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

191–200 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#191

Post by _doctor_love »

pixl97 wrote: post #59
bilekas wrote: post #11

> "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful." Wow.. That is quite a statement. Am I right in saying that in order to claim for the class action lawsuit, which facebook has been 'found negligent', that the victims need to take an action collectively in order to claim ? IE They need to be reached somehow to inform them of the possibility ? Seems the mos…

Tobacco lawyers "Putting that cigarettes are harmful on the box would be devastating to our profits!"

"But Black Dynamite! I sell drugs to the community!"

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#193

Post by themafia »

NERD_ALERT wrote: post #170
elAhmo wrote: post #156

We can effectively trace all of the problems we have today in a global scale back to social media.

I don’t disagree that social media has played a massive role in changing the world in a negative way. This is a very far reaching claim though and one that kinda misses the forest for the trees. The problem is that fundamentally capitalism demands that companies find more ways to siphon more money from customers every quarter or they fail. Social media is a perfect storm for the elites in this system. It’s a CIA wet…

> fundamentally capitalism demands

Wall Street makes those demands. Those demands are backed up by court cases and precedent. Nothing about this is synonymous with "capitalism."

> It’s a CIA wet dream.

And they spend a significant amount of money. Is this "capitalism" still? Or are there more specific terms that would apply more directly to this arrangement?

> Social media is evil

The US is the largest manufacturer and seller of weapons in the world.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#194

Post by gradientsrneat »

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…

I've opted in/not opted out to several class actions, and without saying the exact number, I'll say it was a lot more than that. Tech companies wouldn't be putting binding arbitration clauses/class action waivers/etc in their TOS if they weren't scared of being held accountable.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#195

Post by taormina »

neilv wrote: post #165

Idea of something that undergraduate colleges could do, to encourage reflection about ethics in careers: Annually poll all the students, to get rankings of how the ethics of well-known companies/brands are perceived by the students. Then publish the results to students, in a timely fashion, before they're deciding job offers and internships. I speculate that effects of this could include: 1. Good hiring candidates mo…

They already have ethics classes in college. The unethical already don’t care. Students already do basic research but when the market is so shit, do you really expect them to permanently hamstring their careers by torpedoing their only offer? Especially given that as a fresh college grad, it’s not like anyone cares about your opinion anyways. So let’s guilt the vaguely ethical ones into never getting involved and leaving all the sociopaths to run the show. This is an idea destined for success.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#196

Post by crazygringo »

I mean, I don't like Meta at all, but what do you expect? If you want to run a full-page in the New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, they're going to refuse to run it as well. Private companies generally don't publish things that run counter to their interests.

It would certainly be interesting if we wanted legislation to force private companies who provide paid ad space to publish ads that paid the most regardless of the content, but then that opens up a whole other can of worms. What if the ad offering the most money is racist and horrible, or disgustingly obscene? At that point you start needing the government to decide what is allowed to be banned and what isn't, and then it's meddling in speech which is prohibited by the first amendment.

So this just seems like an obvious non-story to me. Of course Meta is removing these ads, because pretty much any advertising platform would do the same about ads that criticized it.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#199

Post by xuhu »

crazygringo wrote: post #196

I mean, I don't like Meta at all , but what do you expect? If you want to run a full-page in the New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, they're going to refuse to run it as well. Private companies generally don't publish things that run counter to their interests. It would certainly be interesting if we wanted legislation to force private companies who provide paid ad space to publish ads that paid the mo…

Online stores don't remove 1-star reviews of their products from their store. Do they ?

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#200

Post by indymike »

crazygringo wrote: post #196

I mean, I don't like Meta at all , but what do you expect? If you want to run a full-page in the New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, they're going to refuse to run it as well. Private companies generally don't publish things that run counter to their interests. It would certainly be interesting if we wanted legislation to force private companies who provide paid ad space to publish ads that paid the mo…

> New York Times that criticizes the New York Times,

This has happened.

> the government to decide what is allowed to be banned and what isn't,

This is a civil lawsuit where people are trying to a) prove they were harmed and b) be compensated for that harm. The government is just the referee.

> Meta is removing these ads, because pretty much any advertising platform would do the same about ads that criticized it.

Which was not very smart because the next step will be a court order requiring them to put a banner on ever page with a link to sign up to join the lawsuit - for free.

Post reply on HN