Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

371–380 of 456 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand now that this line >and Meta pays out to the affected parties probably won't come to pass, which I agree is not nearly as good. But I was responding to that possibility, as put forward by the the parent.

The line you conveniently skipped is > Which creates some bizarre incentives

One would argue the kids got paid for finding a dangerous place and entering. Up to the building owner to prevent access. It’s a form of giant bug bounty.

I wish I’d be paid a 7k$ bounty for every website where I can find an underage vulnerability.

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

#372
post #34
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…

Despite the UK's better sex education, the country (or at least its leadership) is still disturbingly socially conservative when it comes to sex.

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

#373

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,…

> minors get rewarded for signing up for the platforms that are harming them in the first place.

Vietnamese labor laws require higher salaries and more time off for working in hazardous/toxic conditions. These jobs become more attractive than the less toxic/hazardous ones.

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

#374
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if a $7k payout is sufficient for the harm it has caused. Remember some people committed suicide. Some have mental problems

This is ridiculous - you cannot attribute suicide to solely using Facebook.

By this argument, could you ever attribute suicide to anything? Nothing is ever “solely” responsible

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

#375

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,…

> 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.

what does this really mean? you think kids in other states are going to rush out to make a facebook account in the hopes of getting the next payout?

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely use some sort of psychological hacks when designing the algorithm. Somehow it finds the correct types of videos to keep you addictive pretty fast

That's kind of the crazy part, there is no actual "psychological" tricks in the sense that they just train their recommendation algorithm to build your feed in a way that makes you spend as much time as possible (basically a glorified A/B testing on a massive scale). With these types of algorithms, massive amount of data usually perform better than any underlying model you could have.

There's more to it. The short form content "crushes" what options are available, so it becomes much easier to classify you into buckets with similar people.

This is what actually drives the "We talked about X and then I got an ad for it" effect. You talked about X because something you were presented with prompted your brain to think about it, and the platform knows that people in your cohort who were presented with that thing often navigated to X later, so it should show it to you to claim an impression for it. It doesn't actually have to figure out any connection of the prompting source to X.

But some people are somewhat immune to this populism. I find short form content like TikTok and Twitter/Bluesky to be actively anti-engaging. The format and medium and "Virality" mechanic drive constraints on content that are actively signal negative. Somehow my brain rejects it, even though I'm ADHD and have addictive tendencies for things like Youtube in general, novelty, and used to get extremely addicted to Reddit. I'm pretty snobby about media, so maybe whatever drives me to have that preference makes me likely to bounce off that kind of populism system. Maybe there's a biological component to Hipsterism, like a certain kind of anti-authority issue.

I strongly believe that making a product, media, or content more palatable to "General audiences" or similar large cohorts forces you to sand off all the edges, cut out any opinions or takes, and become far less palatable to a different cohort, possibly one that describes itself as having "Taste".

So in some sense, the platforms self select for people who are vulnerable to them, which simplifies classification somewhat as well, even though that is the vast majority of people. But TikTok would never find what I like because what I like cannot be found on TikTok. Notably, this includes creators who I follow like a lost puppy on youtube, because the ways you have to change and modify your output to "work" on TikTok make it worse in many ways.

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

#377

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,…

The point of a fine is to change behavior. It's not outsize if it's enough to do that. >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. Good. https://www.thefader.com/2015/12/03/on-fleek-peaches-monroee... These platforms are so profitable precisely because they fleece users for way more va…

> The point of a fine is to change behavior. It's not outsize if it's enough to do that.

This is definitely not true, or legal. Would a billion dollar fine for speeding change some behaviors? Yes. Is it completely out of proportion? Also yes. There’s a reason punitive damages are capped. Yeah one way to stop bad corporate behavior is fining them into insolvency, but that doesn’t really help anyone unless the company is purely net negative. And those companies tend to die on their own, since you won’t get a lot of revenue if you don’t provide someone value.

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

#378
post #373

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,…

> minors get rewarded for signing up for the platforms that are harming them in the first place. Vietnamese labor laws require higher salaries and more time off for working in hazardous/toxic conditions. These jobs become more attractive than the less toxic/hazardous ones.

i don't think you're thinking through the incentives-- with higher labor costs the employer has an incentive to take steps to make the job less hazardous.

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

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand now that this line >and Meta pays out to the affected parties probably won't come to pass, which I agree is not nearly as good. But I was responding to that possibility, as put forward by the the parent.

The line you conveniently skipped is > Which creates some bizarre incentives

The status quo is already bizarre. Meta is actively profiting from harming minors. The alternative (minors getting a payout by visiting harmful websites) seems pretty tame by contrast, and in fact puts an active incentive on Meta to stop letting minors be harmed by their software.

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

#380

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,…

No matter how you want to rearrange and inflate the numbers, it doesn't change the fact that the total amount does not cause any harm to Meta. This isn't a fine, its a tax. It's the cost of doing business. Meta certainly made more than $7.25k over the lifetime of each of those accounts.

Maybe $7k will help these kids, but I doubt it, even if they receive the full amount. But Meta remains unaffected and free to continue harming other kids. That's the whole point of the complaints. Even if it were $7m or $700m per head, if Meta isn't harmed by the fine, it won't stop them harming more people now and in the future.

It's great that an incredibly small number of people might theoretically get some money that hypothetically will be used to help them, but I'm far more concerned about everyone meta is still harming

Post reply on HN