Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Abraham Hamilton III says there is room to require corporations to operate responsibly and to put safeguards in place for children. But he also argues that the debate over social media harms cannot leave parents out of the equation.
In this conversation, Wesley Wildmon raises questions about when conduct by a social media company should result in legal liability, while Abraham explains the difference between criminal penalties and civil damages. Abraham says companies should not be allowed to “run wild and be irresponsible,” but he asks where accountability for parents fits into the growing number of lawsuits aimed at social media platforms.
Ed Vitagliano then puts the argument in what he calls “boomer terms.” He remembers being about four years old and watching the Three Stooges hit one another with hammers. After copying what he saw and chasing his sister around the house with a hammer, his parents banned him from watching the show.
For Ed, that childhood story illustrates a larger principle. His parents saw media affecting their child in a harmful way, and they acted. They did not expect the television producer to take over the responsibility that belonged in their home.
The panel considers several important questions: What responsibility do corporations have when products are designed to hold a child's attention? What safeguards should exist? And as lawsuits against social media companies multiply, where should parental responsibility begin and end?
Watch the conversation and tell us what you think. When children are harmed by what they encounter online, how should responsibility be divided between parents and the companies operating these platforms?
Abraham Hamilton III says there is room to require corporations to operate responsibly and to put safeguards in place for children. But he also argues that the debate over social media harms cannot leave parents out of the equation.
In this conversation, Wesley Wildmon raises questions about when conduct by a social media company should result in legal liability, while Abraham explains the difference between criminal penalties and civil damages. Abraham says companies should not be allowed to “run wild and be irresponsible,” but he asks where accountability for parents fits into the growing number of lawsuits aimed at social media platforms.
Ed Vitagliano then puts the argument in what he calls “boomer terms.” He remembers being about four years old and watching the Three Stooges hit one another with hammers. After copying what he saw and chasing his sister around the house with a hammer, his parents banned him from watching the show.
For Ed, that childhood story illustrates a larger principle. His parents saw media affecting their child in a harmful way, and they acted. They did not expect the television producer to take over the responsibility that belonged in their home.
The panel considers several important questions: What responsibility do corporations have when products are designed to hold a child's attention? What safeguards should exist? And as lawsuits against social media companies multiply, where should parental responsibility begin and end?
Watch the conversation and tell us what you think. When children are harmed by what they encounter online, how should responsibility be divided between parents and the companies operating these platforms?
