Meta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.
[flagged]
Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
41–50 of 276 posts
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#42The 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.
Companies have to inform affected individuals of data breaches, especially when HIPAA gets involved. Brokers have to inform clients of transaction errors. Auto manufacturers have to inform owners of recalls. Retirement funds have to inform plan participants of lawsuits involving those funds.
You don't even have to invoke the idea that Meta is big enough to be regulated as a public utility for this to have broad precedent in favor of forcing a malicious actor to inform its victims that they might be entitled to a small fraction of their losses in compensation.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#43Earlier 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.
Yes, if they went back to being chronological feeds of people you follow, then they should get to keep Section 230 immunity.
When they are making editorial decisions about what to content to promote to you and what content to hide from you, then they should lose it.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#44> "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]
How do you know that? How could you know that?
These people are one of the few people holding Meta accountable for their evil acts and because of that you call them "scummiest people in the US"
That's nonsense.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#45There is a humor that these law firms won a case against Meta and the first thing they did is give them advertising money won from the court case. That said the ads sound pretty aggressive, and from what I've read it sounds like it wasn't a very fair decision. I understand the conflict of interest but I have sympathies for Meta here
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#46The 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.
TOS are not laws. In fact, they often partially violate laws and those parts are then void. In some countries, anything written in TOS that is not "expected to be there" is void.
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?
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#47The 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.
Companies have to inform affected individuals of data breaches, especially when HIPAA gets involved. Brokers have to inform clients of transaction errors. Auto manufacturers have to inform owners of recalls. Retirement funds have to inform plan participants of lawsuits involving those funds. You don't even have to invoke the idea that Meta is big enough to be regulated as a public utility for this to have broad prece…
Well we aren’t discussing the government requiring meta to inform users. We are discussing whether meta can choose which private actors’ ads to allow. It would seem silly that a platform would be forced to allow all ads.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How do you know that? How could you know that? These people are one of the few people holding Meta accountable for their evil acts and because of that you call them "scummiest people in the US" That's nonsense.
There are many lawyers that gather up victims for class action payouts and take most of the money for themselves.
They don't even bother trying to get more when they can, because they're just bottom feeding.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#49Meta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.
I think there’s a clear difference in restricting advertising vs organic posts.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
TOS are not laws. In fact, they often partially violate laws and those parts are then void. In some countries, anything written in TOS that is not "expected to be there" is void.
No one says ToS are laws and especially not the parent commenter.
The parent comment brings up the ToS as an example of why it's naive to believe Meta is obligated to do something, but what Meta is obligated to do depends on the law.