Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

newyorker.com

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#41
post #10

This settlement benefits meta immensely. Are the journalists reading the correct judgement? The stock pretty much had a breakout when this news came out.

It's another case of people struggling with huge numbers. We just aren't prepared to tackle millions/billions/trillions very well.

We should rephrase things in % terms. IE this payout is X% of their net profit from last year.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#43
post #10

This settlement benefits meta immensely. Are the journalists reading the correct judgement? The stock pretty much had a breakout when this news came out.

The journalists were most likely told to spin it this way so that meta can put on a sad face in public.

Everything is for sale and meta has the money.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#45

There is still yet no reckoning for Zuckerberg nor the people who choose to work for Meta. What would justice look like for someone responsible for building something so detrimental to society? What of the employees?

Maximilien Robespierre.

[dead]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#46
post #14
post #5

What reckoning? The settlement benefits Meta immensely. They just got the go ahead to implement age-gating at a wide scale, which will make their ad platform even more lucrative after each account can be tied back to a real identifiable person. They've totally captured the regulatory system, and the media is applauding it.

This is the correct read. Meta is pushing forward every measure it can to record precise identity, age, and income with everything that you do. They're the ones behind the push for internet porn ID laws. They're the ones behind the push for device attestation. They're the ones behind the push for social media ID requirements. They make more money, we lose freedom and privacy and sleep closer and closer to 1984. One d…

> Meta is pushing forward every measure it can to record precise identity, age, and income with everything that you do.

According to numerous comments in all the threads we've ever had on California's age verification law and the similar laws in a few other states, which move verification client side and do not provide any precise information to the server side, Meta is behind those bills because it wants to not have to store that data.

From what I've been able to tell from various searches, those people seem to be correct, although there seems to be a lot of exaggeration of the amount of money Meta put in to the effort. People seem to often mistake Meta's total lobbying spend in a state for the spending on just that one bill.

Until losing this lawsuit Meta lobbied against the bills that required them to do the work.

Note: I did not recurse into references to reach primary sources so I'm not sure how accurate the sites I found were.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#47
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm ok with generic people struggling with that. But anybody covering tech or business should be able to work effectively with the numbers at hand. Anything less is journalistic malpractice.

There's arguably more journalistic malpractice going on than actual journalism. Think back to anything you can speak to with some authority, personally or professionally. Think of the last time a reporter actually got it right. It does happen, and there are a few good journalists still out there who care about getting the facts and the issues right. But it's buried under a pile of ignorant rage-baiting slop.

Unfortunately, it really depends who you consider a journalist. With internet advertising destroying journalism as a revenue source, as anyone can really say anything about who they are

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#48
post #5

What reckoning? The settlement benefits Meta immensely. They just got the go ahead to implement age-gating at a wide scale, which will make their ad platform even more lucrative after each account can be tied back to a real identifiable person. They've totally captured the regulatory system, and the media is applauding it.

> What reckoning? The settlement benefits Meta immensely.

This was one lawsuit. It settled their immediate legal problems with the 47 states and DC that were included in the settlement.

Florida is continuing with its own case against them, and there are also thousands of other pending cases from individuals (89%) and governments below the state level such as school districts (11%).

The present settlement does include an admission of guilt so the plaintiffs in those other suits so there plaintiffs will also have to prove guilt, put they can use a massive amount of material that the states put together in their case.

They can use anything that was presented in open court.

They can also get copies of all the internal Meta information that the state Attorney Generals got via discovery, even if those documents were never presented in open court. They may have to keep them confidential and so can't use them in open court, but they can use them to build their case and depose Meta executives about them.

All in all, the plaintiffs in thousands of pending cases have just been handed a multi-million page trove of evidence put together using the enormous resources of 47 states designed to nail Meta.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#49
HN commenters who suggest this settlement was a "win" for Meta are implying Meta stood to lose more by not settling

These commenters must believe Meta could not win at trial

The indication from the bellwethers is that plaintiffs can win, and Meta can be forced to settle

There are more cases coming down the pipe. When will it end A "win" for Meta would be winning a bellwether, putting uncertainty and doubt in the minds of potential plaintiffs

That still has not happened (one case was dropped)

This is a long game that's only just started

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta's stock price went up on the news, which I took to be a sign of the settlement costing less than investors feared it would when they previously priced meta stock. I didn't think about the regulatory capture angle.

META makes so much money that this is immaterial. It's insane how profitable this company is

And yet the vast majority of it is fraud
Post reply on HN