Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 502 posts

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#251

Post by peezd »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #171
JKCalhoun wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that excuse Facebook?

The comment above says that Facebook “raped” children’s minds. When really it failed to protect children from the dangers of the internet. The dishonesty of not acknowledging the existing problems with the internet, suggests we are trying to scapegoat Facebook. Discord for example is contributing to this.

there's a difference between allowing exposure to unsafe content, against systematically and deliberately doing everything their psychologist/behavior economists could do to make sure kids were addicted to the product.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#252

Post by doctorpangloss »

shepardrtc wrote: post #106

Meta has warped society to think that life is meaningless without affirmation. No amount of money can fix that or punish them. I think that sharing things can be wonderful, but monetizing that or adding Like counts to gamify it is very damaging to people. This idea that everyone should know better and take a ideological stand against some dumb app is ridiculous. Life can be hard at times, and these apps manipulated t…

when florida banned phones from schools, a gold-standard causation study found a benefit of 0.9 percentiles on standardized tests between students who were under the ban and those who could use phones freely. this is about the same impact as studying for a standardized test for 1 hour.

we have had a lot of chances to study this stuff, and the results - like the teen sleep study and the teen wellness studies, both conducted by the same people and NOT capable of determining causation, but nonetheless the best publicized in the media - are real, but they are small.

so the stuff you are saying might be true, but the effect might be so small as to be meaningless. there are bigger threats to society than social media.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#253

Post by zbentley »

richwater wrote: post #82
kwanbix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two hours is one hour too long if you ask me. This should be implemented also for adults. And non-avoidable.

Why do you support a nanny state that tells adults what content they are allowed to consume?

The state already tells adults what content they can consume. Truth in advertising laws, pornography restrictions, MPAA ratings and age restrictions, pirated media, and so on. Even with a default of freedom of speech, the state has numerous subsidy/financial-penalty mechanisms by which it can and does restrict what content is practically available for consumption.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#254

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

rlpb wrote: post #69
hax0ron3 wrote: post #61

So if I write a book that your kid just can't stop reading it over and over again because I deliberately made it compulsively re-readable, and then your kid develops some kind of issues because my book is so interesting to him, you can sue me and win? I don't like that idea. Personally, I value free speech more than some supposed "harms" done to children by content. Content that they can easily stop consuming by just…

It's established that exposing children to bad things causes harm. This isn't specific to technology. "Free speech" isn't a concept that applies to the exposure of harmful speech to children.

"Free speech" is definitely a concept that applies to the exposure of harmful speech to children. That's why there's no law on the topic; the Child Online Protection Act was overturned, and organizations like the EFF have been opposing recent attempts (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/house-passed-kids-act-...) to pass a new one.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#255

Post by triceratops »

ben_w wrote: post #244
triceratops wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they may as well pay out 10% of the stock.

What % of META (shares) are owned by Meta Platforms Inc.? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for e.g. Zuckerberg personally to be ordered to hand over all his shares as any given penalty, but as stated what you describe sounds like a way to avoid paying a penalty.

Meta Platforms Inc. can create shares out of thin air.

Diluting existing shareholders by 10% would send a much stronger message than whatever's happening now.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#256

Post by shepardrtc »

jjulius wrote: post #203
matherial wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd put it differently. The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent. Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebook for a month. See how many p…

>The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent. For the Average Joe, absolutely! Completely agreed. >Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebo…

> We wanted it, and Meta gave everyone the ability to have it.

Slight modification: We wanted to feel good about things, and Meta, knowing exactly what they were doing, took advantage of that to enrich themselves while gaslighting everyone that their manipulation and exploitation was totally ok and normal.

Its easy for people without a conscience like Zuckerberg to do that and laugh about it.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#257

Post by intended »

Barbing wrote: post #46
bakies wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money!

Figure his own mental steelmans are legitimately more complex, though. And more faulty.

They were connecting people.

They had to make positive results.

They had to bow down to the culture wars and the people in government.

They had to X, or the concequences to them would be bad.

I know that many people in trust and safety, civil society, etc. cut their teeth doing safety at Meta. They had many genuinely upstanding people who tried to do the right things for their users. People who pushed the issues to their leadership.

However, you do not get paid by reducing time on site. You are not valuable, when you are from a cost center that is reducing revenue.

I know that T&S conferences have to discuss how to describe the work as revenue accretive, just so that leadership listens before doing something horrifically bad.

Within firms, the incentives mean engineers grow by figuring out how to remove /automate T&S, rather than fulfil requests from T&S teams.

You get what you build incentives for. Even on HN you see this. There are more converastions on the threat of censorship than on actual research or papers and safety.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#258

Post by matherial »

jjulius wrote: post #203
matherial wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd put it differently. The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent. Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebook for a month. See how many p…

>The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent. For the Average Joe, absolutely! Completely agreed. >Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebo…

I don't think it's the same. People usually don't see their "relationship" with celebrities as peer-to-peer. They either look up or look down on them (i.e., idolize or hate). So the attention you get from fans as a celebrity is actually a lot more meaningful. People go to great lengths to tell you about the impact you had on their life and they don't forget you easily. The scale makes it awkward, but the emotions are real.

On social media, we usually don't care about the other person at all. Likes and comments are 100% transactional. I have thousands of "followers" on X. If I die tomorrow, they won't even notice. The space on their timeline will be filled by other content to retweet or like.

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#259

Post by [deleted] »

shepardrtc wrote: post #106

Meta has warped society to think that life is meaningless without affirmation. No amount of money can fix that or punish them. I think that sharing things can be wonderful, but monetizing that or adding Like counts to gamify it is very damaging to people. This idea that everyone should know better and take a ideological stand against some dumb app is ridiculous. Life can be hard at times, and these apps manipulated t…

[deleted]

Re: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

#260

Post by bsimpson »

oneneptune wrote: post #15
_ink_ wrote: post #9

Pay 25% from your 2025 profit for harming children since at least 2019 and be able to continue doing so. Sounds like a loss for society and a win for Meta.

The article outlines several changes Meta is having to implement that curbs the "and be able to continue doing so" argument a bit. That said, I wish these settlements included tobacco-esque requirements for ongoing funds to educate people. The tobacco settlement funds have been somewhat successful.

Have they?

I know a lot of my peers went to college for free with the Millennium Scholarship.

But so many young people vape now that it's becoming cool to smoke analog cigarettes. I barely knew anyone who smoked 10-20y ago. Many people that age now do.

Post reply on HN