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

Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#11

Post by bilekas »

> "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful."

Wow.. That is quite a statement. Am I right in saying that in order to claim for the class action lawsuit, which facebook has been 'found negligent', that the victims need to take an action collectively in order to claim ? IE They need to be reached somehow to inform them of the possibility ?

Seems the most obvious place to advertise would be Meta.

I understand Meta can basically do whatever they like with their ToS but the statement from the Meta spokesperson seems like an extremely bad idea.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#12

Post by streetfighter64 »

k33n wrote: post #2

The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.

The idea that a company can override laws via its TOS is a bit strange.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#13

Post by pixl97 »

mc32 wrote: post #8
nkrisc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. If they're not impartial then lets hold them accountable for the content published in their platform.

To me that’s how it should be. They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves yet they should be liable or accountable for harm they are found guilty of.

>They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves

This is not how it works when you're found guilty of committing harm. Tobacco companies are a good example of this.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#14

Post by raincole »

schubidubiduba wrote: post #5
k33n wrote: post #2

The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.

TOS are not laws. In fact, they often partially violate laws and those parts are then void. In some countries, anything written in TOS that is not "expected to be there" is void.

No one says ToS are laws and especially not the parent commenter.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#16

Post by draw_down »

bilekas wrote: post #11

> "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful." Wow.. That is quite a statement. Am I right in saying that in order to claim for the class action lawsuit, which facebook has been 'found negligent', that the victims need to take an action collectively in order to claim ? IE They need to be reached somehow to inform them of the possibility ? Seems the mos…

[dead]

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#17

Post by mc32 »

pixl97 wrote: post #13
mc32 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that’s how it should be. They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves yet they should be liable or accountable for harm they are found guilty of.

>They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves This is not how it works when you're found guilty of committing harm. Tobacco companies are a good example of this.

If the government mandates them then yes. If it’s not mandated they have the right to refuse service.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#18

Post by mirashii »

k33n wrote: post #2

The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.

That idea was not expressed in the article, only the fact that the ads were removed. This is worth covering, especially when coupled with the context for what ads Meta regularly does allow. One does not have to believe that they're obligated to do so while also believing that it's incredibly scummy behavior that consumers should be aware of and question.

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#19

Post by freejazz »

k33n wrote: post #2

The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.

Okay? They're exactly the assholes everyone says they are. That's the point.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#20

Post by boringg »

bilekas wrote: post #11

> "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful." Wow.. That is quite a statement. Am I right in saying that in order to claim for the class action lawsuit, which facebook has been 'found negligent', that the victims need to take an action collectively in order to claim ? IE They need to be reached somehow to inform them of the possibility ? Seems the mos…

I mean those class action lawsuits enrich trial lawyers and maybe force companies to behave better (though i bet empirical evidence would show that its more a cost of business).

The 20$ dollars people get is nothing but a guise that the trial lawyers are helping people.

Post reply on HN