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

Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 483 posts

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#51

Post by duringmath »

swatcoder wrote: post #43
duringmath wrote: post #38

It's worth noting that these lawsuits are based on junk and non existent science, so just because they're being sued it doesn't mean there's any merit to it. It only means that law firms, ambulance chasers, and grandstanding politicians are using some misplaced anger against Facebook et al to make a buck or raise their political profiles.

Whether courts can pin that sentiment down against prior laws may determine if these "lawsuits have merit" as you say, but the concern and calls for action exist and are growing regardless of how the lawsuits happen to settle. All these companies know they're a target for accountability now, and even many people inside of them acknowledge a need for reform and possibly restitution. Your comment seems focused on the p…

The abdication of parenteral responsibility is another element here.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#52

Post by mcpackieh »

hutzlibu wrote: post #34
SoftTalker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will we be saying the same thing about cannabis dispensaries?

We know the downsides already and most think the downsides of crminalization is higher.

> We know the downsides already

In the sense that the downsides are documented in the relevant scientific literature, sure. But popular perception of those downsides is very different. A whole lot of people think those downsides are a pack of lies: that cannabis isn't habit forming, that it doesn't make the average user lazy and complacent, that it doesn't increase the risk of schizophrenia, that driving under the influence of it isn't unsafe and is probably even safer, etc. The downsides are all "DARE lies" according to many of the people who think legalizing cannabis is worth it, who weighed the harms of criminalization against 'cannabis is literally harmless.'

(FWIW I voted to legalize it in Washington in 2012.)

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#53

Post by duringmath »

Curvature5868 wrote: post #50
duringmath wrote: post #38

It's worth noting that these lawsuits are based on junk and non existent science, so just because they're being sued it doesn't mean there's any merit to it. It only means that law firms, ambulance chasers, and grandstanding politicians are using some misplaced anger against Facebook et al to make a buck or raise their political profiles.

Let's assume that the lawsuits are poorly constructed. That does not necessarily mean that Facebook is harmless. It just means these lawsuits aren't sufficient to prove harm. Consider this analogy: Just because the DA doesn't have enough evidence to convict in a murder trial, that doesn't mean that the defendant is innocent. I just means they haven't been proven guilty.

We tend to presume innocence until proven otherwise.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#54

Post by Manuel_D »

dexwiz wrote: post #32
CamperBob2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the First Amendment is repealed.

Both censorship and advertising regulations both exist in accordance with the first amendment.

Yes: censorship is prohibited, at least outside of specific narrow circumstances. Advertising regulations specifically regulate advertising products. Neither of these translate into regulating what can and cannot be said on social media, outside of narrow cases like promotional or sponsored content.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#55

Post by ryandrake »

stocknoob wrote: post #25
paxys wrote: post #8

I'm convinced that a decade or two from now we are going to look back on social media exactly like we see the tobacco industry today. The companies knew what they were selling, knew the harm, but put profit over public good.

And countless employees happy to take a paycheck while looking the other way.

A fact that gets glossed over too often on HN. It's not just company leadership making these harmful applications: Everyone in the org chart down to the individual engineer is actively doing this--maybe even you, reader of this comment. Did your last "git push" contribute to the problem or help solve it? Will you be proud to tell your teenage grandchildren about what you're creating? You can't just hide behind "boss told me to do it" and wash your hands of the ethics.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#56

Post by tjpnz »

cj wrote: post #33
pixl97 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often again do you hear billionaires say "Oh no, I wish I had been more ethical and not made mountains of cash off by shitty behavior", because I'm not having any recollections of this. The fines are just a cost of doing business for them.

I agree the US is soft on punishing white-collar crime. But Sackler family comes to mind. And of course there's Sam Bankman-Fried. Bernie Madoff, etc.

No member of the Sackler family nor Purdue's executives ever faced prison time.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#59

Post by Eumenes »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #37
Eumenes wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need 'experts' to realize that social media is bad for young people. They are just going to suggest regulating content. I can see it now ... young girls cannot see content showcasing skinny or 'classically beautiful' women, because it gives them a skewed perspective of 'beauty' that may lead to eating disorders. The FTC pats themselves on the back, job well done, and nothing changes. Regulating the internet…

cell and wifi jammers are illegal (with some very good reasons), so yeah you're going to need some experts we know what happens when the government creates uninformed regulations, so I think it's worth supporting them when they appear to take a reasonable approach kids need to be able to operate within the world that technology has created, and parents need informed guidelines and tools to enforce them the all or not…

> how's abstinence only sex education going, for example?

Id say that access to Instagram isn't a biological function and normalizing it will lead to it ever entrenched in our lives. Make 18 the age requirement. I don't care about privacy concerns because you have no privacy if you participate with these companies.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#60

Post by swatcoder »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #28
tempodox wrote: post #27

When will social media finally be regulated like alcohol, nicotine, and every other addictive poison?

When the First Amendment is repealed.

That may be so, but then historians will write about reckless corporate behavior as the harbinger of that repeal. If you keep pushing the boundaries of what's technically allowed and it has bad ends, you'll eventually see the rules changed to stop you.

You and I probably both agree that that a substantial revision to the First Amendment would be terrible, and so what we probably want is for these corporations to act in voluntary consideration of what's socially responsible so that it's not necessary.

Post reply on HN