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

Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 502 posts

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#101

Post by account42 »

api wrote: post #45
hugodan wrote: post #16

still feels like they got away easy for raping children's minds "Meta has long argued it could not have misled consumers about whether its services were addictive because "social media addiction" is not a recognized psychiatric condition." that's a nice escape hatch, considering that they are using all the tricks in the book (from online gambling, etc) and then some

The smoking gun here is that they actually hired psychologists and experts in creating addictive stuff from e.g. the gambling industry. It clearly shows that their intent was "make this as addictive as possible." Then they ignored tons and tons of warning signs that this was having a negative effect especially on children and the elderly. Now I think they need to hit YouTube, TikTok, and addiction-engineered loot box…

> The smoking gun here is that they actually hired psychologists and experts in creating addictive stuff from e.g. the gambling industry. It clearly shows that their intent was "make this as addictive as possible."

The Games industry, including everyone's favorite Valve, does the same thing btw. And the result is no less disgusting.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#102

Post by billynomates »

hax0ron3 wrote: post #61

So if I write a book that your kid just can't stop reading it over and over again because I deliberately made it compulsively re-readable, and then your kid develops some kind of issues because my book is so interesting to him, you can sue me and win? I don't like that idea. Personally, I value free speech more than some supposed "harms" done to children by content. Content that they can easily stop consuming by just…

[flagged]

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#103

Post by cryptonym »

dbbk wrote: post #36
asf1254 wrote: post #5

1% of their market cap. I don't think we'll see someone with a net worth of $100,000 paying only a $1000 fine for harming children.

Market cap isn't real money

Money isn't real, yet that's how we size a lot of things.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#105

Post by groundzeros2015 »

hugodan wrote: post #16

still feels like they got away easy for raping children's minds "Meta has long argued it could not have misled consumers about whether its services were addictive because "social media addiction" is not a recognized psychiatric condition." that's a nice escape hatch, considering that they are using all the tricks in the book (from online gambling, etc) and then some

Are we going to pretend that internet did not expose inappropriate content to children prior to Facebook?

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#106

Post by shepardrtc »

Meta has warped society to think that life is meaningless without affirmation.

No amount of money can fix that or punish them.

I think that sharing things can be wonderful, but monetizing that or adding Like counts to gamify it is very damaging to people. This idea that everyone should know better and take a ideological stand against some dumb app is ridiculous. Life can be hard at times, and these apps manipulated that.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#107

Post by vrganj »

Barbing wrote: post #46
bakies wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money!

Figure his own mental steelmans are legitimately more complex, though. And more faulty.

Some popular ones:

* The whole Atlas Shrugged self-deification bit

* Relatedly, the "Effective" "Altruism" bit, where you first have to gain power at all costs to then properly wield it for good. But even by that standard, you'd think he'd have enough power by now.

Lastly, not really his own mental steelman, but more of an external diagnosis:

* Increased wealth has been shown repeatedly [0] to be correlated with narcissistic symptoms. Maybe it's simply pathology.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23963971/

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#108

Post by lazide »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #105
hugodan wrote: post #16

still feels like they got away easy for raping children's minds "Meta has long argued it could not have misled consumers about whether its services were addictive because "social media addiction" is not a recognized psychiatric condition." that's a nice escape hatch, considering that they are using all the tricks in the book (from online gambling, etc) and then some

Are we going to pretend that internet did not expose inappropriate content to children prior to Facebook?

It was more organic, less profitable and mechanized.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#109

Post by aczerepinski »

api wrote: post #45
hugodan wrote: post #16

still feels like they got away easy for raping children's minds "Meta has long argued it could not have misled consumers about whether its services were addictive because "social media addiction" is not a recognized psychiatric condition." that's a nice escape hatch, considering that they are using all the tricks in the book (from online gambling, etc) and then some

The smoking gun here is that they actually hired psychologists and experts in creating addictive stuff from e.g. the gambling industry. It clearly shows that their intent was "make this as addictive as possible." Then they ignored tons and tons of warning signs that this was having a negative effect especially on children and the elderly. Now I think they need to hit YouTube, TikTok, and addiction-engineered loot box…

[dead]

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#110

Post by account42 »

Wolfbeta wrote: post #28
forestrywat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a very, very, very significant contributor.

Who is paying for their internet access?

How is that at all relevant to the comment you're replying to. We don't need to find a single party we can apply all blame to.
Post reply on HN