grounds. But twice this week, juries rendered verdicts against the platforms, not because of some bad videos but because of the design and structure of the platforms themselves. That might change some things.

On this episode of The Vergecast, David and Nilay dig into this week’s rulings, the novel legal approaches that led to them, and whether these cases (and the others set for trial this year) could actually change the way social media works. We also try to figure out whether this is a great day for regulating important platforms, as some people think, or a total disaster and an assault on free speech, as others think. Maybe it’s somewhere in between. Maybe it’s both.

All that social media talk comes after some important housekeeping. First: Nilay has a flight to catch, and is worried he’s going to miss it standing in the TSA line. (Update: he made it. Go see him at the American Bar Association TechShow in Chicago this weekend!) It’s also the beginning of our Apple 50 coverage, and we need your help to figure out the best 50 Apple products ever. By the way, if you want to hear us spend a couple of hours debating which products to include, there’s a special episode on the ad-free Vergecast feed exclusively for subscribers. Go subscribe!

If you want to know more about everything we discuss in this episode, here are some links to get you started: