Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

321–330 of 506 posts

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

#321
Technically does this not create a problem for their EPS because of the poor free cash flow? Current market consensus is $81B in Net Income for the year but a -$6.7B cashflow for 2026[1]. But the stock is up 1%. So, is the -$12B is priced in(somehow)?

[1](https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/META-PLATFORMS-IN...)

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

#322
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?

No, there's no need to. It has no bearing on the fact that Facebook facilitates child exploitation.

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

#323
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn’t Facebook invest a significant part to protect their brand by limiting and censoring content? Last I checked Facebook didn’t have Rotten content on it.

>Doesn’t Facebook invest a significant part to protect their brand by limiting and censoring content?

Not really.

>Last I checked Facebook didn’t have Rotten content on it.

Instagram directly connects children with children predators. Surfacing content from one to the other.

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

#324
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn’t Facebook invest a significant part to protect their brand by limiting and censoring content? Last I checked Facebook didn’t have Rotten content on it.

They invented the red notification badge. You know, the thing that gets you to compulsively open the app to view content of people doing better things than you in more exotic places than you. The thing that gets you to compulsively open the app to view content that makes you feel bad about yourself.

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

#325
> The company said 30% of that amount — about $5.3 billion — will be released to states only if rivals YouTube and TikTok meet two conditions: implementing similar safety features, including a one-hour daily time limit, a nighttime block and age-assurance measures; and paying the same amount, split between the two companies.

This is pretty shady. The $17B figure is much less impressive when a huge chunk of it is hinged on competitors choosing to hurt their business.

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

#326
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What % of META (shares) are owned by Meta Platforms Inc.? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for e.g. Zuckerberg personally to be ordered to hand over all his shares as any given penalty, but as stated what you describe sounds like a way to avoid paying a penalty.

Meta Platforms Inc. can create shares out of thin air. Diluting existing shareholders by 10% would send a much stronger message than whatever's happening now.

The message being "screw the rules, I have money".

The shareholders already can't remove Zuckerberg, he has 57% of voting control.

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

#327
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

This is crazy, Meta is not solely responsible for people and kids having addiction to their phones (very similar if not identical to social media addiction). Gambling has regulations all the companies have to abide by. Social media and content platforms have nothing like that.

They don't have to be solely responsible. What they are responsible for are their own actions.

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

#328
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America defaults to free. That's very unsettling for those that prefer an authoritarian approach. Maybe all these state AGs knew there was a good chance of losing because the facts aren't as strong as the narrative?

> "America defaults to free. That's very unsettling for those that an authoritarian approach." The least insane general position is to always ask "Free for who to do what?" Freedom for you to try cocaine if you want? Ok, let's consider it, but let's have a serious discussion about public health and safety first because there are predictable public consequences to broader society. Freedom for someone to put cocaine in…

Why is cocaine in food bad but refined sugar is fine?

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

#329

Why not just ban the engagement algorithm completely. Adults are just as susceptible to addiction.

Only when all those who call for bans also delete their HN and Reddit accounts.

reddit is trivial, but why hackner news as well?

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

#330

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…

There's an appreciable difference between creating a compelling work within an established medium like literature and inventing a (digital) machine that exploits psychological vulnerabilities (ie intermittent reward cravings) to keep the target engaged.

> Content that they can easily stop consuming by just closing the app.

If staying away from social media is this trivial to you I applaud your self discipline but googling 'social media addiction' suggests a very real phenomenon where people, children and adults alike, often find themselves incapable of self regulating their usage.

Post reply on HN