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

411–420 of 579 posts

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

#411

Post by riazrizvi »

nclin_ wrote: post #393

375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.

That's not how the legal framework in society works. Victims are compensated. The business pays. The precedent of wrongdoing is specifically established which means that further infringements can be quickly resolved.

The legal system does not seek to destroy the business, or individual criminal. Instead it wants them to be able to continue doing their other non-criminal stuff.

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

#413

Post by worik »

WarcrimeActual wrote: post #381
johnnyanmac wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would we do that here? Make Zuckerberg divest from FB or Meta as a whole? Would that be possible?

Honestly he was more right with the death part. The only thing these people really fear is death. Anything else is a fine and a fine means nothing when you don't feel it.

I am repeating myself, but prison would be a good deterant

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

#414

Post by jimbokun »

dminik wrote: post #271
jimbokun wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so what would be in the text of this law making it enforceable and not easily game-able by the social media companies and without severe unintended consequences?

Why are you asking lawmaker questions of people on HN? What kind of answer are you expecting? Just because I don't know how to write a law that can prevent it doesn't mean that I can't recognize an actual issue when I see it.

Because people like you then go and vote for politicians without actually understanding what they are proposing.

It's all Trump style "believe me I know how to fix it" and you will vote for the person that pushes your buttons regardless of whether they have a plausible solution or not.

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

#416

Post by munk-a »

riazrizvi wrote: post #411
nclin_ wrote: post #393

375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.

That's not how the legal framework in society works. Victims are compensated. The business pays. The precedent of wrongdoing is specifically established which means that further infringements can be quickly resolved. The legal system does not seek to destroy the business, or individual criminal. Instead it wants them to be able to continue doing their other non-criminal stuff.

The legal system has two goals - to compensate individuals harmed and to discourage further violations of the law. This lawsuit seems to have fulfilled the first goal but fell flat on its face when it comes to punitive damages.

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

#417

Post by munk-a »

cedws wrote: post #382

Wasn't Zuckerberg caught red handed in emails signing off on this? When is he going to be facing consequences?

Corporate liability isolation has become absurd. People who make decisions that harm people should be held to account for those decisions even if they structured their decision making apparatus in a legal way that makes it look like they're just following the orders of the shareholders.

Zuckerberg has a brain, he decided to take this action, it is absurd he is not being hit with a personal penalty.

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

#418

Post by notnullorvoid »

riazrizvi wrote: post #411
nclin_ wrote: post #393

375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.

That's not how the legal framework in society works. Victims are compensated. The business pays. The precedent of wrongdoing is specifically established which means that further infringements can be quickly resolved. The legal system does not seek to destroy the business, or individual criminal. Instead it wants them to be able to continue doing their other non-criminal stuff.

They have enough lawyers that they can easily find another criminal avenue that doesn't step on the previous path.

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

#419

Post by vharuck »

awongh wrote: post #366

As part of the ongoing enshittification of the internet, tragedy of the commons etc., these big centralized internet platforms decided that instead of being responsible and making their products *slightly* less terrible it was better to maximize short term engagement metrics, and that, egotistically, the chance of there being real consequences for their actions was near zero. (Or, even more cynically, that their year…

>They already had the network effects and no real competitors.

Meta's biggest competitor was users' personal lives, not any other web service. They have been ruthless in crushing that competition.

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

#420

Post by giancarlostoro »

hexaga wrote: post #283
alexfoo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other one was the time I was speaking to my brother in law, who had just paved his driveway, he said "I could have used airport grade tar, but thought it was too much" and we were in front of his Nest security cam is the only thing I can think of, but the very next morning, I'm scrolling through Facebook, and sure enough, someone local is advertising airport grade tar. Why? I didn't google this, I only heard it…

Option C: no cameras or crude wifi tracing needed; they know who you talk to / associate with based on location data and the full profile of both sides, and can estimate things like 'will have mentioned X' -> can dispatch that via heuristic like 'show ads for X thing that was also mentioned by someone adjacent on that social graph'. That is, BiL was marked as 'spreader for airport grade tar' based on recent activity,…

Funnily enough, I was looking up Tamagotchis weeks and weeks back, my wife got an ad for them on Amazon.
Post reply on HN