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

221–230 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#221

Post by fn-mote »

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…

> the actual plaintiffs only get $0.05

This isn’t true at all. People where I live got $300 settlements from Facebook.

Parent post seems like anti-class action FUD.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#222

Post by raincole »

Fraterkes wrote: post #169
raincole wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And which laws state that Meta is obligated to show ads like this?

Irrelevant. My point is that the parent comment did imply that the ToS created obligations for Meta in the way that laws do, which means your first comment was incorrect.

They absolutely didn't imply that. They implied that Meta doesn't want to show the ads so it's native to think Meta would just show the ads without being forced to. Which is correct.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#223

Post by wongarsu »

ethanrutherford wrote: post #209
wongarsu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that trivially fixed by raising court costs (that should go to whoever loses the suit) to cover the cost of judges, jury, admin expenses etc? I don't get the impression that this would make the justice system that much more prohibitively expensive than it already is, and would allow the legal system to scale to the case load

No, because the limitation is not money. More money does not magically make the humans in the profession be able to handle higher case-loads, nor magically produce new lawyers and judges. The bottleneck is time that each case takes to be properly and thoroughly adjudicated, and neither "more money" nor "more people" can accelerate that. While it's certainly correct to say that more staff could handle a larger number…

In the case of "a hundred million identical cases" handling more concurrent cases would be enough, we don't need to speed up the individual cases.

Getting the right people might be an issue. But the tech sector is actually a great example of how to do that. The tech sector has also grown beyond what it could sustain with just people who are in it for the love of tech, and how it managed to do that would be a great case study. A good work-live balance, consistently high salaries and great outreach were certainly among the contributing factors. All of which boil down to throwing money at the problem in a smart way

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#224

Post by siruwastaken »

6thbit wrote: post #206

Thought it was clickbait/circumstantial but they are quoting an actual spokesperson saying they are doing it on purpose !! > "We're actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them," a Meta spokesperson tells Axios.

Legally finding plaintiffs, who can sue us for our illegal machinations is not allowed on our platform. What a world we live in. If this isn't the simplest demonstration of monopolization of social media that Facebook has, then I don't know what is.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#225

Post by bilekas »

boringg wrote: post #91
bilekas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Whil…

I can agree with that -- however the amount of money the trial lawyers make comparatively is wildly disproportionate. I think that 186$ figure is an example on the high side of payouts to individuals.

> however the amount of money the trial lawyers make comparatively is wildly disproportionate

It's relative, class actions take an inhumane amount of work, try to validate, in this case 1kk+ people's records and put that into some case that will pass the bar to win. It's not a banal "I have 1kk people who claim the same."

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#226

Post by abustamam »

data-ottawa wrote: post #214

You’re either an open platform or you’re not. Why can Meta run fake ads of my prime minister or the CBC to front scams with no due process, but for this they can use their judgement to block? I know they’re an American company and my complaints are Canadian, but the double standard stinks.

Did anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though?

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#227

Post by _moof »

elAhmo wrote: post #156

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

That is... not true.

Social media may have been an important tool for creating some of the circumstances we're in, but the causes go back much farther.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#228

Post by foobarchu »

themafia wrote: post #193
NERD_ALERT wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I can think of few things more synonymous with capitalism than Wall Street.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#229

Post by bilekas »

data-ottawa wrote: post #214

You’re either an open platform or you’re not. Why can Meta run fake ads of my prime minister or the CBC to front scams with no due process, but for this they can use their judgement to block? I know they’re an American company and my complaints are Canadian, but the double standard stinks.

I don't know Meta ever claimed to be an open platform, Twitter did though. It used to be an almost 'human protocol'. But as humans, it was flawed.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#230

Post by push0ret »

shimman wrote: post #74
HumblyTossed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge should have ordered Meta to place a banner on FB so that everyone can see it and join if they're a victim.

Wow this is a really good idea. I wonder if the various state trials happening as well should use this for remediation too. It's not a hard thing to implement on their end and should be mandated by a judge as you said. Filing this away for later use.

In Austria this is a called "Urteilsveröffentlichung" ("Judgement Publication"; § 25 UWG). It has commonly been used in cases against ISPs.

Here is such an example (VKI vs A1 Telekom): https://www.lteforum.at/attachments/a1-urteil-jpg.34162/

Post reply on HN