Meta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.
Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
21–30 of 276 posts
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#22The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.
Fair enough. If they're not impartial then lets hold them accountable for the content published in their platform.
I’m not against these companies losing their Section 230 immunity. Social media platforms are, in my personal opinion, publishers in their current form.
If they went back to operating as “friends and family feed providers” then letting them keep their 230 immunity would be easier to justify.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#23The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.
at certain scales, reality has to win out over whatever ideal you have in your head about how things should be. facebook is massive, a lot of society is on it, and its a problem to make recourse invisible to people most affected by the thing stealing their attention.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#24> "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…
They wouldn't profit if the cases didn't have merit.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#25The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.
There are so many ads for nostrums, cults, get rich quick scams, and other junk that violate TOS, that Meta has a legitimacy problem with their TOS.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#26Meta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.
That's exactly what they're saying.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#27> "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…
"Lawyer benefitting from cases about prostitution equals to a pimp" kind of argument.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#28> "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…
I mean those class action lawsuits enrich trial lawyers and maybe force companies to behave better (though i bet empirical evidence would show that its more a cost of business). The 20$ dollars people get is nothing but a guise that the trial lawyers are helping people.
I'm not sure if the lower price means that class actions shouldn't still be taken.
It's to allow companies to not have to deal with individual claims for each person. I see that the ranges can be substantial though, several thousands, but seems to be criteria.
> Nearly nine months later, Mark received a notification that his claim had been approved. Two weeks after that, $186 was deposited into his bank account. While the amount wasn’t substantial, it covered a grocery run and a phone bill—and more importantly, it reminded him that companies can be held accountable, even in small ways. [0]
[0] https://peopleforlaw.com/blog/how-much-do-people-typically-g...
If the fine's don't dissuade companies from bad practices, the class actions with theoreticaly no upper limit might be a better option to enforce proper behaviour.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#29The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.
> The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial
Is their defence of Section 230 protections not in part rooted in that claim of impartiality?
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#30Meta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.
I mean, they spun up a bullshit "Oversight Board" that they can fully 100% choose to ignore and decline to implement their demands when they're made.