The Meta CEO repeatedly told opposing attorneys that he 'disagreed with the characterisation' of their questions
Share
Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg and opposing lawyers clashed in a Los Angeles courtroom where the Meta chief executive answered questions about young people's use of Instagram on Wednesday.
Mr Zuckerberg's testimony came as part of an unprecedented social media trial that questions whether Meta's platforms deliberately addict and harm children.
Lawyers representing the plaintiff, a now 20-year-old woman identified as KGM, claim her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts.
Meta Platforms and Google's YouTube are the two remaining defendants in the case, which TikTok and Snap have settled.
Beginning his questioning, the plaintiff's lawyer Mark Lanier laid out three options of what people can do regarding vulnerable people: help them, ignore them, or "prey upon them and use them for our own ends".
Mr Zuckerberg said he agrees the last option is not what a reasonable company should do, saying: "I think a reasonable company should try to help the people that use its services."
When he was asked about his compensation, Mr Zuckerberg said he has pledged to give "almost all" of his money to charity, focusing on scientific research.
Mr Lanier asked him how much money he has pledged to victims impacted by social media, to which Mr Zuckerberg replied: "I disagree with the characterisation of your question."
Mr Lanier also asked Mr Zuckerberg about what he characterised as extensive media training, including for testimonies like the one he was giving in court.
The lawyer pointed to an internal document about feedback on Mr Zuckerberg's tone of voice on his own social media, imploring him to come off as "authentic, direct, human, insightful and real," and instructing him to "not try hard, fake, robotic, corporate or cheesy" in his communication.
Mr Zuckerberg pushed back against the idea that he's been coached on how to respond to questions or present himself, saying those offering the advice were "just giving feedback".
Regarding his media appearances and public speaking, Mr Zuckerberg said, "I think I'm actually well known to be sort of bad at this."
The Meta chief executive has long been mocked online for appearing robotic and, when he was younger, nervous when speaking publicly.
Mr Lanier then spent a considerable stretch of his limited time with Mr Zuckerberg asking about the company's age verification policies.
"I don't see why this is so complicated," Mr Zuckerberg said after a lengthy back-and-forth, reiterating that the company's policy restricts users under the age of 13 and that they work to detect users who have lied about their ages to bypass restrictions.
The Meta chief mostly stuck to his talking points, referencing his goal of building a platform that is valuable to users and, on multiple occasions, saying he disagreed with Mr Lanier's "characterisation" of his questions or of Mr Zuckerberg's own comments.
Mr Zuckerberg has testified in other trials and answered questions from Congress about youth safety on Meta's platforms, and he apologised to families at that hearing whose lives had been upended by tragedies they believed were because of social media.
This trial, though, marks the first time Mr Zuckerberg will answer similar questions in front of a jury and, again, bereaved parents are expected to be in the limited courtroom seats available to the public.
The case, along with two others, has been selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies are likely to play out.
A Meta spokesperson said the company strongly disagrees with the allegations in the lawsuit and said they are "confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people".
One of Meta's lawyers, Paul Schmidt, said in his opening statement that the company is not disputing that KGM experienced mental health struggles, but rather disputing that Instagram played a substantial factor in those struggles.
He pointed to medical records that showed a turbulent home life, and both he and an attorney representing YouTube argue she turned to their platforms as a coping mechanism or a means of escaping her mental health struggles.
Lawyers considered the testimonies of over 1,500 people when launching the action.
The case follows years of backlash against Mr Zuckerberg's company.
People have previously attempted to sue the Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook owners for online harm, but have largely failed.
Social media companies often rely on Section 230 of America's Communications Act as a defence, which shields online platforms publishing third-party content.
However, this is the first time the tech giants face a trial by jury.
The jury won't determine whether specific content on the platforms caused harm.
It will instead decide whether the companies were negligent when creating and altering their products to ramp up user engagement.
The plaintiffs argue that Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat "have rewired how our kids think, feel, and behave", similar to the method used against tobacco companies in the 1980s and 1990s.
Other key witnesses expected to speak include Snap’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, YouTube’s Neal Mohan, and Instagram’s Adam Mosseri.