Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you dislike the Internet?
I love the internet. I hate what a lack of liability for platforms has done to the internet.
[deleted]
Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
301–310 of 579 posts
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#302Repeal section 230
Careful what you wish for https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It started out as something good: see what friends and family are up to. But now: scroll infinite algorithmically placed or sponsored rage bait trying to trigger you into behaving the way that advances certain corporate or foreign interests at the expense of whatever was left of our already tattered social fabric and our collective mental or literal health.
[flagged]
No way, we've known for 15 years that it was the CIA, not DARPA, after The Onion broke the story:
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are winning. In the UK, you cannot use App Store and iPhone (your own phone) without verifying your identity: https://x.com/WindsorDebs/status/2036727466597712008
Google play store still works fine in the UK, so idk.
Just wait and see couple of months
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#305This fine from New Mexico is about 0.6% of Meta's annual profit.
If all 50 states sue at the same rate, that'll be a 30% dent, and I'm sure states can sue for more than 0.6% too. That would be historic action against malfeasance and would send a strong FAFO single to all corporates.
Let's lobby for it.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#306The 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.
The actual reason: child safety regulations They don't care about child safety as long as it doesn't become so bad as to impact their revenue negatively. But they see that governments all over the world push for some kinds of age restrictions, and they know they are a prime target and it is hard for them to push back against that. The reason they are (not so secretly) lobbying for requiring us to ID ourselves at the…
The other "real reason" is the solution will end up looking like a super cookie and enable machine-level tracking across every app.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#307Earlier 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…
Or, OP is not hiding their position and shutting down conversation — they are not imposing their position and are opening it up to discussion.
What prevents you from saying "Yes, and Xyz!!" and another poster "Yup, and Pdq, and Foo too!"
Or, maybe OP is just being a bit lazy, but again, it seems the context is conversation, not formal scientific inquiry where everything must be falsifiable?
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#308We used to believe in freedom of speech and freedom of association. Since the dawn of the Internet era, we've had a legal principle that platforms are relatively shielded from liability for what their users do. It's the Internet. There's sexual content and sketchy characters on it. Occasionally people will encounter them -- even if they're under 18. Anyone who grew up in the mid-1990s or later, think back to your own…
That’s not really true. Pre-internet we had relatively much stricter content controls. Fairness doctrine springs to mind, plus significant regulation of the movie industry.
Letting companies sell addiction has pretty significant negative externalities. That’s why we regulate gambling and drugs. Facebook sells addiction, so it makes sense to regulate it like we do drugs and gambling.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#309As 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.
By this logic tobacco companies did nothing wrong when they pretended like smoking didn’t cause cancer for decades. Misleading users is harm.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It started out as something good: see what friends and family are up to. But now: scroll infinite algorithmically placed or sponsored rage bait trying to trigger you into behaving the way that advances certain corporate or foreign interests at the expense of whatever was left of our already tattered social fabric and our collective mental or literal health.
> It started out as something good No it didn’t. That was just like the first free sample from the drug dealer. Give a “good” free service to rope them in, always with the next steps in mind.
OG Facebook was perfectly fine. In your analogy it’d be more like someone replacing your Diet Coke with actual cocaine. Like, yeah Diet Coke isn’t great for you, but it’s not cocaine.