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

421–430 of 579 posts

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

#421

Post by riazrizvi »

munk-a wrote: post #416
riazrizvi wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think there's an axis of perceived wrongdoing here, and you and I fall on different points. Yours is more extreme, you say Meta was doing broad harm by exploring this activity, and want to see greater damages to scare other businesses off from the general territory of addictive interfaces. Mine is where we want businesses to continue to explore and develop 'sticky', compelling, user experiences but Meta went too deep in some specific ways.

EDIT: I see I'm mixing up the New Mexico case yesterday on sexploitation with the addiction case in Los Angeles I thought we were talking about here.

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

#422

Post by bryan_w »

autoexec wrote: post #392
jimbokun wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ask is to treat users differently based on age. How can they do that without verifying their users age?

You honestly think facebook has no idea that the children using their website are children? The combination of the children's selfies, social network, GPS coordinates, and posts make it very clear. Facebook already knows who the children are and they've been explicitly targeting them accordingly.

You want people to be kicked off the internet because they have a baby face? You think the law should mandate the use of an imperfect facial recognition system?

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

#424

Post by fnord77 »

slazien wrote: post #423

Why do we have prison sentences for insider trading, which is arguably (much) less harmful to the society, and not for this?

Insider trading is incredibly toxic to society. It is not a victimless crime. It is tantamount to stealing.

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

#427

Post by notnullorvoid »

worik wrote: post #410
notnullorvoid wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather they get personally fined and/or banned from holding leadership positions in the field (with varying timeframes depending on the level of responsibility). Naming and shaming won't do much good. It could backfire and serve as a positive mark on their resume for other morally corrupt leaders.

Short prison sentences would be a good deterant for white collar crime, rather than fines.

I think it depends on the level of responsibility. If orders came from above, then sure through those most directly responsible for the order in prison. I also think the lower level leaders should be held accountable for relaying the orders, which is where I think a "can no longer hold this position of authority for ~2 years" punishment might be appropriate.

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

#428

Post by lp4v4n »

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.

It's very hard to think they wouldn't do something harmful to children again if the economic incentives aligned. For corporations it's just so easy to say sorry, and in the worst case they know an irrelevant fine will be placed in order not "to destroy the business".

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

#430

Post by slazien »

rishabhaiover wrote: post #425
slazien wrote: post #423

Why do we have prison sentences for insider trading, which is arguably (much) less harmful to the society, and not for this?

because the damage done is relatively objective?

Is that the only factor? Is insider trading objective? (hint: it's not, read the law). It's objective only when we can attribute a quantitative measure to it? What's the relative "value" of $1M profit from insider trading vs a single child's destroyed psyche? How much value could that child have contributed to the society had it not been for the harm done to it? Is there really much subjectiveness in terms of the harm done to those kids?

All that to say: I don't think "objectivity" should be the (main) factor resulting in existence of adequate punishment.

Post reply on HN