Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

451–460 of 510 posts

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

#451
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…

> Which means, IMO: (1) regulation should be limited to what the general public's gut on average agrees with, since science won't be the neutral arbiter we want it to be for the foreseeable future. (2) I personally want to severely limit my kids access to social media because my gut says it's addictive and harmful. But I don't expect society as a whole to agree with me on that.

Well:

(1) there is no "the general public's gut" -- the general public is millions of separate guts that don't agree with each other;

(2) our political system defines explicit boundaries for the reach of regulatory power, especially where communication, expression, and social interaction are concerned, regardless of anyone's gut feeling on these issues;

(3) science can't be the arbiter here at all, since science only answers "is" questions, but this is an "ought" question; which leads us to

(4) as you alluded to in your final remark, this is a purely cultural issue which families/parents must address according to their own normative values, independently of each other, and there is no legitimate political or legal question here.

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

#452
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.

> Anything to shift blame from parents, I guess.

Shifting blame from parents presumes there is a problem to blame on them, but isn't the determination of whether anything here constitutes a problem in the first place up to the parents themselves?

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

#453
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> it isn't a liquid asset becase he can't sell without giving up that control… And that doesn't matter. If Meta is forced to issue 10% more shares to the plaintiff the value of all shareholders' shares fall 10%. And if the plaintiff dumps all the shares on a single day, they fall even harder. Zuckerberg's 57% control of a $1.6t company means a lot more than my 50% control of Triceratops Inc. Not because 57% > 50% but…

> And that doesn't matter. If Meta is forced to issue 10% more shares to the plaintiff the value of all shareholders' shares fall 10%. And if the plaintiff dumps all the shares on a single day, they fall even harder.

And why should Zuckerberg care? You can observe by looking at what he's doing that the only thing he wants to own with 99% of his wealth is Meta itself. If Meta stocks were to literally and permanently devalue by 99%, he's still a multi-billionaire and keeps his various mansions and so on, modulo whatever loans he has.

> Meta is still headquartered in Delaware and such an action would be subject to shareholder lawsuits.

So was Tesla until it wasn't: https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/money/business/2024/06/1...

> To retain them Meta has to spend more money - cash or further share dilution.

The recent fire-rehire scheme, the one where the firing was blamed on AI even though he got many of them back again, appears to be in aid of breaking the requirement to give out all those stock options.

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

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article outlines several changes Meta is having to implement that curbs the "and be able to continue doing so" argument a bit. That said, I wish these settlements included tobacco-esque requirements for ongoing funds to educate people. The tobacco settlement funds have been somewhat successful.

The changes seem based on age, which just makes it more imperative that phone manufacturers perform even /more/ reliable age verification... The business model, incentives, and practices that led them down this road? No, those don't need to change.

I just bought a $50 Android phone, quad core, 8GB RAM, 1 year of mobile service (albeit limited, but free WiFi is everywhere).

Have all the age restriction you want. A kid goes into the store with their lunch money (a few days worth) and they have a valid phone number and an unrestricted device.

Everything requires ID to use? I’m not sure what the answer is, but I agree.

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

#455
So should information be free to everyone or do we need to protect children from things they are not developmentally able to handle yet? It seems like a lot of the people praising this decision think the same thing is evil when applied in other contexts.

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

#456
from meta's own statement: "The majority of the terms are required to remain in place for 10 years, but our Time Limit and Night Mode features will start with a five-year commitment. However, if industry peers sign on to the agreement, it will both extend this commitment to 10 years and prompt stronger default limits — reducing the Daily Limit to one hour per app and expanding Night Mode hours to 10:00 PM–7:00 AM (up from midnight–6:00 AM)."

I'm at loss for words at how shitty this paragraph reads. If anyone has any hope that Meta (and the rest) are even slightest concerned about the problem at hand (mental health of children), then they're very dim.

Meta literally goals on creating high-quality teen producers and consumers. Every single experiment, every single project is optimizing for that.

At least now its clear that behind the fancy marketing, its all "just business" for them and if they could, they'd sell the kids' soul to create "more shareholder value"

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

#458
post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults can’t decide for themselves?

Adults want time limit they can set in the app themselves.

This is already a feature in instagram. Then it's also a feature built in the OS in phones.

What more are you looking for?

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

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I'm not the one complaining about being "misunderstood" while doing the same exact thing to others.

[flagged]

>Your comment history suggests you should heed your own advice about engaging with others in better faith.

Why? Again, I'm not complaining.

>Fwiw the other person deliberately ignored the obvious point of my comment so blatantly that my response was about as nice as it deserved.

You were already being painfully obtuse

Post reply on HN