How is this clear? What lever could Zuck pull that would prevent this harm?
From the research I’ve read the harm of social media is, almost exclusively, in the zone of what people post on it (ex: bullying) or what they are seeking to accomplish by posting (ex: looksmaxxing). I struggle to see how the harm that causes is caused by the ability to share it.
The judge did not say that Meta itself isn’t responsible. I think their corporate priorities are probably misaligned with the good of humanity. But it isn’t Zuck by himself who did all this- it’s teams of researchers and software devs and product managers- that’s a corporation.
You probably couldn’t impose a large enough fine to prevent Meta optimizing for kids’ attention- they are such a huge source of profit. If you really want to protect the kids you need straight up regulatory bans.
There is an obvious difference between not preventing a harm that is a direct result of your activity, and not preventing a harm which isn't.
Secondly, him not directly feeding starving people in SF is not the same. It’s unrelated. He is not the mayor of SF, but he is the CEO of Meta.