Mark Zuckerberg and his Ray-Ban entourage are having their day in court

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, entered the courtroom in downtown Los Angeles the same way as all the lawyers, reporters and advocates who had come to watch his historic testimony at the trial, but with one notable difference: He was surrounded by an entourage. He appears to be wearing Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses. To get to the courtroom, he walked past a crowd of parents whose children had died after suffering from problems they attribute to the design of social media platforms, including those made by Meta. He often spent the next eight hours answering questions in his matter-of-fact (or less charitably monotonous) rhythm, denying that his platform was responsible for the damages.

Zuckerberg was questioned during the morning hearing by Mark Lanier, the lead plaintiff for plaintiff KGM, a 20-year-old woman who claims Meta and Google’s design features encouraged her to compulsively use their apps and led to mental health problems, something the companies generally deny. Lanier’s charismatic style, drawn from his other profession as a chaplain, was in stark contrast to Zuckerberg’s responses on the witness stand, as he tried to bring nuance to how employees discussed — and sometimes criticized — various safety decisions. At times, Zuckerberg took issue with Lanier’s characterization of his testimony. “That’s not what I’m saying at all,” he said at one point. according to NPR. Meanwhile the judge warned that people in the courtroom are not wearing Meta AI glasses, and that they could be held in contempt of court if they fail to delete any recordings; Parents whose children have died after suffering damage attribute it to his platform I watched.

During his time on the platform, Zuckerberg has been under pressure over his decisions in Meta and previous public statements. He was asked about alleged inconsistencies between previous claims that he tried to keep children under 13 off Facebook and Instagram And documents Describing the value of attracting young users to the platforms. He was also asked to address decisions he made that would impact young users of his platform, such as his decision to drop a permanent ban on augmented reality filters that alter users’ faces in ways that mimic plastic surgery.

Zuckerberg’s answer to the AR candidate’s question helped illustrate one of his favorite strategies: arguing that Meta made careful decisions to balance freedom of expression with potential harms. During his testimony, Zuckerberg addressed a discussion among Meta executives in 2019 about whether to lift the temporary ban on filters, which Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri said Asked about last week. Zuckerberg testified that after reviewing research on the impact of filters on user well-being, he felt that the available evidence of their harm was not convincing enough to justify the trade-off of limiting a form of expression on the platform. “On some level, you can only build social media apps if you care about people’s ability to express themselves,” Zuckerberg said. “I think we need to be careful when we say, ‘There are restrictions on what people can say or express themselves.’ I think we need absolutely clear evidence that it’s going to be bad.

Zuckerberg eventually decided to let creators create some filters, except for things like simulating crease and crease lines, but did not recommend them or that Instagram make them itself.

Lanier suggested that Meta prioritized increasing the time users spent on the platform rather than luxury, but – so does he It was done a long time ago Elsewhere – Zuckerberg insisted that Meta intentionally shifted its internal messaging to focus on increasing the value of the product for users, even if it led to decreased usage in the short term. While some documents showed that employees thought about how blocking filters might discourage some users, Zuckerberg said that wasn’t a big factor in his decision since they weren’t hugely popular tools in the first place.

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged that not all members of his team agreed with the decision. “You had a group of people thinking about welfare issues who had some concern that there might be a problem, but they couldn’t show any data that I found convincing that there was enough of a problem to merit restricting people’s speech,” he said. Lanier showed him an email from another Meta executive in which she said she respected Zuckerberg’s invitation, but did not agree to it based on the risks and her personal experience with her daughter who suffered from body dysmorphia. “There will not be strong data to prove causal harm for many years,” the executive said.

When Zuckerberg reiterated that he did not find the available research compelling enough to justify a broader ban, Lanier asked whether Zuckerberg had degrees in a variety of professions. “I don’t have a college degree in anything,” Zuckerberg replied.

Zuckerberg’s day-long testimony concluded part of the second week of a trial that is expected to last at least six days. Jurors will soon hear from former Meta employees, including those who disagreed with the company’s approach to teen safety, and executives from YouTube, which is also a defendant in the case.

Parents who watched this testimony from the public seats told reporters that they did not feel they learned much new from the testimony, but many said they still felt it was important to make their presence known to the CEO. “I think it’s pretty clear who the parents in the room are, and I hope that when he looks into the courtroom, because we’re sitting there, he sees that and feels that, because the only way we’re really going to get change from him is when he’s compassionate,” said Amy Neville, whose son Alexander died of fentanyl poisoning at age 14. “When we can touch his compassion, we can get the change we seek. Hopefully we will get a little of that today. It remains to be seen.”