From the article there's this. If this isn't proof, well, I don't know what would be:

A 97-page internal presentation, “Teen Fundamentals,” in May 2020, described its goal as to “look … to biological factors that are relatively consistent across adolescent development and gain valuable unchanging insights to inform product strategy….”

That presentation conceded, “due to the immature brain they have a much harder time stopping even though they want to – our own product foundation research has shown teens are unhappy with the amount of time they spend on our app.”

If you know it, and I know it, and everybody knows it, why the hell are we paying huge amounts to mince words over the proof?

This is more of a learning question. I recommend reading why law exists in the first place

Are you saying everyone knows it was designed to be addictive and thus no proof that it was is needed PLUS people actually got addicted to it (similar to drugs)?

If so, what is your definition of addictive because it seems to differ from mine.

because sometimes what everyone thinks they know is wrong, and law is extremely nuanced, so everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves

Because that is how the law operates.

Feels like you'd just need a former employee who was in an engagement engineering meeting.

Here I am.

... who can't be bribed for a fraction of $1.4T.

Has to be a pretty decent sized fraction.

https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-pro...

> The Commission is authorized to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to an SEC enforcement action in which over $1 million in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected.

This case isn't an SEC enforcement action.

I'm aware. Start one.

Social media is the new tobacco