Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that says invading people's privacy for profit, or to provide it to political parties, is legal and therefore not subject to lawsuits or legal challenges in future.
> Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that (...) According to the article, the supreme court actually declined to issue a ruling in this case. Curious if that causes you to update your beliefs in any manner.
Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
21–30 of 55 posts
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#22I think I understand the CA scandal well, but how could it be reasonably expected for Facebook to give investors adequate notice that a third party could misuse their targeted ads feature (to my knowledge CA did not hack FB, they simply used targeted ads)? It's as if expecting recently IPO'd Beyond Meat to disclose to investors the possibility that someone might choke on a meatball they make with the meat...
But that’s not even what this is about. Facebook _did_ disclose those risks, but just not strongly worded enough in the hopes of the plaintiffs.
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#23FB will settle out of court. Probably a third of what shareholders are asking. Lawyers get paid handsomely on both sides. Parent company has washed away the stink of Cambridge Analytica fallout (remember those bs “sorry” videos and newspaper ads? [1,2]). Shareholders get a pittance. I’m a bit over this hyper-capitalistic market. When are C-level executives going to pay for their actions? Where is the jail time for th…
This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Facebook is easy to hate and the facts get lost.
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#241. It takes 4 of the 9 Justices to vote to take up a case. Given the current 6-3 split this likely means the conservative supermajrority voted to take the case. Why they then chose to dismiss it we can only speculate about;
2. The Supreme Court consistently sides with big business and this has likely been the case since its inception. This isn't strictly true but tends to be a good predictor of what cases the court takes and how it will rule;
3. SCOTUS is and always has been political. Supreme Court justices are political operatives;
4. This court will be inclined to side against Big Tech in general and social media in paritcular because of the war on the (implied right of) privacy and the pervasive myth that conservative voices are somehow being censored or silenced, despite lots of evidence that conservative rage-bait gets disproprotionately more distribution on recommendation algorithms.
One final piece of context regards the consequences of misuse of user data by the likes of Cambridge Analytica. Coming up soon is the potential ban of Tiktok. One argument for this is the influence of the Chinese government.
What you don't hear--from either party--is pushing for comprehensive user data protection legislation. So don't let any politican (of either party) tell you data privacy and protection is important to them. It is not. Or they would've done something about it.
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#25Really funny how the US Court system becomes really interested in cases as soon as shareholders file a lawsuit. When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster.
> When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers. If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer. As an investor, you typically need a lawyer, but with that hurdle met you're…
> If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer.
I have never heard someone claim that (which doesn't make it false). Almost everyone I interact with says the large investors and executives have far more power - and now far more power than ever. Companies trample on consumers and treat them like crap all the time - I don't know anyone who thinks consumers are powerful.
Use the legal system and you can end up buried in paperwork, discovery, and an unaffordable lawsuit that consumes many years of your life with no reliable outcome. Most people have to settle cases rather than fight deep-pocketed parties. Often you can't even get to court because of arbitration agreements, etc.
Who has done the things you claim? Is there some measure of how many?
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#26Really funny how the US Court system becomes really interested in cases as soon as shareholders file a lawsuit. When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster.
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#27>Investors allege that Meta did not fully disclose the risks that Facebook users’ personal information would be misused by Cambridge Analytica, a firm that supported Donald Trump ’s first successful Republican presidential campaign in 2016. The wording here is confusing. They did not disclose that ... someone else who got the info would do something bad?
An odd fact of the U.S. legal system for public companies is that every crime is also securities fraud: If a company does a bad thing, and regulators find out about it, then the bad-thing regulators can punish it for doing the bad thing, but the securities regulators can also punish it for not disclosing the bad thing to shareholders. . . . It is a strange combination: Generally speaking the companies do the bad things on behalf of shareholders—to make more money for them—but then the securities regulators come in and fine them for defrauding shareholders.”
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#28>Investors allege that Meta did not fully disclose the risks that Facebook users’ personal information would be misused by Cambridge Analytica, a firm that supported Donald Trump ’s first successful Republican presidential campaign in 2016. The wording here is confusing. They did not disclose that ... someone else who got the info would do something bad?
The short version, as I understand it, is that Facebook said a leak "may" occur, but did not say a leak "would" occur, and investors interpreted that to mean would not occur. It seems really thin, but everything is securities fraud now.
They said this after they knew the leak happened.
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#29Really funny how the US Court system becomes really interested in cases as soon as shareholders file a lawsuit. When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster.
> When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers. If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer. As an investor, you typically need a lawyer, but with that hurdle met you're…
Are you living in the same reality where e.g. the US has vigorously broken up monopolies the past few decades, prevented mergers that hurt consumers, constantly enforced laws like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and prevented banks from closing the accounts of customers that are doing legal things they don't like?
Re: Supreme Court allows multibillion-dollar class action to proceed against Meta
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers. If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer. As an investor, you typically need a lawyer, but with that hurdle met you're…
> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. This is a cool thing to believe, your stories about this must be fascinating. What have been the differences between your personal experiences engaging in the regulatory system in the United States as a consumer versus the times you’ve engaged with the regulatory system in the US as an investor?
The latter requires counsel. The former can command state attorneys generals, regulatory bodies and small-claims courts and arbitrators who, while imperfect to flawed, are paid for by the taxpayer or company.
I’m also making an in-system comparison. An American consumer is worse off, on average, than a European consumer.