How is any app/website that 1) appeals to kids, 2) sells attention, 3) does A/B testing and/or has a self-learning distribution algorithm NOT guilty of this?
Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
241–250 of 549 posts
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a huge deal because it was the bellwether case for over 1,000 other similar cases.
ah yup: > It comes on the heels of a Delaware court decision clearing Meta’s insurers of responsibility for damages incurred from “several thousand lawsuits regarding the harm its platforms allegedly cause children” — a ruling that could leave it and other tech titans on the hook for untold future millions.
Yep. The insurance covers accidents and negligence, not deliberate decisions to impose harm to children for financial gain.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#243How is any app/website that 1) appeals to kids, 2) sells attention, 3) does A/B testing and/or has a self-learning distribution algorithm NOT guilty of this?
I guess ultimately it depends on if the app/website authors do so "negligently" or not.
> Jurors were charged with determining whether the companies acted negligently in designing their products and failed to warn her of the dangers.
So if you do so while providing warnings and controls for people, that might make it OK in the eyes of the law?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#244How is any app/website that 1) appeals to kids, 2) sells attention, 3) does A/B testing and/or has a self-learning distribution algorithm NOT guilty of this?
I think there's a little more nuance than that, but it seems roughly correct.
Wouldn't it be better if apps/websites targeting kids didn't use A/B testing to be more addictive?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#245I've heard about "landmark" cases against these companies over and over again for the last decade. There seems to be at least one every couple of years. And yet literally nothing has ever happened or changed.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#246How is any app/website that 1) appeals to kids, 2) sells attention, 3) does A/B testing and/or has a self-learning distribution algorithm NOT guilty of this?
It probably helps when you suppress research that shows you’re harming children and allow human traffickers to fester on your platform with 17 warnings or whatever.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a huge deal because it was the bellwether case for over 1,000 other similar cases.
ah yup: > It comes on the heels of a Delaware court decision clearing Meta’s insurers of responsibility for damages incurred from “several thousand lawsuits regarding the harm its platforms allegedly cause children” — a ruling that could leave it and other tech titans on the hook for untold future millions.
Sounds too good to be true. I’ll hold my breath.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#248How is any app/website that 1) appeals to kids, 2) sells attention, 3) does A/B testing and/or has a self-learning distribution algorithm NOT guilty of this?
How’s this different than tv that a kid might see that has ads and programming targeting kids?
I watched 80s horror movies when I was in elementary school and had nightmares for years. Should I sue now?
How about parents be held responsible for how they care for their kids or not? Maybe a culture that judged parents more strongly for how they let their kids spend their time would be an improvement.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#249this has to be the first of many right? fingers crossed this leads to some meaningful change.
You mean it's the first of many appeals, I assume.
Trial courts will decide pretty much anything. Then the case gets appealed over whether the trial court correctly interpreted things you probably perceive as uncomplicated, like the 1st Amendment.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#250How is any app/website that 1) appeals to kids, 2) sells attention, 3) does A/B testing and/or has a self-learning distribution algorithm NOT guilty of this?
How’s this different than tv that a kid might see that has ads and programming targeting kids? I watched 80s horror movies when I was in elementary school and had nightmares for years. Should I sue now? How about parents be held responsible for how they care for their kids or not? Maybe a culture that judged parents more strongly for how they let their kids spend their time would be an improvement.
The difference is largely in the way that the legal caste perceives themselves to be aligned with media but opposed to tech.