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

201–210 of 456 posts

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

#201

Post by tristanj »

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…

This analysis actually understates how massive and outsized the penalties are. The court ruling only applies to children in New Mexico under age 18.

New Mexico has ~450,000 people under age 18, of which roughly 140,000 are between ages 13-17 (Meta officially requires age 13+ to use their platforms). Recent Pew surveys of U.S. teens ages 13–17 show ~70% of teenagers use Instagram and ~30% use Facebook.

In New Mexico, Instagram and Facebook would have ~100,000 users in the 13-17 group. That's not everyone, some underage users may lie about their age, so add in ~30,000 unauthorized users under age 13. Overall, around 130,000 people in the affected class.

The judge assessed $942 million in total penalties, and dividing that $942 million across 130,000 users equals approximately $7,250 in fines per user.

If this fine remains, and Meta pays out to the affected parties, these kids could end up rewarded with thousands of dollars for just for having a Facebook or Instagram account. Which creates some bizarre incentives, minors get rewarded for signing up for the platforms that are harming them in the first place.

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

#202

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #144
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…

Show me evidence that the fine would go down by half instead of by a factor of 10 or more.

there is no evidence available on that, perhaps people should go ahead and built it, but in cases such as this if NW thinks it would get a decrease or reversal on appeal it might settle for a lesser amount. I think a 90% decrease seems way too much for anyone to agree to. Frankly if I was NM and I won that much I don't think I would agree to a 50% decrease either, 25% decrease would seem to be a reasonable offer that Meta would have to be crazy not to accept. My opinion, not a lawyer and I have been told I am too aggressive in negotiations too.

on edit: part of reason why there is no evidence of that is in cases like this settlements might be secret, although with a state involved I guess it can't be, but being able to track how much fines actually decreased on appeal etc. and a typology of cases etc. would be nice to have, but also probably impossible to have.

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

#203

Post by TZubiri »

stingraycharles wrote: post #196
TZubiri wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I misread, but this is not about addictive products like reels at all, it's about child trafficking being advertised through Instagram with public but non explicit photos, and Meta's failure to remove that content.

You’re right, but it seems like the punishments are not really about that, but just a general “protect the children” and age verification system. > Instead, the court ordered Meta to continue to improve its age-assurance tools in New Mexico, which include using artificial intelligence to determine people’s age based on signals such as who their friends are and what types of content they post and consume. Meta must al…

> if they try and it doesn’t work they still complied with the order.

Probably, but they would be still liable for the additional compensatory and punitive damages of the issues they have set precendent for being liable to.

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

#204

Post by program_whiz »

tstrimple wrote: post #134
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?

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 y…

This is the human equivalent of "simply write code with no bugs". If you can't figure out how to write code without bugs, you think you can cause a human being in a complex environment to do exactly what you want against all influences?

How effective are you at controlling anyone in your life, including yourself? If we're really honest, we have a moderate amount of control of ourselves within strict limits (sleep, food, water, temperature, hormones, organ function, etc.). We have little to no actual control of others, we can only try to create incentives / structures to coax behavior we desire.

Posted study in comment below, but actually harsher parenting tends to result in more rebellious behavior.

Maybe a counter point: would you work better for a boss that was up your ass constantly and forcing you to work on stuff you didn't want? I've found I'm more effective when incentives are aligned and my boss is supportive and collaborative. Same works for parenting.

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

#205

Post by LunaSea »

tristanj wrote: post #201
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…

This analysis actually understates how massive and outsized the penalties are. The court ruling only applies to children in New Mexico under age 18. New Mexico has ~450,000 people under age 18, of which roughly 140,000 are between ages 13-17 (Meta officially requires age 13+ to use their platforms). Recent Pew surveys of U.S. teens ages 13–17 show ~70% of teenagers use Instagram and ~30% use Facebook. In New Mexico,…

Shouldn't you take into account all young adults that were in this age range in the last 10 or 15 years?

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

#206

Post by nekusar »

tristanj wrote: post #201
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…

This analysis actually understates how massive and outsized the penalties are. The court ruling only applies to children in New Mexico under age 18. New Mexico has ~450,000 people under age 18, of which roughly 140,000 are between ages 13-17 (Meta officially requires age 13+ to use their platforms). Recent Pew surveys of U.S. teens ages 13–17 show ~70% of teenagers use Instagram and ~30% use Facebook. In New Mexico,…

What really sucks about all these types of judgements:

Who's wronged here? The children.

How much do they get for being wronged? Absolutely nothing.

It all just goes to the governments coffers to be wasted away on a few PSAs directed at children.

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

#207

Post by CPLX »

matt123456789 wrote: post #33
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…

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.

> Meta isn't a public nuisance

The premise of the article is that they are, as determined by an actual judge, as well as a jury after a full trial where evidence was presented.

Replying “no they aren’t” is utterly free of substance.

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

#208

Post by exe34 »

nekusar wrote: post #206
tristanj wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis actually understates how massive and outsized the penalties are. The court ruling only applies to children in New Mexico under age 18. New Mexico has ~450,000 people under age 18, of which roughly 140,000 are between ages 13-17 (Meta officially requires age 13+ to use their platforms). Recent Pew surveys of U.S. teens ages 13–17 show ~70% of teenagers use Instagram and ~30% use Facebook. In New Mexico,…

What really sucks about all these types of judgements: Who's wronged here? The children. How much do they get for being wronged? Absolutely nothing. It all just goes to the governments coffers to be wasted away on a few PSAs directed at children.

It's restitution to society, for the cost of the damage done.

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

#209

Post by morning_poster »

This ruling is absurd. The "harm" alleged could be produced not only by any social media, but by any mass media. But this ruling is really not about that-- it is a shot across the bow of Facebook and the rest of Big Tech warning them to get in line with the official propaganda or the US government will make their lives very difficult. Notice how this wasn't happening to Facebook when they were banning anyone that posted the wrong opinion about the Ukraine War or Covid shots.

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

#210

Post by lordnacho »

abc123abc123 wrote: post #177
lordnacho wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies in advance, but this reads like someone who hasn't actually had kids. Keep in mind that people who have kids still only have a small number, and there is luck involved. You can't decide that they will eat their vegetables. You can't decide that they are going to be diligent in doing their homework. And you can't decide whether they take an interest in what society shows them. Yes, you can open your mouth, s…

Rubbish. Yes, you can decide that the child will eat vegetable and do their homework. Did you grow up in a hippie commune? It is as easy as deciding that the child will not leave the table until the vegetables are eaten, and will not leave his room before homework is done. Grow a spine, set rules, and enforce them. That is how responsible adults are made. If not, your children will still be children when they grow up…

> Yes, you can decide that the child will eat vegetable and do their homework.

You literally cannot.

When I was 5, I was told I couldn't go out and play until I'd eaten my lunch.

I didn't go out and play.

But I also didn't eat my lunch.

> Grow a spine, set rules, and enforce them. That is how responsible adults are made. If not, your children will still be children when they grow up, and you will be responsible for it.

Despite your best efforts, your kids will not turn out the way you wanted.

Post reply on HN