Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass
blog icon orange rss icon with stylized radio waves bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter substack icon


back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow


Hooked on apps? Seriously?

What the win for the plaintiffs in the case of K.G.M. v. Meta tells us about the drug prohibition mindset

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

March 26, 2026



"Lacking the usual grounds on which people congregate as a nation, we [Americans] habitually fall back on the most primitive yet most enduring basis for group cohesion, namely, scapegoating." p 32 --Thomas Szasz, Our Right to Drugs 1


In this essay, I will be drawing a connection between the latest spate of lawsuits against Google and Meta and the policy of drug prohibition2. I was inspired to write this after reading the details in the case of K.G.M. v. Meta et al., in which a grown-up plaintiff successfully charged both companies with hooking her on online services as a kid3. But first, a quick disclaimer: I am no fan of Facebook or of Google; I think that Google, in particular, is a long-overdue candidate for being "broken up" by monopoly laws. I thought this already well over two decades ago. After all, if Google is not a monopoly, then surely monopolies do not exist. I even created a print-on-demand bumper sticker reading "Break Up Google" in the early 2000s. Yet, at the same time, I am highly hypocritical in saying this since I am a regular user of a variety of Google services and am benefiting because that monopoly status is being overlooked by Congress.

On the other hand, I am surely losing out thanks to that monopoly status in ways that I cannot even imagine, perhaps most importantly, the fact that Google writes the algorithms (or at least the algorithm-writing software) that decides whose views of the world are going to be promoted online and whose are going to be sidelined and buried under pages and pages of other hits. Google's ranking of search results is not a logical process of any kind, notwithstanding the naive sanguinity of modern tech pundits on this point, but is based on unspoken ideas about what constitutes display-worthy criteria. Google assumes that quality sites will have plenty of incoming links, which would be fine in a world where all the people were right all of the time, but any glance at history tells us that all the people have been wrong much of the time, in some country with respect to some policy and so forth. And Google's algorithms will be sure to bury those pages rather than make the public aware of their substance lest they might actually learn something new.

But enough about the subjectivity of algorithms. I merely wanted to make the point that I am not favorably disposed toward the tech giant and its fellow behemoths before I hold forth on the parental lawsuits that they are currently facing. Because despite that confession, I find real problems with the argument that Google is hooking kids on using their various platforms. The same goes for Facebook/Meta. I think that this is actually true, in a sense: these companies certainly use every trick in the book (and many high-tech tricks that have yet to be recorded in any book). But then that is what capitalism is all about: a business is supposed to do all it can to get customers, which in this case means getting eyes on the page. It seems odd to sue them for being really good at that job, as if they should have stopped at some point and said to themselves: "We're getting too many dedicated customers. Let's stop trying so hard and scale back our efforts a bit so that we will be slightly less successful than before, economically speaking."

Do not mistake me here. I believe that the parents have a point; but their real enemy is unfettered capitalism, not Google in particular. Have these parents watched any television commercials lately, especially those directed at young people? Those commercials are all about controlling the behavior of the young. They do everything they can to accomplish that goal, no matter how subtle, no matter how obvious, no matter how sly. That is not illegal: it is something that is actually called good business practice. If parents find this problematic, they should complain about the priorities of unbridled capitalism rather than singling out an easy (if ginormous) target like Google et al. as a kind of whipping boy for their parental frustration. Google is no more guilty of endangering children than is the Jim Beam company which promotes bourbon drinking on prime-time television in advertisements aimed at young people, or the many game manufacturers which sell so-called "hydration" games like "Chug O' War," in which the very goal is to use liquor as irresponsibly as possible.

There is another problem with blaming companies like Google for the effects of its services on particular young people. Such charges always beg the following question: why did hundreds of millions of other young people not have the same kind of life-destroying reaction to those services as did the plaintiff's child? It's a big world, after all, with over 8 billion people. It's a pretty big "ask" to demand that Google should provide services with which no kid in the world will ever find a way to have problems. Again, this is not to say that Google's services are moral, merely that they are legal -- indeed, not only legal but an example of best practices in the age of unfettered capitalism. Google as such is just the standard bearer for a host of companies that act in the same way all the time, though on a smaller scale.

What's the connection with drug prohibition?

Though originally inspired by pure racism and xenophobia in the early 20th century, drug prohibition has been supported ever since by parents who band together to encourage their legislatures to pass draconian laws based on bad cases, on statistically rare cases which, however, make for heartbreaking viewing on context-free documentaries on prime-time television shows like 48 Hours. Such parents like to find one particular villain that they can punish for a life gone wrong, failing to realize that such lives (whether of children or adults) are usually the result of a vast array of interacting forces and that it is arbitrary and naive (and, indeed, all too convenient) to pull out just one from the jam-packed line-up of plausible suspects and cry like Laertes in the play: "Thus didst thou!" This "array of interacting forces" includes, of course, the parents' role (witting or otherwise) in bringing about problematic outcomes, which is no doubt one reason why parents would not wish to "go there" and would prefer instead to limit their list of culprits to external sources.

And this, of course, is the very M.O. by which outraged (generally white) parents band together to demonize drugs today in an effort to get Congress to "do something," which means, of course, to pass more draconian laws based on bad cases, thereby running roughshod over the rights of all other stakeholders in the drugs debate who might otherwise benefit from time-honored medicines, including the millions of chronic depressed like myself, who have been shunted off onto dependence-causing "meds" after being denied drugs that could cheer them up in a trice. And the pundits tell us there are many more such lawsuits on the way. While these cases may have nothing to do with drugs per se, they will all be motivated by the same parental mindset that fuels drug prohibition to this very day: the desire to punish a convenient scapegoat for the problems of growing up in an the age of unbridled capitalism.




Key Takeaways:






Notes for essay entitled Hooked on apps? Seriously?: What the win for the plaintiffs in the case of K.G.M. v. Meta tells us about the drug prohibition mindset:

1: Szasz, Thomas. 1992. Our Right to Drugs. Praeger. (up)
2: Censored Bookstores in the Age of Drug Prohibition DWP (up)
3: Meta, YouTube must pay $3M to woman who got hooked on apps as a child Belanger, Ashley, Ars Technica, 2026 (up)




read more essays here





Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US




Only a pathological puritan would say that there's no place in the world for substances that lift your mood, give you endurance, and make you get along with your fellow human being. Drugs may not be everything, but it's masochistic madness to claim that they are nothing at all.

We live in a make-believe world in the US. We created it by outlawing all potentially helpful psychological meds, after which the number-one cause of arrest soon became "drugs." We then made movies to enjoy our crackdown on TV... after a tough day of being drug tested at work.

I've been told by many that I should have seen "my doctor" before withdrawing from Effexor. But, A) My doctor got me hooked on the junk in the first place, and, B) That doctor completely ignores the OBVIOUS benefits of indigenous meds and focuses only on theoretical downsides.

If we encourage folks to use antidepressants daily, there is nothing wrong with them using heroin daily. A founder of Johns Hopkins used morphine daily and he not only survived, but he thrived.

Addiction thrives BECAUSE of prohibition, which limits drug choice and discourages education about psychoactive substances and how to use them wisely.

Here is a sample drug-use report from the book "Pihkal": "More than tranquil, I was completely at peace, in a beautiful, benign, and placid place." Prohibition is a crime against humanity for withholding such drug experiences from the depressed (and from everybody else).

When it comes to "drugs," the government plays Polonius to our Ophelia: OPHELIA: I do not know, my lord, what I should think. POLONIUS: Marry, I'll teach you; think yourself a baby!

Every time I see a psychiatrist, I feel like I'm playing a game of make-believe. We're both pretending that hundreds of demonized medicines do not exist and could be of no use whatsoever.

Endless drugs could help with depression. Any drug that inspires and elates is an antidepressant, partly by the effect itself and partly by the mood-elevation caused by anticipation of use (facts which are far too obvious for materialists and drug warriors to understand -- let alone materialist drug warriors!).

I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.


Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us






back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow
Book Cover

Break the ice with a sledgehammer: place this book on your coffee table.

This book features 150 annotated images, designed to force brainwashed Americans to confront the fact that drug prohibition is wrong. Here is what author Richard Parrish II says of the book's compiler: "The drug prohibition philosopher provides first-hand, principled, persuasive, and insightful arguments against the current drug prohibition regime..."

Purchase Your Copy
Book Cover

Diary of a Drug Fiend

This is the only full-cast recording of Aleister Crowley's 1922 classic paeon to common sense. It is the first book -- and so far almost the only book -- to stake out a philosophy of drug use that is compatible with human freedom, one in which we learn to use drugs as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity. This recording was produced by the Drug War Philosopher and your purchases help support his effort to push back against the tragically counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, in the name of human freedom and of humanity's right to heal.

Purchase Your Copy



No cookies, no ads paid for by amoral and immoral billionaires (or trillionaires).


Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.


Copyright 2026, Brian Ballard Quass Contact: quass@quass.com

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP (up)