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

121–130 of 494 posts

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

#121

Post by tedggh »

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?

There were definitely horrible places on the internet pre Facebook that were popular among kids like Rotten and Ogrish. But there was not a trillion dollar company investing billions of dollars and hundreds of scientists on research to attract and hook kids to their platform. This is not remotely comparable.

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

#123

Post by NalNezumi »

>Meta will impose daily usage limits and restrict nighttime usage by children who use Facebook and Instagram, and enhance measures to prevent children from accessing age-restricted content

So meta won.

The only thing I'm asking for is better control over my social media. Let me remove infinite scroll on Instagram and don't show me things I have explicitly followed on Facebook. And do this setting by default and a cigarette like warning pop-up when you try to enable the algorithms.

(I know you can do this with custom apps and I'm doing that but you have no clue how many non tech people beg me to share how and then cop out when they learn you have to download custom apk. Just add these functionalities as an default )

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

#124

Post by gurumeditations »

xvxvx wrote: post #74

I’m beyond sick of how this country operates. This is small potatoes for Meta and stops the $1T+ lawsuit, which would have had an actual impact on these scumbags. Time and time again it’s the same story: the Protestant worship of money and wealth at the expense of others. If it makes money then it’s a blessing from God, and thus cannot be evil. Sorry, Americans, but your children will be mind raped with social media…

You puritans are obsessed with porn. If you don’t like jerking off, then don’t! Hate yourself and leave the rest of us alone. You’re not protecting kids or anyone else with your moral panic.

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

#126

Post by gabes »

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?

Is inappropriate content on some random forum the same as deliberately manipulating children?

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

#127

Post by cryptonym »

ben_w wrote: post #33
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 is generally the wrong measure. If you registered asf1254 Inc., and it was always just you, and it traded like Meta stocks trade, then "asf1254 Inc." would have a market cap ~6.2× whatever you're currently earning. i.e., if you earn $100k/year, you'd be "worth" $620k, and 1% of that would be a fine of $6200.

You may earn 100k/y and have 10M real estate + 2M in bank. Why would you dumb down market cap to earnings?

Anyway, 6K for harming children at that scale remains ridiculous.

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

#128

Post by voakbasda »

joering2 wrote: post #113

$16.6B versus $1.4T market cap (1.17%). So basically rob a bank of $100 million dollars, on your way out give $1.1 million to cops and you are free to go with the rest.

Yes. This has been demonstrated as a viable strategy more times than I can count.

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

#129

Post by Der_Einzige »

gurumeditations wrote: post #124
xvxvx wrote: post #74

I’m beyond sick of how this country operates. This is small potatoes for Meta and stops the $1T+ lawsuit, which would have had an actual impact on these scumbags. Time and time again it’s the same story: the Protestant worship of money and wealth at the expense of others. If it makes money then it’s a blessing from God, and thus cannot be evil. Sorry, Americans, but your children will be mind raped with social media…

You puritans are obsessed with porn. If you don’t like jerking off, then don’t! Hate yourself and leave the rest of us alone. You’re not protecting kids or anyone else with your moral panic.

Yup. Who brought circumcison into this country and why? Oh yeah, mad as hell conservatives who would literally mutilate their children all because gasp they might experience a bit of that forbidden, evil, no good, pleasure.

And after all, we are all sinners in a world of an angry god…

Fuck WASPs.

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

#130

Post by yodsanklai »

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…

I don't think this has to do with free speech. If companies can deliberately harm kids, they should be regulated.
Post reply on HN