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

231–240 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#231

Post by themafia »

foobarchu wrote: post #228
themafia wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

you're thinking of Laissez-faire capitalism. The very existence of this term suggests that "capitalism" is a very broad term.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#232

Post by pixl97 »

roysting wrote: post #89
pixl97 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I understand the impulse, but there are not only significant differences, i.e., the requirement to add labeling to cigarettes was mostly a judicial or legislative action, but there is also that rather perverse fact that this kind of legislation that people are championing is often funded by profit and greed just like the harm being sued over. The article even at least mentions that at least one of the suits is privat…

I mean you see piles of the libertarian types here on HN that would tell you that unending civil suits is how the country should work. That is freedom to them.

The other option is consumer protection agencies with teeth to put down actors like Meta quickly, but HN gets all mad about that as they are temporarily depressed billionaires that will hit it big at any moment.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#233

Post by k33n »

pocksuppet wrote: post #183
k33n wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. That was entirely made up by chronically online arguers. What it does say is you aren't liable for something someone else wrote. It doesn't create liability for things not covered by it. Guess who decides the order and contents of Facebook feeds? Facebook does. So they wouldn't be liable for someone writing a post saying "gas the jews" but they would still be liable…

> Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers.

This is a direct quote from the statute:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

You were so confident, too.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#234

Post by 6thbit »

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…

NYT has more than enough bandwidth and process to vet every ad they run, which must be in the order of 10s or 100s.

Meta runs ads in the order of hundreds of thousands or millions, and constantly allows very questionable things.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#235

Post by k33n »

pixl97 wrote: post #56
mc32 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government mandates them then yes. If it’s not mandated they have the right to refuse service.

The bigger you get the more iffy it gets refusing service to others. Also it can and will be used against you in future civil and criminal cases.

Not really. Walmart trespasses shoppers every day.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#236

Post by largbae »

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…

Seems like the lawyers will profit from their platforms _by_ claiming they are harmful.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#237

Post by k33n »

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?

How is that even a question? Of course I should be able to take the sign down.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#238

Post by Traubenfuchs »

siruwastaken wrote: post #224
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.

Would you allow it on yours? As a shareholder or on the board of directors of your company I would not be pleased.

Nothing nefarious about that.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#239

Post by worik »

abustamam wrote: post #226
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?

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

My memory says it was Meta who said that. Zuck himself....

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#240

Post by jquery »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #238
siruwastaken wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you allow it on yours? As a shareholder or on the board of directors of your company I would not be pleased. Nothing nefarious about that.

There's a strong chance it's illegal so admitting to it is pretty breathtaking. They must be very confident they're in the clear, or the spokesperson didn't run this by the right people.
Post reply on HN