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

Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 323 posts

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#251

Post by roryirvine »

throwyawayyyy wrote: post #74

I do wonder about intent. Meta has spent 20 years paying its engineers and others vast amounts of money to Increase Engagement, and punishes those who fail to find ways to do so (over the past few years, by firing them). And it's worked! Engagement has increased greatly over the years, Meta survived the effective end of Old social media (you know, the stuff from your friends) and thrives in the new world of infinite…

Even if it's hard to conclusively prove intent, I think it's easy to see how there must have been at least recklessness in play and perhaps even wilful blindness.

In other words, even if they didn't know that what they were doing was harmful, they should have.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#252

Post by shimman »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #249
nkrisc wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the absence of a clear referent or definition, who gets to decide what constitutes a "harm"? The jury.

A jury is relevant to the legal adjudication of harm, not the institutionalization of a certain ideas, activity, etc. as harmful. There are many so-called harms that are arbitrarily declared by agencies as such long before a lawsuit is conceived. Just the same, there are many legitimate harms that states and societies enact as their "right" at the expense of a person's liberty (i.e. conscription, expropriation of pro…

You don't need to take an anti-democracy stance regarding juries.

Also there is a reason why trust in institutions are lower than Trump's approval, institutions are prone to corruptions and enriching the elites while advocating for policies that do not help worker's material needs.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#253

Post by lokar »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #243
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took decades to clearly define gambling enough to regulate it as we do now. Note that pinball was banned in major cities for decades because it was too similar to gambling devices. And even with those definitions things weren't very clear. I used to work for financial traders here in Chicago. Every year there would be an unofficial snow futures market. It was a fancy way for all the traders and clerks to gamble on…

> My point being that not having a clear definition won't stop us from grappling with the harms. Nor should it. In the absence of a clear referent or definition, who gets to decide what constitutes a "harm"? What substance do their claims have beyond conveniently spun moral arguments? Why does betting on an event as common and unalterable as the weather require adoption by an incumbent entity and/or regulation by the…

We do this in the law all the time. Many here find it imprecise and aesthetically ugly, but it’s how the world works.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#254

Post by conception »

blackoil wrote: post #188
conception wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best idea ive seen is if you decide what a user sees in an algorithm way (beyond “natural” ones like chronological) you are liable for the content - you are no longer a common carrier and can be sued for damages. That should be step 1.

> beyond “natural” ones like chronological So a mail s/w that pushes up mail that it deems important?

There are already a couple of answers for standard male programs, but if the male programs such as Gmail pushes up content to your inbox, save from Google then yes, that would be an algorithm that would qualify. I would really argue what you are describing is a filter rather than a content algorithm.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#255

Post by jbstack »

mschuster91 wrote: post #196
jbstack wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What made one gambling and the other not? What makes any given bet a legitimate financial trade versus pure gambling? Legally, it's whether the bet meets the legal definition of gambling as per the legislation applicable in your jurisdiction and any binding case law. There's no universal answer. But from an ordinary language perspective, the difference is whether it involves an element of skill sufficient (at least…

> Stock market investing - not gambling That entirely depends on the asset classes you invest in. Proper stonks? Sure, that's not gambling. But as soon as you enter the fun world of derivatives and daytrading...

It's a common refrain, but I don't agree that it's correct. You're essentially boiling the definition down to the degree of risk:

If (risk > some_threshold) then gambling = true; else gambling = false;

With derivatives your risk is often greater than with traditional stocks. But that's not universally true. If you invest in a startup your risk is massive, whereas if you invest in a well diversified and low leveraged portfolio of derivatives your risk might be substantially lower.

And in any case, so what? If you place a small bet on every number of a roulette table your risk is essentially zero: you'll simply make a guaranteed fixed loss of 5.26% on every spin. On the other hand, if you invest in the Vanguard Total Stock Market index tracker, you might hope to make around 8 to 10% per year, but in some years (e.g. 2008) you might make a big loss (37%), so the risk is significant. Yet I think most people would agree that the former is gambling while the latter is not.

The important factor isn't how much risk you take on, it's whether a sufficiently skilled person can achieve a positive mathematical expectation over a series of similar bets.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#257

Post by Hugsbox »

itintheory wrote: post #197
pants2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not well defined today; memecoins, prediction markets, sports betting, and more are all toeing the line of gambling.

> toeing the line I'm not sure that phrase means what you intended to say here. From Wikipedia, [1]: "Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand in formation along a line. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line It's possible I misinterpreted your statement though, and if so: apologies.

Guess I learned something new today. I've always thought "toe the line" means something closer to "staying as close as you can to the line without crossing it", if that makes sense.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#258

Post by WarmWash »

wpietri wrote: post #77
matrix87 wrote: post #25

This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…

It took decades to clearly define gambling enough to regulate it as we do now. Note that pinball was banned in major cities for decades because it was too similar to gambling devices. And even with those definitions things weren't very clear. I used to work for financial traders here in Chicago. Every year there would be an unofficial snow futures market. It was a fancy way for all the traders and clerks to gamble on…

> Let me know if you figure it out.

If you tell people at a dinner party your wealth came from it, will they be impressed and intrigued, or will they roll their eyes and be dismissive?

"I know how to throw dice" doesn't have quite the same intellectual ring as "I know how to trade derivatives contracts" haha

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#259

Post by vasco »

postexitus wrote: post #193
vasco wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having "underlying risk" to something just means you invested in it before. So for you it's not a gambling as long as you... have gambled before in the other direction? Buy bunch of call options? Gambling. Buy a bunch of put options for stock I already hold, somehow honorable investing.

No - it means you are exposed to - electricity / gas / oil prices. Or Wheat maybe?

Everyone is exposed to those so by that definition nobody would ever be gambling. I was trying to be charitable so assumed the bar was higher in the what-if.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#260

Post by mschuster91 »

jbstack wrote: post #255
mschuster91 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stock market investing - not gambling That entirely depends on the asset classes you invest in. Proper stonks? Sure, that's not gambling. But as soon as you enter the fun world of derivatives and daytrading...

It's a common refrain, but I don't agree that it's correct. You're essentially boiling the definition down to the degree of risk: If (risk > some_threshold) then gambling = true; else gambling = false; With derivatives your risk is often greater than with traditional stocks. But that's not universally true. If you invest in a startup your risk is massive, whereas if you invest in a well diversified and low leveraged…

> You're essentially boiling the definition down to the degree of risk

Indeed, but I'm not alone in making this decision, it's a common thing in the finance world, known there as "accredited investor" [1].

Generally, the distinction between gambling and investing (a fine line that especially Kalshi and Polymarket are attempting to walk, by the way) often is "can the investor / gambler influence the outcome of the investment by knowledge". Say, a stock like GME... the initial analysis by DFV clearly was investment, based on very thorough research. The Army of the Apes however that m00ned the stonk? That was pure degenerate gambling, with the point not being profits but hedgefunds closing down.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor

Post reply on HN