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

New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 456 posts

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#41

Post by shimman »

skeledrew wrote: post #36
popalchemist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

However you put it, the parent (if around) is the closest and most frequent point of contact for any child. A parent doing an OK job would be a reliable resource whom the child can approach with any questions arising from weird "discoveries" online or even in the community. A parent doing a splendid job would proactively educate their child about the world and it's messiness so said child is equipped to confidently h…

No, society is allowed to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Acting like trillion dollar corporations do not have a massive influence on American society is borderline mush for brains here.

You basically don't want to punish American corporations, which is just frankly odd. American corporations are some of the most destructive and anti-human organizations on the planet. Being pro-corporation means you have anti-human sentiments, and frankly what are yours? That you think people with poor constitutions or mental acuity deserve to feel mental anguish? Like what is it, just say it and save us time.

Anyone that fights back against a corporation is always seen as a hero for good reason.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#42

Post by pessimizer »

bormaj wrote: post #38
matt123456789 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Meta isn't a public nuisance any more than Philip Morris. Both are regulated already, both produce addictive products, both are optional.

The level of regulation applied to Meta is very different from Philip Morris.

This dumb lawfare is a safety valve to allow them to continue not to regulate. Just like the under-18 bans are also an excuse not to regulate (and to root everyone's computer.) Somehow the evil algorithms become fine the day people turn 18, so all they have to do to comply is check. It's individuals' responsibility to make it easy for them.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#43

Post by JKCalhoun »

sneak wrote: post #23
homeonthemtn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's ok to say no to porn and gore. I'm tired of acting like we need it to survive otherwise some dystopian genie will be unleashed. Get rid of that shit.

You are of course free to not view it. Why do you think that you should decide for others what they should view? How do you know better than they do, what they should or should not be viewing?

As I got older I began to recognize that some things are just bad for society at large.

My refraining from a thing doesn't fix the societal ill the thing causes.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#45

Post by yieldcrv »

tw04 wrote: post #40
yieldcrv wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge blind spot to think that content only affects men’s view of intimacy and sexual relations Explain that one for the class Its a common conception but today is your lucky day to articulate it

To be clear, you want me to articulate a point that you fabricated and then attributed to me? I think I’m going to pass, but feel free to continue the discussion with yourself about things I didn’t say.

to clarify, you're suggesting I introduced a strawman argument because your focus on men wasn't mean to exclude anyone else?

that's... interesting. can you instead tell us why you prioritize men's sexuality over others then? or if that's somehow a distortion of what you said too, can you tell us why the focus on men at all?

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#47

Post by shaewest »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #37
sneak wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Instagram DMs have entirely replaced sms and phone number exchange for an entire generation. This is like saying “what benefit do teenagers draw from having a phone line?”

That’s really sad. Locked in a walled garden of vampiric carnivorous plants. And for what? A modicum of convenience?

Is it really that different from being locked into SMS or Email or Teamspeak or Skype?

I hate using SMS, but I'm forced to due to people I know using it, and it's 'openness' changes nothing for me as the end user.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#48

Post by bothers »

qwe----3 wrote: post #12
tristanj wrote: post #5

Per the court ruling [0], the specific law that Meta violated was New Mexico’s public-nuisance law, NMSA 1978 § 30-8-1. The relevant section that was violated is [1]: A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either: - A. injurious to public health, safety, morals or welfare; or - B. interferes with the exerc…

These rulings are stupid and if generalized would make doing business impossible. Parents should parent their kids. That law is so board - "public morals"? Should every porn site be taken down?

Every porn site that makes money off harm to minors? Yes, and sometimes they are taken down.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#49

Post by krapp »

dash2 wrote: post #34
krapp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Playboy magazines" are part of the problem. Fetishes aren't what has distorted mens' ideas of intimacy and sexual relations. Fetishes can be a perfectly healthy and consensual form of sexual expression. The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men…

> The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US? > Kill all the porn sites…

>The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US?

I don't know, probably.

>There is no reason this has to be true.

The incessant need of moralists and God-botherers to purge society of anything they deem immoral is the reason. You give these people an inch and and a legal pretext and they take a mile.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#50

Post by dijksterhuis »

skeledrew wrote: post #36
popalchemist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

However you put it, the parent (if around) is the closest and most frequent point of contact for any child. A parent doing an OK job would be a reliable resource whom the child can approach with any questions arising from weird "discoveries" online or even in the community. A parent doing a splendid job would proactively educate their child about the world and it's messiness so said child is equipped to confidently h…

you know, i feel like the "it's the parents' responsibility" comments that turn up on submissions like this often tend towards phrasing like "the parents" rather than "with my children i ..."
Post reply on HN