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

261–270 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#261

Post by mechoblast »

dredmorbius wrote: post #258
elAhmo wrote: post #156

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

This is excessively reductive. Media (social or otherwise) is a force multiplier. Ultimately it is the sensory, feedback, and control mechanism for a social system. And yes, if you change the informational behaviour of a system you fundamentally change that system's behaviour , there are still other factors at play. Corruption, inequality, biases (themselves often reinforced through media, yes), environment, and vari…

I am not convinced that even if we had less corruption, inequality, environmental issues that we wouldnt still see the fragmentation of society and the rise of populism that we see today.

Social media algorithms explicitly optimise for isolationism and extremism, cultivating rage stemming from small disagreements, which are simply a fact of life.

The only way to solve this is if there were no disagreements or differing opinions to amplify, which is sadly impossible.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#262

Post by feralsandwich »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #252
feralsandwich wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is illegal about it? What law does it break?

Could these removals indicate editorial discretion that would remove § 230 protections from Facebook?

I think that would apply if they started removing user content about this. But Facebook is simply declining to accept ads about this, which doesn't seem like it would apply here.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#263

Post by polishTar »

hotstickyballs wrote: post #254
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s not illegal, just stupid because. Because plaintiffs can use this as evidence that they can police their own platforms

That’s an internet argument. The legal issue being debated in actual courts has never been “does Facebook have the technical capability to remove content”.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#264

Post by toast0 »

acdha wrote: post #247
abustamam wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn’t that their defense against responsibility for their customers’ content? Having some broad filtering for legal requirements or scams is one thing but if they’re doing this it seems like support for cases alleging that they have editorial control and therefore responsibility.

Legally, they don't need to choose. Section 230 limits provider liability for moderating user content and also limits provider liability for not moderating user content. I think the intent of Section 230 was to apply liability to the users making the content, not the service provider transmitting it; however, IIRC, cutrent jurisprudence makes it very hard to compell service providers to identify users in civil cases, so civil liability is hard to pursue, unless the user identifies themself in their content.

It's not a question of if they're a common carrier or nor; they don't need to be, and typically, they don't try to be.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#265

Post by Xeoncross »

fn-mote wrote: post #221
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.

I've been in at least a dozen class action suites and the payouts are measured in cents. I'm glad someone got something more, but that's not common.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#266

Post by garfieldnate »

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.

You can't expect a company to support you in directly hurting them. This reminds me of a guy I know that sued his bank regarding a loan, but he used a terrible lawyer. The bank pretty quickly took their own action, including stopping all payments from his account (as they claimed that the money was theirs).

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#267

Post by worik »

abustamam wrote: post #242
worik wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though? My memory says it was Meta who said that. Zuck himself....

I remember that but I was talking about anyone outside the company. I think many platforms call themselves open but most aren't really.

Yes, you are correct!

Mark Zuckerberg is a liar

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#269

Post by flawn »

garfieldnate wrote: post #266
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.

You can't expect a company to support you in directly hurting them. This reminds me of a guy I know that sued his bank regarding a loan, but he used a terrible lawyer. The bank pretty quickly took their own action, including stopping all payments from his account (as they claimed that the money was theirs).

It's not any company, its Meta and the channels they administrate come with a set of responsibilities and principles, and one such is not to break these by arbitrary, willful removal of totally legal ads.
Post reply on HN