The Globe and Mail reports from its Thursday, April 2, edition that a California woman was awarded $3-million (U.S.) in damages from Meta and Alphabet's YouTube, claiming their negligence caused her early addiction to their platforms and contributed to her mental health issues. The Globe's Gus Carlson writes that lawyers for Meta and YouTube argued that her mental-health struggles were tied to her home life and that the platforms provide safety guardrails to minimize risk. Meta said, "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options." The case is not over. The multimillion-dollar verdict is likely to increase since the jury found the companies acted with malice, leading to a second phase to determine punitive damages. The woman's struggles are clearly serious and sad. But the idea that social media alone is to blame for her situation is about as far-fetched as the proposition that a Twinkie-filled diet will drive someone to kill another person. In the old days of television, the question about parental oversight was: It is 10 p.m. Do you know where your children are? Now, the question should be: It is the social-media era. Do you know where your parents are?