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

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

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 579 posts

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

#171

Post by IAmBroom »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #47
mjevans wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct nuance here is... * Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent) * Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice) In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus. Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that…

> Classifying accounts as child accounts It's ok to drive Dad's truck unless he catches you and tells you no.

Unfair presentation. What they suggested was more akin to, "Assume someone with keys is an adult, and let them start the truck."

Dad should either know his children would never drive the truck without permission, or keep his keys as safe as his wallet (and if he can't trust his kids with keys, you bet his wallet needs protection).

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

#172

Post by Permit »

latexr wrote: post #169
Permit wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By intentionally hiding their position (and simultaneously acting as though it is completely obvious) the OP shuts down any useful conversation that might follow. Do they think Meta will sell the user's data? Do they think different people are in charge of different policies at Meta leading to actions that appear to be in conflict with each other? Do they think they will use this information to train AI models? Do th…

> The only thing I can say is: No I cannot figure it out On the contrary, looks like you can: > (…) sell the user's data (…) use this information to train AI models (…) use this information to serve Ads

What’s the point in providing a rebuttal to these points (e.g. that Meta doesn’t actually sell data to anyone) if the OP can simply say “that’s not what I meant”?

They are taking a position that cannot be argued against or even discussed because they don’t make that position clear.

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

#174

Post by functionmouse »

Permit wrote: post #131
electric_muse wrote: post #103

The same company intentionally driving minors towards this content (despite claiming to care about them) is also lobbying in secrecy for requiring all of us to scan our ID and face in order to use our phones and computers. Their stated reason? Child safety. Their actual reason? You can figure that out.

> Their actual reason? You can figure that out. This is unfalsifiable. Just say what you think it is explicitly.

Why defend Zuck??

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

#175

Post by tartoran »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #149

As much as everyone hates Meta for selling people's personal data, this is absolutely ridiculous. The hysteria regarding forcing companies do parents' job doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Oh please! It’s not about parenting, it’s a cancer on society and now affecting the youngest and also the seniors.

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

#177

Post by iamacyborg »

moolcool wrote: post #155
Akronymus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess: to discriminate whether traffic is from a humam or bot to improve ad delivery metrics.

Aren't they incentive to treat bot impressions as real?

Not if they can charge more for “certified” human impressions

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

#178

Post by olcay_ »

Permit wrote: post #164
toss1 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this conversation, not publishing scientific hypotheses, theories and findings? If so, it is customarily permissible to use rhetoric and sarcasm to more strongly emphasize a point. Or, to leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.

By intentionally hiding their position (and simultaneously acting as though it is completely obvious) the OP shuts down any useful conversation that might follow. Do they think Meta will sell the user's data? Do they think different people are in charge of different policies at Meta leading to actions that appear to be in conflict with each other? Do they think they will use this information to train AI models? Do th…

I think they meant that Meta is offloading the cost (fines) of farming minor's data onto the operating systems. With an up-front cost of 2 billion dollars in lobbying, they can avoid paying 300m+ fees regularly.

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

#179

Post by mystraline »

functionmouse wrote: post #174
Permit wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their actual reason? You can figure that out. This is unfalsifiable. Just say what you think it is explicitly.

Why defend Zuck??

Cause on a website fellating CEOs and capitalism, "CEO's Lives Matter".

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

#180

Post by pixl97 »

benrutter wrote: post #120
MildlySerious wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things can be true, and I am in the same boat. Should the next generation have their brains fried by ad-tech corporations and their algorithms? Absolutely not. Should the overdue off-ramp from this trend be the on-ramp to mass-surveillance and government overreach? Also a firm no.

I really wish this take was more prominent. I really don't buy that mass-surveillance should be required for age verification. There are plenty of very smart people who have created much more complicated things than a digital age verification that doesn't track every time you use it. This also isn't helpful, but I think the sudden push of urgency isn't helping. The internet has existed without any kind of age verific…

>used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs,

On HN itself, no way. Too many people here make far too much money on ads to want that. It seems the other part that want freedom also want so much freedom it gives huge corporations the freedom to crush them.

>things than a digital age verification that doesn't track every time you use it.

The big companies that pay the politicians don't want that, therefore we won't get that.

Post reply on HN