Live data from Hacker News

Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

cnn.com

1–10 of 579 posts

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#4
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption:

> The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversation — could make it harder for law enforcement to catch predators. Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.

The New York case has explicitly gone after their support of end-to-end encryption as a target: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warn...

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#5
Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts)

They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else...

As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#6
So... Question. Seeing as Zuck is the majority voting shareholder and highest ranked executive, why isn't there a piercing of the corporate veil going on? This isn't some distributed blame case. Ultimately, his decision making led to what the jury finds objectionable. I find it absurd that somehow, the corporate veil is able to absorb even this? Somebody accepted the risk. That somebody is at the top of the pyramid. Want to send a message? Get 'em.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#7
post #5

Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts) They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else... As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.

You were downvoted, but right. Meta wants to be able to say, "hey, the OS said she was 18!" and not get in trouble for it.

Online child exploitation should be a strict liability offense.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#8
post #4

Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…

The Clipper chip is coming back.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#9
post #5

Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts) They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else... As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.

> As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.

You don't see any benefit to allowing people to encrypt their private communications in a way that can't be accessed by the company?

It's weird to see tech news commenters swing from being pro-privacy to anti-privacy when the topic of social media sites come up.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#10
post #5

Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts) They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else... As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.

You were downvoted, but right. Meta wants to be able to say, "hey, the OS said she was 18!" and not get in trouble for it. Online child exploitation should be a strict liability offense.

How does this apply to, say, Signal?
Post reply on HN