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

Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 549 posts

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#161

Post by lokar »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #23

I can't help but feel these are "revenge" verdicts. Public perception of these companies is dirt low, and there are so few levers the average person has to change what they feel is an increase in atomization, loneliness, breakdown of civic discourse, Cambridge Analytica level political targeting, misinformation, etc. Maybe the social media companies could do more to combat all these. They certainly have a level of pr…

Do more? They have not done anything. These trials have shown they have long had extremely detailed understanding of what is going on with their product, and instead of trying to mitigate the problems, they have intentionally made the problems worse in order to profit more.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#163

Post by easytiger »

janalsncm wrote: post #127
easytiger wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not make personal responsibility illegal whilst we are at it. It is egregious that an individual can be held accountable for their own behaviours.

How much personal responsibility should we expect children to have? Genuine question. Because there was a time where some people believed that it was ok for kids to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#164

Post by Vegenoid »

strongpigeon wrote: post #89
Vegenoid wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you imagine saying the same thing about oxycodone or cigarettes? No, but unfortunately I can very easily imagine people saying it, just like the people who made loads of money from pushing those products did. Also just like the people who are profiting from the spread of gambling are saying now. Why would someone choose to do a thing if it harms them? There are good arguments against laws that restrict personal…

But what if we're talking about a product that you're giving away to children? I agree that for adults, cigarettes are fine. But in this case, you're actively designing to maximize tweens and teens engagement and the end result is them saying that they wan't to stop but can't. Though to be fair, I was mostly pointing out the fact that this was a pretty dumb thing to say for a case like this, especially in a jury tria…

Yes, I agree with you, I think that regulation is needed here and that this was a dumb thing to say. I'm just saying that my reaction to Zuckerberg saying that people must love his product if they use it a lot is exactly what I'd expect him to say. It's also exactly why other parties must step in.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#165

Post by jmyeet »

lokar wrote: post #158
jmyeet wrote: post #28

I believe social media is on a collision course with an iceberg called Section 230. Broadly speaking, Section 230 differentiates between publishers and platforms . A platform is like Geocities (back in the day) where the platform provider isn't liable for the content as long as they staisfy certain requirements about havaing processes for taking down content when required. A bit like the Cox decision today, you're br…

Please read: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

This is an opinion and I believe it's wrong. And you just have to look at the statute to see why [1]:

> (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

> (2) Civil liability

> (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

"in good faith" is key here. Here's another opinion [2]:

> One argument advanced by those who want to limit immunity for platforms is that these algorithms are a form of content creation, and should therefore be outside the scope of Section 230 immunity. Under this theory, social media companies could potentially be held liable for harmful consequences related to content otherwise created by a third party.

So far the Supreme Court has sidestepped this issue despite cases making it to the Appeals Court. Until the Supreme Court addresses, none of us can say with any certainty what is and isn't protected.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[2]: https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/the-future-of-...

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#166

Post by lokar »

jmyeet wrote: post #165
lokar wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

This is an opinion and I believe it's wrong. And you just have to look at the statute to see why [1]: > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material > (2) Civil liability > (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or oth…

I don't expect that to work, but who knows. Editors "rank", curate, select, present, etc content to people, and have for a long time, and it's always understood to be speech.

Remember, according to that link, 230 does not give platforms any new rights. It simply makes it easier for them to end cases faster and cheaper, that they would have already won on 1st amendment grounds.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#167

Post by cwmoore »

nkrisc wrote: post #153
cwmoore wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or assign responsibility to…parents and legal guardians…who are not children.

Meta is not blameless here. Responsibility can be shared when Meta (and others) are essentially preying on children. It’s an uphill battle for parents by Meta’s design.

They’re not Meta’s kids, they’re freemium customers.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#168

Post by kelnos »

twoodfin wrote: post #139
ses1984 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, some people find themselves compelled to continue gambling long after they’re drowning in debt. If you don’t want to call that addiction, fine, but you can’t deny that it happens.

Right: They’re gambling addicts. That’s a distinct fact from, “Gambling is a physiologically addictive behavior for typical humans.”

Right, there's a difference between a chemical that will addict most people simply because of the changes the chemical makes to the brain (even if the person doesn't even really like doing the thing that causes them to consume it), vs. an activity that gives you dopamine hits and can be addictive, depending on the person.

One is physical addiction and the other is psychological.

But I'm also feeling a parallel here to people who think that mental health issues aren't real medical problems and that people can just "get better" whenever they want. And that's concerning. We shouldn't be more lenient on things that are "only" psychologically addictive.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#170

Post by spencerflem »

hash872 wrote: post #29

At least even money that an appellate court throws this verdict out entirely. Reminder that the US is the only developed country that uses juries for civil trials- everywhere else, complex issues of business litigation are generally left to a panel of judges. It's not that hard to rile up a bunch of randomly impaneled jurors against Big Bad Corporation. The US is kind of infamous for its very large, very unpredictabl…

Maybe if most people would agree the corporation is big and bad and should have penalties, it’s more democratic to go with that decision that the decision nine unelected philosopher kings come up with.
Post reply on HN