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

441–450 of 501 posts

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

#441

Post by nyxtom »

vrganj wrote: post #420
nyxtom wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely, this is the point. There is systemic misalignment that encourages companies to behave this way.

I know this is not a popular viewpoint around here, but as a socialist, let me ask you this question: have we considered that the market itself might be the problem? That maybe the incentives it creates are toxic for humanity?

As a moderate, I tend to think things even out eventually - though it is usually what appears to be generational shifts in behavior that causes markets to adapt. It's costly (whole generations get f'd physically/mentally/financially), but the next generation (maybe?) pushes for something different idk

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

#442

Post by jstummbillig »

I find it fascinating how spotty the evidence around "Social Media" causing harm seems to be (as opposed to: harm happening on social media because that is just where kids are now), yet how viscerally so many people seem to agree that it must be the case.

Why is that?

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

#443

Post by Rover222 »

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…

Anything to shift blame from parents, I guess.

Everyone is just such a 'big tech bad' sheep now. Pitchforks out.

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

#444

Post by jstummbillig »

red_green_yell wrote: post #401
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…

I think you are conflating "the best data we have" with "sufficient data to prove something". I agree with you that the best data we have is inconclusive. Which doesn't mean social media is totally safe. Also it doesn't mean it's totally dangerous. It means there just isn't enough data to let science guide the decision. Science is very slow and very expensive. So since I can't wait another century for their to finall…

That seems like a very lame claim, given that Social Media is data in abundance by design, and for at least 2 decades now.

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

#445

Post by thewebguyd »

threetonesun wrote: post #402
tintor wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or e-mail, or chat in a video game, or a shared photo album, or blogs, or so many other things that the Internet still makes quite easy.

Or go super old school and send a handwritten letter.

We've stayed in touch with eachother's social groups via various means of communication since antiquity without social media algorithms.

We need to re-normalize not knowing what is going on in someone else's life 24/7, and re-normalize not having 24/7 instant access to another person. It's not healthy.

Also, text messages don't need an instant response, nor should the other party expect an instant response. It's asynchronous communication for a reason!

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

#446

Post by shakna »

loeg wrote: post #372
bsimpson wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they? I know a lot of my peers went to college for free with the Millennium Scholarship. But so many young people vape now that it's becoming cool to smoke analog cigarettes. I barely knew anyone who smoked 10-20y ago. Many people that age now do.

Vaping is distinctly less harmful than smoking.

We don't actually know that yet. The main studies are still ongoing, because this tends to be the kind of thing you measure over decades, and we haven't had those yet.

Does it increase the risk of Alzheimers? Does it riddle your brain with cancer at a later stage?

We don't know.

We do know that it is short-term less harmful, than something where most of the concerns are long-term.

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

#447

Post by pseudosavant »

nistiminic wrote: post #415
_ink_ wrote: post #9

Pay 25% from your 2025 profit for harming children since at least 2019 and be able to continue doing so. Sounds like a loss for society and a win for Meta.

The other article says: "OAKLAND, California, Aug 26 (Reuters) - Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab will pay up to $18 billion over the next decade" [1] So it's 1.8 billion per year and that's a lot less than 25%. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-reaches-18-billion-set...

Exactly. Meta basically got out of this without any meaningful penalty or deterant for the future. Paid out to the 50 states, it only averages $36M a year per state. I can't believe all of the state AGs signed on for this no-op.

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

#448

Post by groundzeros2015 »

peezd wrote: post #251
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment above says that Facebook “raped” children’s minds. When really it failed to protect children from the dangers of the internet. The dishonesty of not acknowledging the existing problems with the internet, suggests we are trying to scapegoat Facebook. Discord for example is contributing to this.

there's a difference between allowing exposure to unsafe content, against systematically and deliberately doing everything their psychologist/behavior economists could do to make sure kids were addicted to the product.

It sounds like you’re saying “sophisticated marketing”. Can you distinguish that from marketing that say McDonald’s does towards kids?

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

#449

Post by e12e »

BeetleB wrote: post #433
e12e wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For just the ads, there's also YouTube premium.

If I pay for a streaming service, I'll compare it with other paid streaming services. Youtube is, for me, the worst streaming experience - by a significant margin. Terrible curation. Terrible recommendations. Terrible UI. No way would I pay for it. (Oh, and if I paid, can I get it not to show me any Shorts?)

Don't necessarily disagree - I have premium because of Google Music (although the official app is now so bad I use Metrolist).

I don't see YouTube as a streaming service - more as a social(ish) video sharing/Indy publishing platform.

For things like conference talks or training techniques and so on.

If I had to watch ads, I'd stop using it.

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

#450

Post by shaftway »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #388
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…

For what its worth, if you believe Meta's product does do this damage, the other products which do similar things should also abide by it. It helps simultaneously "level the playing field" but also protects consumers. If the courts stated ruling is hinged on consumer protection then this seems fair. Any competitor which doesn't follow suit is likely opening themselves up to a similar lawsuit which would cost a simila…

It's basically contingent on the AGs suing those companies as well.

> and paying the same amount, split between the two companies.

So it's a bucket of crabs

Post reply on HN