Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

Post by jquery » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 12:34 AM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #232

roysting wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by deaux » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 2:34 AM UTC

reactordev wrote: post #213

deaux wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed an adjective: literally every megacorp CEO. Plenty of small companies with transparent and honest CEOs. Also why we need much less megacorps than there are now.

Being good and profit motives will always be at odds.

Post by nickvec » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 2:47 AM UTC

Post by acdha » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 3:22 AM UTC

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?

Post by jasomill » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 3:26 AM UTC