221–230 of 503 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a very, very, very significant contributor.
Who is paying for their internet access?
There have always been so many people having higher integrity to choose from for those possessing better judgment of character.
Edit: not my downvote btw
I think worse than social media nowadays is youtube shorts. That thing is so addictive to kids. I wish there was a way to delete shorts from youtube and have only long form videos available in the app.
Who gets the money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The point is "Market cap is BS".
> Anyway, 6K for harming children at that scale remains ridiculous.
One person managing to harm children at this scale would likely get a penalty much smaller than $16 bn.
Of course even "20-life" is a penalty much smaller than $16 bn, given the average American's lifetime earnings are around the $3m level, i.e. it would take 5000 mean lifetimes to repay the actual fine in the headline.
It's nonsensical to scale down a %-of-wealth fee to one person without also considering that the offence would likely be smaller, and also as an independent consideration how difficult it would be for one person to commit the acts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that because laws exist, and it’s illegal to break the law while using your phone, that is therefore justification for making it illegal to scroll on social media for longer than an hour each day?
I didn't make that argument. I responded to the statement: > You think the state should restrict what adults do on their phones? The state already does that.
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.
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…
Agreed, this is just setting the stage for requiring age verification (and surveillance) under the pretense of "saving the children".
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 t…