Have you been to Friendster lately? Or how about MySpace? Ridiculous questions, but also telling ones about the attempted shakedown of Meta in states around the U.S.

Precisely due to the popularity of Meta’s social media offerings with young people, state AGs have happened on “a teen mental health crisis” as the impetus, or better yet the cover for them to act in indefensible ways. Hopefully those witnessing this total miscarriage of justice recognize it for what it is: an attack on Meta for making the lives of young people quite a bit better.

Here lies the problem with not just meeting, but leading the needs of any market. If you succeed, you’re a political target.

Consider this with Meta Platforms top of mind. Facebook can claim over 3 billion monthly users, as can Instagram. If you’re a state AG, do you think you can find a few disgruntled Americans within such a sizable cohort?

From there, ask the same question about young people. Implied in the shakedown of Meta is that before Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, life for teens and those adjacent to that age range was of a blissful nature. More realistically, the teenage years have always been defined by endless amounts of angst, depression, and occasionally much worse.

The State AGs harassing Meta act as though they’ve discovered something, when in truth they’ve happened on teen life. It’s never been easy, though it’s much better for teens and their parents since Meta’s various platforms gave them community at a time in their lives when they most feel alone.

Consider what has always been the biggest challenge for young people: how to navigate drug and alcohol. What’s evident from national surveys is that usage of both among young people is down substantially. While correlations are never exact, this on its own speaks to major improvements in how teens are doing, not to mention the downstream and very positive effects of reduced usage in other aspects of life.

Next, consider parents vis-à-vis Meta’s social media. Before it and the smartphones aiding its proliferation, parents quite literally didn’t know the whereabouts of their kids nor what they were doing while unaware of their whereabouts. Does anyone seriously think the before of this scenario was better? Retreat to the previous paragraph if the question confuses you.

From there, state AGs continue to frame the harvesting of teen data as evidence of something nefarious, when it’s as old as business for businesses to try and learn as much as they can about their customer base. How else to meet and lead their needs?

Politicians will say the data are used to “addict” users to their media, with an eye on further isolating young people. Travel back three paragraphs once again to place the “addiction” narrative in context, after which it should be said that if the effect of Meta’s social media were retreat from life, then it wouldn’t be in business for obvious reasons: its social media are largely ad-supported.

It’s a reminder that the popularity of Meta with both young people and advertisers is rooted in the happy truth that social media usage drives a lot of socializing and activities that extend beyond devices that fit in pockets. Said another way, Meta’s social media are an instigator of the community and living that are enemies of depression and mental instability.

Of course, that’s why Meta’s various platforms are so popular with young people relentlessly pursuing happiness. How sad that aiding much healthier and happier living comes with baseless lawsuits.