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

131–140 of 455 posts

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

#131

Post by alkonaut »

gms wrote: post #94
drivebyhooting wrote: post #9

What benefit do kids draw from instagram and facebook?

Socialising. Same benefit I drew from playing video games with my friends when I was in school. (Though, to be a bit pedantic about it, kids don't use Facebook.)

Yeah they use snapchat and TikTok, with a sprinkle of instagram.

The problem with these are: they offer two features 1) a social feature. You can send DM:s or comment your friends picture of an ice cream 2) Brain-rot algorithmic short-form video feeds where even the most aware adult can easily get lost for hours.

I think this is calculated. If the social vs feed thing were two different apps, parents could easily just allow one and block the other. But now in order to stop the brainrot, I also need to block them from the social bit.

I wonder if there is any way to set up a firewall so you block the instagram shorts feeds, tiktok video, snapchat random vids ,etc but still allow snapchat messaging?

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

#132

Post by rrgok »

tmp10423288442 wrote: post #109

A lot of people on this story are making the usual snarky remarks that, oh, this is just a slap on the wrist—some trivial proportion of Meta’s global revenue. And that is true, but unlike the EU, for example, New Mexico is a tiny jurisdiction. It only has a little bit more than 2 million people. So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenu…

I don't understand the logic. If I got 1000 from a mentally challenged adult by manipulating them, do I get 200 in fine or should all 1000 get confiscated from me?

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

#133

Post by iammrpayments »

krapp wrote: post #76
iammrpayments wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender “* kids* ” What?

Read all the words. I know it's Hacker News and that's asking for a lot of emotional maturity in a thread like this but I believe in you.

You have to be mentally insane to think porn websites provide health education or that they are the only source in a conservative society for adults, and then you mention kids in the same comment. I’m not sure if you’re being edgy or just trolling.

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

#134

Post by tstrimple »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #74
qwe----3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How can I parent my kids when every child in the school is a social media addict? If heroin were commonplace and available in every kid’s pockets would parents be to blame then too?

By being an actual fucking parent and not a push over who thinks that because your kids friends are doing heroin it's fine for them to do too. I know it's difficult for you to say no to your children. But it's critical for their well-being. And no you cannot wait until the rest of society decides to criminalize the things you want criminalized before you decide to try to be a parent. The dividing line is the limits you personally set versus those society deems acceptable. I mean how fucking pathetic is this question? Do you just bow to every popular demand? Are you literally the kid who would jump off of a bridge just because your friends did it?

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

#135

Post by nujabe »

deepsun wrote: post #112
tmp10423288442 wrote: post #109

A lot of people on this story are making the usual snarky remarks that, oh, this is just a slap on the wrist—some trivial proportion of Meta’s global revenue. And that is true, but unlike the EU, for example, New Mexico is a tiny jurisdiction. It only has a little bit more than 2 million people. So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenu…

I'm pretty sure Meta will drag the case in appeals for many years until the order becomes irrelevant. Cheaper than paying $942m.

Why would dragging it on make the order irrelevant?

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

#136

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #84
drivebyhooting wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can I parent my kids when every child in the school is a social media addict? If heroin were commonplace and available in every kid’s pockets would parents be to blame then too?

That's why phone are banned in school in France. And you can still regulate what your kid does when he's not at school.

Are you helicoptering your children 24/7 when their out of school?

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

#137

Post by Joel_Mckay »

deepsun wrote: post #112
tmp10423288442 wrote: post #109

A lot of people on this story are making the usual snarky remarks that, oh, this is just a slap on the wrist—some trivial proportion of Meta’s global revenue. And that is true, but unlike the EU, for example, New Mexico is a tiny jurisdiction. It only has a little bit more than 2 million people. So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenu…

I'm pretty sure Meta will drag the case in appeals for many years until the order becomes irrelevant. Cheaper than paying $942m.

A corporation will shift the capital loss to a tax write off like any other firm.

The taxpayer just takes a dollar out of their pocket, and pays a dollar in tax revenue short fall. This fine changes nothing, punishes tax payers, and Meta will just lobby more politicians. =3

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

#138

Post by inigyou »

rrgok wrote: post #132
tmp10423288442 wrote: post #109

A lot of people on this story are making the usual snarky remarks that, oh, this is just a slap on the wrist—some trivial proportion of Meta’s global revenue. And that is true, but unlike the EU, for example, New Mexico is a tiny jurisdiction. It only has a little bit more than 2 million people. So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenu…

I don't understand the logic. If I got 1000 from a mentally challenged adult by manipulating them, do I get 200 in fine or should all 1000 get confiscated from me?

How much money did Meta get from mentally challenged adults in New Mexico?

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

#139

Post by inigyou »

nujabe wrote: post #135
deepsun wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure Meta will drag the case in appeals for many years until the order becomes irrelevant. Cheaper than paying $942m.

Why would dragging it on make the order irrelevant?

Keep dragging it until there isn't a Facebook any more for unrelated reasons

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

#140

Post by inigyou »

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.

Yes, it's much lower
Post reply on HN