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

511–520 of 579 posts

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

#511

Post by Nursie »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #510
Nursie wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean what if Roy doesn't care? We're just optimising for kids with shitty family at this point.

If Roy doesn't care then you have a kid with an adult who gives them access, which is the scenario where none of this is going to work. Even if you required government IDs with hourly retina scans, it doesn't work if Roy is willing to let the kids hold the device up to his face whenever they want.

Sure, I agree.

I only disagree with the just-so notion that kids who have an Uncle Roy are somehow better able to cope with the consequences. Ability to access something is (IMHO) pretty uncorrelated with the ability to cope with the consequences.

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

#512

Post by lynx97 »

rockskon wrote: post #507
ilovecake1984 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree we should Treat everyone as an adult by default online. We wouldn’t do that in any other circumstances.

And the only reason it is permissible to presumptively treat people as underage until proven otherwise in the physical world is that there isn't a constellation of intermediaries collecting all your habits and preferences when you buy porno magazines or alcohol in person. Why is the answer people seem to arrive at being "mandatory collection of blackmail material that will ruin careers and relationships" when it come…

Because "somebody has to think of the children." At this point, I am convinced parental instincts are being abused to slowly but surely install more-or-less complete public surveilance. Its a rather obvious approach. You have to appeal to something emotional. And parents, and their apparent unwillingness to take up responsibility for their parenting, are the perfect target. Even child-less adults will chime in to toot the "Somebody has to think of the children" mantra.

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

#513

Post by watwut »

armada651 wrote: post #98
ronsor wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the core issue. We know that this isn't really going to reduce harm for children, we know Meta is not seriously going to suffer or change, and we know this is going to be used as a cudgel to beat down privacy and increase surveillance.

Why is it so important that kids have access to the internet anyway that we're willing to sacrifice both our privacy and freedom of speech rights for it when we already know it's damaging their mental health? We don't need all this privacy invasion if we just didn't give kids a smartphone with a data plan.

School basically requires them to have one. So.

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

#514

Post by gmerc »

Aurornis wrote: post #4

Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…

No. Meta is backtracking because the business case for and to end encryption is gone. They willingly will give the Trump administration whatever the want because they are not in the business of fighting authoritarian governments, they are in the virtue signalling business when governments are constrained by the rule of law.

The business case was to be able to say “we don’t know”. That case is gone.

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

#515

Post by ExpertAdvisor01 »

pyuser583 wrote: post #489
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…

It’s very hard to control kids internet access. Impossible really. Even if you do it fine at home, once they go to school it’s whatever policies the school has. Most require laptops and provide internet access.

That's objectively not true. You can just use your own DNS server and lock the settings app either through android mdm policies or an locker app.

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

#516

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Nursie wrote: post #511
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Roy doesn't care then you have a kid with an adult who gives them access, which is the scenario where none of this is going to work. Even if you required government IDs with hourly retina scans, it doesn't work if Roy is willing to let the kids hold the device up to his face whenever they want.

Sure, I agree. I only disagree with the just-so notion that kids who have an Uncle Roy are somehow better able to cope with the consequences. Ability to access something is (IMHO) pretty uncorrelated with the ability to cope with the consequences.

The original claim wasn't that the kids with an Uncle Roy would be better able to cope, it's that the kids are who can devise another way to get past even if they didn't. Then the latter kids make up a larger proportion of the ones who can get past because they have two paths to do it instead of one. And the former ones are the ones we can't reach regardless.

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

#517

Post by marcus_holmes »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #505
marcus_holmes wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response. Couple of points: - The line between "general purpose computer" and "not that" is weird. Android is an implementation of Linux, after all. Probably the best example is a Steam Deck. It's just Arch Linux, you can get to a desktop on it no problem, and you get sudo access and can install whatever you like on it. Are you saying that Responsible Parents should not get their kids a Steam Deck? - A…

> Are you saying that Responsible Parents should not get their kids a Steam Deck? I'm saying Authoritarian Parents should not get their kids a Steam Deck. If the kid can run arbitrary code then they can get a VPN and access websites hosted in Eastern Europe and then any of this is moot because there is no law you can impose on Facebook to do anything about it. > If a child works out how to circumvent the age restrict…

I bought my Steam Deck not knowing that it had Desktop Mode. And I'm an experienced software dev. The average parent is not going to know this.

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

#518

Post by Nursie »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #516
Nursie wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I agree. I only disagree with the just-so notion that kids who have an Uncle Roy are somehow better able to cope with the consequences. Ability to access something is (IMHO) pretty uncorrelated with the ability to cope with the consequences.

The original claim wasn't that the kids with an Uncle Roy would be better able to cope, it's that the kids are who can devise another way to get past even if they didn't. Then the latter kids make up a larger proportion of the ones who can get past because they have two paths to do it instead of one. And the former ones are the ones we can't reach regardless.

Let's look at that original claim -

"As with smoking, alcohol, sex, drugs etc

Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice."

There are at least two problems here. The one I've focused on first that you seem so keen to dispel, is an assumption that there are smart kids overcoming a challenge. 'Roy' is an extreme, but there is a whole spectrum of low-oversight conditions that are likely to lead to kids getting access to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, having sex etc, which are nothing to do with smartness or challenges and are much more to do with shitty parenting and neglect.

Then there's the second problem. Let's focus on tobacco but I believe it's likely to hold for other drugs - even if we allow that children getting access to tobacco are 'smarter' than those who don't figure it out, and are overcoming various obstacles, that doesn't actually imply that they'll be better able to deal with the consequences. Just like how a high IQ doesn't always mean someone is necessarily good at crossing the road safely or tieing their shoelaces.

In fact there's a variety of research about nicotine's effect on developing brains and how the earlier people are exposed the more likely they are to be more addicted for longer. This is the opposite outcome to the original claim, kids who start earlier are in fact demonstrably less likely to be able to 'cope' with the vice.

The whole claim is nonsense.

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3615117/ [1] https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-6-addiction/6-...

(edit - I'm not making specific claims about cybersecurity or access to tech here, I just think the analogy is pretty seriously wrong in itself)

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

#519

Post by mrweasel »

androiddrew wrote: post #112

Alternative headline: household spyware cash machine forced to pay $20 for being bad. If you want to punish Meta then you have to punish the wonder boy who runs it. Not even share holders can fight off the guy spending 80B on the metaverse.

You're not wrong, but the problem for Meta is that this, along with their other fine for mental harm is setting a precedence.

This fine is somewhat larger, at $375 million, but the other one (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/meta-and-youtube-fine...) basically open the gates for millions of people suing.

Sadly I don't think it's enough for Meta to change, because they have no business model if they are forced to be serious about online safety. That's probably also why they are pushing so hard for age verification, make safety a problem for someone else.

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

#520

Post by gingersnap »

mjevans wrote: post #31
Aurornis wrote: post #4

Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…

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…

I think this is the way. Not control, but just make it simpler for parents to handle their childrens devices. You dont have to make everyone share their age, you just make it so that parents can in a simpler way choose what the children should be able to access. Make it easy to do right, dont add more control. Its kind of the old anti-piracy copyprotections. The pirates always cracked it, and in the end, the ones who got to sit there trying to figure out what is the word in the manual is the user who actually paid for the game. So making it worse for the ones who paid, and better for the cracked version. So, make it simple.
Post reply on HN