Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#11

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

samename wrote: 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.

It was a clear win for Meta.

> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/27/meta-s...

> That $18bn is certainly more than most companies could pay, but it pales in comparison with the $1.5tn Meta’s own PR team warned the case could cost it had it gone through the courts – and the more realistic $200bn the prosecuting lawyers sought to squeeze from the firm.

The consensus opinion was that the case would have cost them a lot more if it hadn't settled. Truly, the outcome couldn't have been more favorable to Meta. "Reckoning" -- yeah, right.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#13

Post by JuniperMesos »

samename wrote: 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.

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.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#14

Post by echelon »

samename wrote: 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 day the state will punish us for our ideas and associations. They already do to an extent, but it's going to get unbearable once the machinery is in place.

Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists - everyone should oppose this.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#15

Post by dmix »

rimeice wrote: post #6
dmix wrote: post #2

The only outcome I see from the Meta ruling is all of the other platforms getting spooked by the huge payout and starting to preemptively add aggressive age-gating and ID checks on everything on the internet (regardless of local legislation).

“Other platforms” - social media sites? If so this != “everything on the internet”

Social media encompasses most the internet usage yes (including Youtube/Google). Plus ChatGPT, Discord, Twitch, messaging apps, porn sites, Reddit, Netix, image sharing sites, etc.. basically any major B2C category

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#17

Post by winrid »

mschuster91 wrote: post #9
downrightmike wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents really need to parent

How? Between 11 hours of work+commute, 8 hours of sleep and 2 hours of work-adjacent activities such as making food or household chores... there isn't that much time left in a day. That's also the reason why so many people don't have children any more, or only later in their life when they are economically settled.

People worked that hard when families often had 3 or more kids. The difference is one parent could afford to not work. We've let corporations "optimize" that away.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#18

Post by dmix »

mschuster91 wrote: post #9
downrightmike wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents really need to parent

How? Between 11 hours of work+commute, 8 hours of sleep and 2 hours of work-adjacent activities such as making food or household chores... there isn't that much time left in a day. That's also the reason why so many people don't have children any more, or only later in their life when they are economically settled.

Phones have had parental controls already built in forever. My sister is a busy executive who commutes daily and she didn't let her kid have a phone until age 13, and when they bought an Android phone they signed up for one of the (many) existing parental monitoring apps. Which for ex will notify the parent when their child gets messaged from a new person not in their existing curated contact list. So their phone is only used contacting their close friends at school. Parental monitoring and controlling usage on sites like Youtube and Facebook is a long solved problem, if the parent put any basic effort in.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#19

Post by bossyTeacher »

dmix wrote: post #2

The only outcome I see from the Meta ruling is all of the other platforms getting spooked by the huge payout and starting to preemptively add aggressive age-gating and ID checks on everything on the internet (regardless of local legislation).

What other platforms (I think you mean social media) exist in the West? It's just Meta (Facebook, Instagram) and whatever company manages the western Tik Tok. Luckily, they are easy to stay away from. There is more to the internet than these 2 companies.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning

#20

Post by paulpauper »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #13
samename wrote: 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.

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
Post reply on HN