Features
Instagram and YouTube Held Liable for selling Engineered Addiction
Law and Technology
On Wednesday, March 25, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Big Tech’s Meta Platforms Inc. and Google to have been negligent in providing online platforms to their users without warning them of the addictive dangers of the platforms. The day before in Santa Fe, New Mexico, another jury had found Meta to have wilfully violated the state’s unfair practices laws in failing to protect children from online predators.
In the California case, a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., or Kaley, successfully sued for damages for becoming “severely addicted to Instagram (Meta) and YouTube (Google) as a child, leading to a downward spiral of body dysmorphia (a mental condition characterized by extreme with self-perceived defects in the appearance of the body), depression, and suicidal ideation.” She was awarded $3M in compensatory damages to be paid 70% by Meta and 30% by Google. The jury is set to deliberate further on punitive damages the companies should pay for malice or fraud. In the New Mexico case, Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in damages.
The awarded amounts are trifle to the giant companies that are floating in trillions of dollars for selling what is an essentially ephemeral but arguably addictive product. Yet the verdicts augur well for thousands of similar cases that are before courts filed by teenage plaintiffs and public agencies. Equally important, they will force Big Tech giants to reconsider the design of their social media platforms. Their dilemma is that in redesigning their platforms to attenuate their addictiveness, they are also likely to lose their current market capture whose primary attraction is its very addictiveness.
Both Meta and Google have already indicated their intention to appeal. They both have deep pockets to draw from, unlike TikTok and Snap who too were named in the LA case but chose to settle before the start of the trial. The settlement terms are not know but both are believed to have opted against litigating to avoid the huge legal costs involved. The two rulings are being called Big Tech’s new “Big Tobacco Moment”, recalling the lawsuits of the 1990s that held tobacco companies like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds accountable for the harms of cigarettes. The tobacco companies were forced to reach a $206 billion dollar settlement in 1998, with more than 40 states and an agreement to stop marketing to minors.
The two social media rulings are not the end of the matter but could be called the end of the legal assertions by tech companies that their social media broadcasting is protected as free speech by the First Amendment and that as carriers of the messages posted by users, they (the tech companies) are not responsible for their content. The latter was the principal argument of Google (for YouTube), but the LA jury of seven women and five men disagreed, based on the evidence presented and the novel legal theory that online platform design can create an addictive product.
The Pleasure Chemical of Addiction
Psychologists, neuroscientists, mental health advocates and teachers of children have long identified the addictive effects of social media users, especially children. The effects are global and so are the stories about their tragic victims. Social media have become sites for online bullying, beauty filtering as well as body shaming, depression by comparison, sycophancy, and sexual predation. Coroners have blamed social media platforms for teenage suicides. Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke has authored a popular book, Dopamine Nation: Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence, pointing to social media platforms as the addictive substance of choice of our time.
Dopamine (3-hydroxytyramine) is a neuro-modulatory molecule that functions as neurotransmitter in the human brain and is at the heart of addiction mechanics. It is the brain’s “pleasure chemical” that is released in response to external stimuli ranging from survival behaviours, pleasurable activities, to addictive stimulants. The natural design of the brain provides the reward mechanism for activities needed for survival and procreation. The design also responds to addictive substances and habits by releasing excessive levels of dopamine far exceeding the levels associated with non-addictive activities.
Greater the release of dopamine, greater the pleasure and greater the craving for the stimulant. The addiction cycle starts with the individual being first exposed to an addictive substance or habit and is rewarded by a large release of dopamine; the brain then both reinforces the behaviour and counters it by reducing the reception and release of dopamine – triggering the need for higher doses for the same pleasure reward; the cycle becomes vicious as the individual turns compulsive in craving for the addictive stimulant.
Psychiatrists identify two common risk factors in the addiction cycle. The first is the “dose effect” or “immersion”, referring to the amount used or, in the case of social media, the time spent online. The second ls “deification”, the tendency to ‘worship’ social media products as superhuman intelligences or … godlike entities that are ultra reliable.” The corollary of deification among teenage victims is self-idealization and self-comparison leading to lowering of self-esteem and emotional fatigue, depression and anxiety, or body image issues and eating disorders.
Individuals react differently to addictive stimuli, and Big Tech lawyers at the two trials unsuccessfully tried to shift the causes for addiction to the personal lifestyles and the mental health problems of the plaintiffs, rather than the social media platforms themselves. Psychiatrists opine that while those with pre-existing problems are more vulnerable to addition than others, there is evidence that the social media can both ‘exacerbate’ pre-existing conditions as well as ‘induce’ new habits.
Engineered Addiction
Both exacerbation and inducement would appear to have been present in the addiction history of 20 year old KGM, or Kalley, the plaintiff in the California case who testified on her own behalf. She said that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, and they both had “deleterious effects on her wellbeing.” According to her testimony, she became depressed by age 10, and began engaging in self-harm, getting aloof from her family and straining her relationships in school. By 13, she was diagnosed with “body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia.”
KGM’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, connected the legal dots: “How do you make a child never put down the phone? That’s called the engineering of addiction. They engineered it, they put these features on the phones.” He called Instagram and YouTube “Trojan horses” – “they look wonderful and great … but you invite them in and they take over.” KGM’s experience, her lawyers argued, “is emblematic of what tens of thousands of young people have faced on social media and in their offline lives.”
Counter testimonies were provided by Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta’s Instagram, and Mark Zuckerberg himself, Meta’s CEO and Facebook founder. Their main argument was that there is no existing body of scientific work to prove that social media causes mental health harms. Mosseri attempted to draw a distinction between “clinical addiction” and “problematic use” which he compared to “watching TV for longer than you feel good about.” That argument was quickly shot down by lawyer Mark Lanier who got Mosseri to admit that he is not a doctor express such an opinion.
Apart from clinical evidence, Lanier presented evidence from internal corporate discussions and emails to establish that the two Big Tech companies knew what they were doing, the harm they were causing and the way they were choosing to ignore their own internal warnings. Lanier produced in court an internal Meta study called “Project Myst” which had found evidence that children who had experienced “adverse effects” were most likely to get addicted to Instagram. The study also acknowledged that parents were powerless to stop their children’s addiction.
Internal emails showed that Meta’s own experts were “unanimous on the harm there,” and that they were talking about “encouraging young girls into body dysmorphia.” Yet when it came to banning filters that distort faces, the high command ignored the technical recommendation. One of the reasons according to an internal email was that removing such filters would “limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India).”
Was fear of losing executive compensation a factor in not banning the marketing of harmful products like “beauty filters?
Lanier reminded Instagram Chief Mosseri that his salary of “about $900,000 per year” was only a small part of his compensation that could go as high as $10 million or $20 million a year, including bonuses and stock options, but depending on annual business turnover. Lanier questioned Mosseri whether decisions not to ban product features such as “beauty filters,” were meant to protect and enhance executive compensation. “I was never concerned with any of these things affecting our stock price,” Mosseri replied. But he could not erase the dots, or doubts.
The age verification process to stop children from starting to use social media at a young age is another concern. Instagram policy, according to Zuckerberg, is to restrict users under the age of 13, and to provide triggers to detect users who lie about their ages to get online. This obviously did not work for KGM, the plaintiff, who got hooked on at the age of six. Mosseri tried to argue that Instagram makes “less money from teens than from any other demographic on the app,” but this was refuted by research evidence showing that people who join young turnout to be long term users.
Lawyer Mark Lanier pointed out that in dealing with vulnerable people, Big Tech companies could either help them, ignore them, or “prey upon them and use them for their own ends.” Zuckerberg agreed that “no reasonable company would prey upon vulnerable people to make money, and that a reasonable company should try to help the people that use its services.” That Big Tech has been failing in being responsible and has been negligent in protecting vulnerable people is the jury verdict coming out of New Mexico and California.
by Rajan Philips
Features
Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy
I. The Constitutional Context
Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.
As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].
II. A Proposal for Reform
This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.
This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.
What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.
III. Governing Considerations of Policy
What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.
Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).
The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.
Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).
IV. Practical Constraints
Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.
A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.
Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.
If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.
This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.
V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?
If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.
By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.
Features
Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience
In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.
According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.
In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.
Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.
As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.
(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera
Features
Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity
A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.
Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.
For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.
Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.
“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”
A tale of two fishes
The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.
Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.
Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.
Echoes of ancient land bridges
The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.
Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.
Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.
“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”
Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.
A deeper genetic divide
One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.
Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.
Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.
Implications for conservation
The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.
Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.
“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”
Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.
A broader scientific shift
The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.
Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.
“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”
Looking ahead
The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.
For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.
As Ranasinghe puts it:
“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”
By Ifham Nizam
-
News5 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
Features2 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News7 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
News2 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
Business6 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial5 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Features7 days agoSeychelles … here we come
-
Opinion7 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
