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

Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#141

Post by NickC25 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #114
mrwh wrote: post #21

Meta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.

Wow. Does Zuckerberg have some kind of clinical condition where he just can't imagine how other people might see him? Sure this will slow down the personal injury lawyers finding clients but it won't stop them, meantime it is more ammunition for Facebook's enemies to use against it. It is one thing to do shady business, it is another thing to incriminate yourself. If you were involved with weed and somebody sent you…

>Does Zuckerberg have some kind of clinical condition where he just can't imagine how other people might see him?

Not sure he cares. He's literally got hundreds of billions of dollars to his name, and the corporation he founded is worth trillions.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#142

Post by doctorpangloss »

Xeoncross wrote: post #75

As an aside, class-action lawsuits seem less than ideal for the public. The awards benefit the lawyers and perhaps a small handful, but the actual plaintiffs only get $0.05. In addition, successful class-action suits prevent further litigation from being allowed for the same issue. Individuals bringing their own lawsuits seems like it would affect better change as 1) the award money would be better distributed instea…

okay, what if the plaintiffs got "$50,000"? then to you, are class actions ideal for the public?

the flaw with class actions is not that they don't pay enough (or too much, to the wrong people) money. it's that they're reactive, which is to say, it's the same tradeoff with nearly all US commercial policy.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#143

Post by PaulHoule »

alex1138 wrote: post #135
jmye wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does Zuckerberg have some kind of clinical condition where he just can't imagine how other people might see him? Nah, he just doesn't care. Nothing he does will ever get people (en masse, onesie, twosies don't matter) to stop using Meta products. People can/will complain about him forever, but shitty people will continue to help him build things, and shitty people will continue to use them.

They both captured the early market (inconsistent page style of Myspace, slowness of Friendster, then they acquired Friendfeed) in an early internet - anyone who captures the early market will have THE network effect for decades (plus shadow profiles) as person x joins because person y is there because person z is there - which is still young to this day, and also they apparently used to censor links to their competi…

... the other theory of Facebook's decline is that Eternal September gets you every time. I mean in the 1970s the CBGB and Mudd Club were really cool and they folded up and the scene moved on.

Once I started using the social features on my MQ3 I found it really was Zuck's worst nightmare. I met all these nice retirees who were fun to play Beat Saber with and who would go on cruises and post YouTube links to pano videos they take of the ship.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#144

Post by ronsor »

quantum_magpie wrote: post #86
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but I don’t really see why this specific term would violate any law? Do we really want a society where platforms are forced to present speech that is harmful to them? If you own a store and I put a sign up on your wall advertising a rival store wouldn’t it be reasonable for you to disallow that?

An alternative reply, with analogy, if you like them: You own a restaurant, where you sell poisoned (intentionally and knowingly) food. A group of people band up for class action lawsuit for poisoning them, and have the lawyers post a sign at your restaurant, that everyone poisoned there should reach out and get some compensation. Should you be allowed to take the sign down?

They shouldn't be allowed to put the sign up unless it's court ordered.

I know this answer doesn't pass the vibes test, but it's how the law actually works. If you post a sign on someone's property without permission, you'll get in trouble for trespassing, vandalism, or both.

So get a judge to issue an order. In a serious situation, they very well might.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#145

Post by PaulHoule »

ModernMech wrote: post #137
PaulHoule wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Does Zuckerberg have some kind of clinical condition where he just can't imagine how other people might see him? Sure this will slow down the personal injury lawyers finding clients but it won't stop them, meantime it is more ammunition for Facebook's enemies to use against it. It is one thing to do shady business, it is another thing to incriminate yourself. If you were involved with weed and somebody sent you…

Yes, it's called being a billionaire. I'm sure if clinicians actually studied this group of people, they would find strains of delusions of grandeur, paranoia, extreme risk taking behavior, lack of self control and self awareness, inability to deal with adversity and setbacks without emotional outbursts, inability to contain and dismiss intrusive antisocial thoughts. I feel probably that the emotional maturity of mos…

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcquiredSituatio...

?

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#146

Post by username223 »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #32

Do photogs do that on purpose, or does Zuck really always have that sociopath stare?

It’s less unflattering than the legless avatar from his $80 billion waste of money.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yUEJgQzunhbnYYtsckup7i.jpg

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#147

Post by malfist »

amethyst wrote: post #104
malfist wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$12 dollars is $12 dollars people wouldn't have without them. You can always opt out of a class action settlement and sue yourself if you're not happy with the terms. But at the end of the day, the lawyers did real work, took on real risk and achieved something. They held a big tech company accountable, and that is a meaningful difference from the status quo. I don't care that they made money doing that, they should.

Is it really holding them "accountable" when the settlements are for laughably small amounts, like <1% of a single day's profit?

No one else is doing anything. So it's something.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#148

Post by gorbachev »

alex1138 wrote: post #54
HumblyTossed wrote: post #32

Do photogs do that on purpose, or does Zuck really always have that sociopath stare?

Keep in mind Zuckerberg is someone who supports things like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198 Zuckerberg was told about gay people being added to groups and it outed them by posting to their wall, and he ignored it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYnocZFuc4 And obviously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 (guess we don't get access to his other messages, though https://news.ycombinator.com…

Zuck and his minions are also responsible for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide

Your examples pale in comparison.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#149

Post by analog8374 »

mrwh wrote: post #21

Meta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.

Reddit is the same way. Poke a few sacred cows and suddenly you're banned for something you did 6 months ago that we aren't going to tell you about and no we don't want to discuss it.

Kafkaism is natural and organic.

Post reply on HN