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

31–40 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#31

Post by giancarlostoro »

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…

Would be really entertaining if all the lawyers affected banded together and made a class action lawsuit full of lawyers as the plaintiffs.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#35

Post by nradov »

swiftcoder wrote: post #29
k33n wrote: post #2

The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.

> The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial Is their defence of Section 230 protections not in part rooted in that claim of impartiality?

No. Section 230 doesn't mention anything about impartiality.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#36

Post by HumblyTossed »

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…

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.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#37

Post by wbobeirne »

k33n wrote: post #22
nkrisc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. If they're not impartial then lets hold them accountable for the content published in their platform.

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.

You are relying on the wrong people to be able to understand that nuanced distinction.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#39

Post by mchusma »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#40

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #32

Do photogs do that on purpose, or does Zuck really always have that sociopath stare?

Zuckerberg is a rich and high profile guy, so photographers capture many pictures of him, and news editors often find that choosing unflattering pictures of people their readers don't like is helpful for reach. This picture in particular was taken after he'd just finished testifying for 8 hours in a February trial, which I think would wear down the best of us, and even among Getty's extensive gallery of pictures taken then (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/mark-zuckerber...) this one is particularly unflattering IMO.
Post reply on HN