Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 455 posts

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#431

Post by bluefirebrand »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #263
ubercore wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was more about the positive outcomes from these kinds of fines, rather than about _forcing_ corporate behavior change. If corporations are going to act like psychopaths, let's at least make them pay a tax for it with fines like this.

Oh yeah for sure, I'm not suggesting the fine is bad, I'm suggesting it's insufficient. I want to "yes and" this, not replace it. Fine them, and incentivize change for them and all other businesses in the space. Fines just clearly, demonstrably don't do that. Jail time for executives would, IMO.

Jail time for top investors would too

Imagine that. Forget the corporate veil, if you are invested heavily in a company you are financially enabling the harm they do. Maybe you should also be somewhat legally liable for the harm they do too

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#432

Post by edg5000 »

gms wrote: post #94
drivebyhooting wrote: post #9

What benefit do kids draw from instagram and facebook?

Socialising. Same benefit I drew from playing video games with my friends when I was in school. (Though, to be a bit pedantic about it, kids don't use Facebook.)

I bet a lot of time goes into scrolling reels, instagram, tiktok and youtube shorts. That's leisure, but not social. Of course you can send people messages and comment on things, but I suspect only a small minorty of the time goes there. Like socializing at a casino.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#435

Post by watwut »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #319
watwut wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, women dont create whole networks of sexual abuse and overall are less sexually violent. And they are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements that rationalize and defend all that abuse.

>And they are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements that rationalize and defend all that abuse. Women are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements as a general baseline. I'm not sure they do evil shit any less once you account for that.

The topic is specifically sexual abuse, porn vs erotic books.

The commenter tried to play the "erotic romance books are as bad as hard core porn and no one is treating it that way" bullshit.

Women do create political ideologies and movements. They do participate in them too. The topic is specifically who is building and defending sexual abuse networks, who is invested more in defending right to abuse.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#436

Post by mlsu »

philipallstar wrote: post #414
shermantanktop wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inverse incentive is what's in place today: a platform actively harming the users who signed up for it, in pursuit of ad dollars. The incentive is to extract maximum revenue while disregarding the real-world effects of actions, including driving children to self-harm or mental illness. That's bizarre. But I know for some people, it doesn't seem bizarre, and just seems like "capitalism."

The platform isn't actively harming. It's actively driving them to content they engage with. What they're choosing to engage with is harmful. The fact their parents let them on the platform is the crazy part, but the state already extracts vast amounts of money from them.

Why punish S.E. Massengill? It’s the parents, after all, who willingly allowed their children to drink sulfanilamide. Hell, if the children simply closed their mouths when the spoon is in front of them, they’d be perfectly fine!

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#437

Post by ktallett »

eastbound wrote: post #371
Petersipoi wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line you conveniently skipped is > Which creates some bizarre incentives

One would argue the kids got paid for finding a dangerous place and entering. Up to the building owner to prevent access. It’s a form of giant bug bounty. I wish I’d be paid a 7k$ bounty for every website where I can find an underage vulnerability.

The key thing is these people will get older and no longer be in that age bracket so you are relying on future groups in that age bracket to know this loophole which will be some but far fewer I suspect.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#438

Post by hobo123 »

socalgal2 wrote: post #75
somenameforme wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex education is, outside of some places in Europe, very rare. You'll certainly find such things far and few between in Asia. So not only is it absent in non-Christian nations, but the places where it is present, like Scandiland for ex, tend to be Christian. Porn, let alone fetish porn, has a big problem because all the actors, including "amateur", are not only 'heavily used' and completely desensitized, but also the…

It doesn't require porn. Most movies, tv shows, rom-coms or dramas, have "unrealistic" depictions of "normal" relationships.

Indeed, IMHO romance on tv did much more to poison relationships than pr0n.

I'm pretty sure most guys know that what they see on pr0n isn't "real."

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#439

Post by lordnacho »

tstrimple wrote: post #426
lordnacho wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies in advance, but this reads like someone who hasn't actually had kids. Keep in mind that people who have kids still only have a small number, and there is luck involved. You can't decide that they will eat their vegetables. You can't decide that they are going to be diligent in doing their homework. And you can't decide whether they take an interest in what society shows them. Yes, you can open your mouth, s…

Honestly this really just reflects on you and what you're capable of doing. All of my children eat vegetables. My middle daughter decided to become a vegetarian at 14. I can absolutely make sure that they do their homework. Otherwise there will be consequences. It's not been an issue. They are smart and get excellent grades. I can absolutely influence their ability and desire to take interests in things. It starts wi…

This is a simple n=low issue. You get a kid, and they are not extreme. Most kids will indeed respond to parenting.

Don't you ever think about what would happen if your kid was born with a handicap?

You talk like I'm somehow not reading to my kids, or not telling them to do things that are good for them? Have you ever considered that some people will do what you say, and others will not? Do you really think that given any kid, just parenting will get you the outcome you want?

If you are happy with how your kids are, you are not skilled, you are just lucky.

You are even so lucky that you can have the satisfaction of thinking you are skilled.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#440

Post by dgellow »

oblio wrote: post #383
dgellow wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a cat face emoticon

I have no idea what it's supposed to add to the conversation...

Cuteness, sometimes a small trans identifier, sometimes an in-community joke or reference. Here I’m not exactly sure. But it’s not too far from UwU and similar
Post reply on HN