Hacker News Reader

Comment by ehhthing | Hacker News Reader

I am not a lawyer, but this seems like the school board have no standing (in the legal sense) to be filing this lawsuit. I do not believe that social media companies have the duty of care to the school boards to maintain kids' mental health.

Some of the things in the lawsuit are just stupid like arguing that social media causes them to need to do investigations into threats and such. You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the same thing, would you? Sure these aren't the same thing as social media, but whether a duty of care exists should be a relatively similar analysis.

View on HN

Literally this. You'd have to twist yourself into a legal pretzel to somehow claim that because teachers act in loco parentis for children in their care that now somehow their supervisors have power of attorney over their charges.

This is one of those cases where the idiots involved deserve to get hit with a huge fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit. No, not the school district, but those involved. Personally.

How does "power of attorney" have any relevance here?

The argument is simply that the school district has suffered damages from specific behavior by the social media companies, that has nothing to with an ability to make decisions on the student's behalf.

>How does “power of attorney” have any relevance here?

It doesn’t and that’s Earl’s point. That would be the best way for them to have any standing, but it just doesn’t line up.

It wasn't, actually. I made that comment before I read the complaint. The statutory basis of their complaint is that Facebook constitutes some specie of nuisance, hence my later comment that even if we took their factual assertions at face value the charge asserted should be void for vagueness.

Having read the complaint, no, it doesn't have relevance here (obviously I made that claim prior to reading the complaint), but what they do assert is even worse: They're trying to claim that use of Facebook, Tiktok, etc and consequent behavioral issues among students constitutes a nuisance. The phrase "void for vagueness" would seem to apply here.

It's an easy pretzel for teachers/school administrators to tie themselves into, because these people are on the frontline of witnessing the ways in which parents can neglect and abuse their kids. It's easy for teachers to fall into believing themselves / the state a better steward of children than their own parents.

I'm not sure if that is the case, but if it is, it is the educational equivalent of the police seeing everyone as a threat because they deal constantly with the law breakers of society.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's very similar. Teachers have to interact with all students, not just the ones who have trouble, but the ones who have trouble occupy a greater portion of the attention of teachers. So teachers spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on the matter of neglect and abuse. The saddest most depressing cases stay in the minds of teachers for a long time, while the normal well cared for students are soon forgotten.

>seems like the school board have no standing

That was exactly my reaction. If Bob Ferguson (WA AG) wanted to pursue such a case, he / the state would have standing - and as far as I know, the school board asking the state and getting other school boards involved in such a case would be the more powerful approach. This is Seattle though, with its particular political leanings, and/or it could also be a bit of a Hail Mary - do this to show frustration in hopes that the AG or similar parties will take action.

.. chiming in: Bob has indeed been looped in since this suit was on the table four years ago - and participated in person to the 3 meetings where this suit was on the agenda. I have heard his comments and discussion first hand. I know there to be at least two of his staff handling this suit. It is common for these types of well-executed lawsuits where the named-party is a public entity - for the relevant legislative office to NOT present a public statement until several weeks after filing the suit. I can assure you that the AG or representative thereof, will do so in the coming weeks.

Doesn't surprise me given his previous suit against Facebook (IE: The reach of social media is an active concern of the state). Likewise, Bob and I have mutual friends and this very much sounds like the kind of thing he'd have the pulse on. For that matter, it sounds like you have some hands-on info here - maybe you and I run in the same meatspace circles ;-D.

Where are you getting this "duty of care" thing? That doesn't seem remotely similar to any of the legal arguments discussed in the article.

> You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the same thing, would you?

Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement.

I assumed this lawsuit was a negligence one. It's not, it's under public nuisance laws. I still don't understand how the school board should get damages paid given they aren't "the public", and they didn't have any of their rights violated.

> Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement.

A school investigates all threats equally regardless of how they are communicated. Whether they are mailed, sent via SMS, called in or sent on social media should not matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com