- by Deborah Longe
- March 26, 2026
TuneIn–ReadNewPosts–ListenAgain (Recent & Archived Programmes)–Word-of-the-Day–SendPrayerRequests–Winning Warrior Wives–JoinReadersClub–GetNotifications–Volunteer & Support–BuyBooks
The following is a transcription of On the Lord’s Side Podcast presented on GospelBellsRadio on March 26, 2026 by Olufemi Oguntokun. It may not fully match with the audio, but represents a near perfect transcription of the broadcast.
On YouTube and Meta’s $3 Million Liability for Social Media Addiction
Good morning to you once again. It’s Thursday, the 26th of March 2026. The program is On the Lord’s Side, Christian perspectives on news and current events.
My name is Olufemi Oguntokun. You can follow me on X at Olufemi OG. You can follow Gospel Bells Radio on X at Gospel Bells Radio.
Did you come across this piece of news yesterday on social media? CNN reported that a California jury has found Meta and YouTube liable on all counts in a case that accused the tech giants of intentionally addicting a young woman and injuring her mental health.
I mean, that appears like a mouthful. Let me read this headline from another source which makes the matter more straightforward. This is exactly what it says:
“YouTube and Meta to pay $3 million to a girl who got addicted to their platforms in a landmark judgment.”
Think about that. Think about what must have led that court to find that YouTube and Meta of course, Meta is the parent company for this ubiquitous platform, the parent company for Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. So think of what evidence the court must have seen to reach that conclusion that indeed YouTube and Meta deliberately got that girl addicted to their platforms.
Think again of how it is possible for faceless entities, entities with which you are not in direct contact—to have such power over you. Think of that, and then think of the many millions of people who probably would have the same claim against YouTube or against some social media companies. Then think of the age in which we live, and then think of yourself and think of the people you know, and ask whether these platforms have been successful in getting you addicted as well.
According to this report, a Los Angeles jury has ruled that YouTube and Meta are liable for negligence after a young woman said she became addicted to their platforms from an early age. The jury determined that the design and operation of the platforms contributed to her mental health struggles, awarding three million dollars in compensatory damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the amount.
Jurors also agreed that both companies could face additional punitive damages, which are yet to be decided. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2023, accused the platforms, including Instagram, of creating addictive environments harmful to young users. The plaintiff reportedly began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine.
A therapist who treated her testified that her social media use contributed to mental health issues, including social phobia and body image concerns. Both companies have pushed back against the ruling. Meta said teen mental health is complex and cannot be tied to a single app, while YouTube argued its platform is not designed to be addictive. Appeals are expected.
And of course, appeals are expected. You expect these very financially solid platforms to appeal this ruling. But it says something. It says something that a case like this could arise, and that a jury could be persuaded by evidence that indeed these platforms are designed in a way to keep people addicted to them.
This is a subject that we have addressed a number of times on this podcast. When you look at the structure of a commercial entity, you look at its model, and you are able to tell what it can do and what it cannot do. This thing about models is quite important. If you want to know what a person or a company is likely to do, just look at the model of that person’s or company’s operation.
How does the person make money? How does the platform make money? How does the company define success? If a platform defines success by how many people are using it every day, every moment of the day, then you can be sure that such a platform will do everything possible to keep people using it.
That is the model for any business. Consultants will tell you that the first thing they want to know about your business is the model: how you define success, how you make money, how you become profitable. If profitability depends on getting millions or billions of people to use your platform, then you know what must be done to achieve that.
The same applies even to Christian platforms and ministries. If your model is to have the largest crowd at your prayer meeting, don’t be surprised if you are tempted to do unethical things to achieve that. If that is how you define success, you will go after whatever brings that success.
This is one of the banes of today’s culture, especially with the ubiquity of social media and the internet. Not only for platforms like YouTube and Meta, but also for individuals who want to position themselves as influencers. If validation comes from follower count, then people will do whatever it takes to increase that number—even buying fake followers or views.
Many people have also been conditioned to evaluate content based on how many people have watched it. They unconsciously dismiss content with fewer views.
Now, back to the trial. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court documents as KGM or Kelly, claimed she became addicted as a young girl and suffered anxiety, body dysmorphia, depression, social phobia, and suicidal thoughts.
Some argue that these conditions have always existed and cannot be attributed solely to social media. That is partially true. However, social media has made these issues more pronounced.
The next question is: who should be blamed, the companies or the users? From a legal standpoint, if evidence shows that companies adopted unethical practices to make people addicted, then they may be found liable.
But from a spiritual standpoint, the question is not just blame, it is responsibility. Who is responsible for not getting addicted? From a Christian perspective, it is you.
Jesus said that offenses will come, but we must be wise enough to recognize and avoid them. That is why we are instructed to guard our hearts with all diligence.
Parents also bear responsibility. If a six-year-old has a social media account, the parent must bear the blame. They provided the device, the internet, and failed to supervise.
Even adults must take responsibility. We always have the power to make choices. Even knowing that platforms are designed to be addictive, we continue to use them. The issue is not whether to use them, but whether to allow them to control us.
The takeaway is clear: now that we know how these platforms operate, what are we going to do about it?
On Jehovah’s Witnesses Updating Their Blood Transfusion Policy
Next, I want to go to this story about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. As many people know, one of the beliefs for which they have become known is their refusal of blood transfusions. They believe that blood is sacred and that accepting another person’s blood is ungodly.
The counterargument is that blood transfusion saves lives. Their response is that the issue is not whether it works, but whether it is godly. That is a valid type of argument in general Christian reasoning.
However, there have been many cases where members died after refusing transfusions, even when such procedures could have saved their lives.
Now, the news is that the organization has updated its policy. Instead of a total rejection of blood transfusions, members can now have their own blood removed, preserved, and later re-infused, especially in planned surgeries. However, they still reject receiving blood from others.
This shows that the organization has been pressured to move away from its rigid stance.
But we must ask: is this a biblical command or a human rule? The Bible teaches that life is in the blood and that blood should not be shed unjustly. However, it does not explicitly forbid blood transfusion.
Like the Pharisees of old, religious leaders can sometimes build additional rules on top of God’s law. These human rules can go so far that they lead to harmful consequences.
We must be careful not to elevate human rules to the level of God’s commandments. Human rules are subject to change, as we see in this case.
It is likely that even this updated rule may change again in the future.
The key lesson is this: do not make people feel they are sinning when God has not called something a sin. You may hold a rule within your denomination, but do not impose it as divine law, especially when lives are at stake.
I want to thank you very much for joining us this morning on Gospel Bells Radio. For On the Lord’s Side, Christian perspectives on news and current events, I hope to be with you again tomorrow by the grace of God.
Whatever you do today, please remain firmly on the Lord’s side. God bless you.
You are listening to gospelbellsradio.com, the Christian internet radio with a mission to engage the culture with the mind of Christ. Keep listening and invite others too. God bless you.