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

341–350 of 501 posts

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

#341

Post by autoexec »

butlike wrote: post #328
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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?

We've decided sugar is less harmful. It's also more useful in food than cocaine which would only be there to turn people into addicts. I'm inclined to think that if companies went around adding cocaine to food to make it more addictive the way they do with sugar society would be much worse, so it seems reasonable enough. If there's data somewhere that would suggest cocaine would be less harmful than sugar though I'd be open to taking a look at it and changing my mind.

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

#342

Post by slibhb »

It's been eye-opening to watch people fall for the "social media is hurting the children" scam.

The best and largest observational studies don't show a strong correlation. Studies with an intervention are mixed/the effect isn't large. Extreme and compulsive social media use is bad, but it's almost maybe always a symptom rather than a cause.

I saw the trailer for the new Facebook movie last weekend. It's comical really; first people blamed Facebook for the 2016 election and now for their kids being depressed. It's classic scapegoating.

What makes this worse is the irony: in the name of protecting children, we're going to further reduce their freedom. And if there is single largest cause of children being depressed, I'd bet on "lack of freedom" over "social media use".

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

#343

Post by kwanbix »

okdood64 wrote: post #78
kwanbix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two hours is one hour too long if you ask me. This should be implemented also for adults. And non-avoidable.

Adults can’t decide for themselves?

Seing how many adults have gambling addiction, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, food addiction, and social media addiction, I will say, not so much?

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

#344

Post by ben_w »

triceratops wrote: post #339
ben_w wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message being "screw the rules, I have money". The shareholders already can't remove Zuckerberg, he has 57% of voting control.

It amounts to taking 10% of his wealth too, through dilution. And by diluting all shareholders it depresses the price in the future.

That's like a court ordering 10% of your home be put on the market in a way that never forces you to pay rent, when you're likely to live in it for the rest of your life.

The wealth you're talking about is almost entirely bound in owning and controlling facebook, bounces up and down a lot regardless of penalties, and it isn't a liquid asset becase he can't sell without giving up that control…

Except worse than that, because he could probably order the business to print more shares and give them to him do at any time because of his voting control. See e.g. Musk and his BS trillion dollar performance carrot at Tesla where the board is suspiciously arranged in his benefit, or Musk and his BS voting control structure with SpaceX. IIRC Meta's dividends are pathetic and Musk's nonexistent, so you're proposing an even smaller slap on the wrist than the penalty you deride.

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

#345

Post by 4ndrewl »

4ndrewl wrote: post #24

Table stakes. Just the cost of doing business. A bit like millionaires who park illegally because "it only cost $100 to park here, and my PA will do the admin"

I mean downvote all you like, but you know there's a team in place already doing their damnedest to define dark UX patterns to enable them to technically meet the restrictions.

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

#346

Post by autoexec »

intended wrote: post #275
phyzix5761 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who doesn't use social media please explain. Is it not possible for people to just delete the apps and stop using them? Is the addiction so strong at this point that people don't have the willpower to stop?

Nope. in more detail: Largely no. Theres many ways to explain this, but this is the shortest: You have an average person, with a phone. This person, with their average life experience, average brain development and biology, is facing off against research programs, data analysis, engineering teams, product designers, financiers, operations teams, who all want to give them the best digital experience they possible can…

> This person, with their average life experience, average brain development and biology, is facing off against research programs, data analysis, engineering teams, product designers, financiers, operations teams, who all want to give them the best digital experience they possible can have.

They do not want to give you the best digital experience you can have, they want to give you the most addictive and exploitative digital experience they can legally get away with because they value the money that brings in more than they value anything else. They'll be content to see you hurt or killed if it makes them more money. They've knowingly been hurting and killing people, including children, for money. Meta, and the corporations like it, have leveraged all of their vast resources against the average person and the average person is always going to lose in that situation.

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

#347

Post by [deleted] »

josephwegner wrote: post #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 hing…

[deleted]

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

#348

Post by expedition32 »

slibhb wrote: post #342

It's been eye-opening to watch people fall for the "social media is hurting the children" scam. The best and largest observational studies don't show a strong correlation. Studies with an intervention are mixed/the effect isn't large. Extreme and compulsive social media use is bad, but it's almost maybe always a symptom rather than a cause. I saw the trailer for the new Facebook movie last weekend. It's comical reall…

Society is not some science experiment that you can run for 20 years and hit the reset button.

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

#349

Post by contagiousflow »

slibhb wrote: post #342

It's been eye-opening to watch people fall for the "social media is hurting the children" scam. The best and largest observational studies don't show a strong correlation. Studies with an intervention are mixed/the effect isn't large. Extreme and compulsive social media use is bad, but it's almost maybe always a symptom rather than a cause. I saw the trailer for the new Facebook movie last weekend. It's comical reall…

Would you like to link to these studies?

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

#350

Post by tintor »

NalNezumi wrote: post #217
phyzix5761 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who doesn't use social media please explain. Is it not possible for people to just delete the apps and stop using them? Is the addiction so strong at this point that people don't have the willpower to stop?

>Is it not possible for people to just delete the apps and stop using them? Some people have friends, and some people also have friends that are very distant (geographically, life style, stage of life, etc). Social media can allow you to keep in touch with these people in a very convenient way. For me, being able to see life updates of friends with 8h+ timezone differences is very nice perk, because planning a call o…

People who don't use social media to catch up with distant friends and family just ... phone or video call.

No addiction, no infinite scroll, no exhaustion, no casino-like mechanics, no endorphins, no political rage, no AI companions, no random posts, no influencers.

Post reply on HN