New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

Post by abc123abc123 » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 10:34 AM UTC

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #442

program_whiz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, so this was effective when you were a child and you only listened and never did anything your parents told you not to? Sounds like if that was effective it might be your personality, but most people aren't like that. The vast majority of kids will require borderline abuse to force them to do things on a regular they don't want to. If they are forced, it tends to breed rebellion behind their parents back…

> If they are forced, it tends to breed rebellion behind their parents back (there's a reason that the stereotype of the naughty "preachers kid" exists). That's part of parenting - i.e not being agreeable, correct?

Post by keybored » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:27 AM UTC

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #294

keybored wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I wonder if these comments are about lamenting the state of big corporations, about defending big corporations, [1] or about lamenting how fungible value exchange were even the Rule of Law can be reduced to an expense makes everyone except for conentrated wealth into losers. [1] “They won this battle and the last one. But the other side has millions of soldiers. They will just replace them.”

>about defending big corporations It is not personal opinion, but rather a fact of doing international large business. Sometimes doing "something" means the political posture of appearing to do "anything popular" with the naive, and achieving nothing but the status quo within a year. If our legal systems were serious... they would have split up the company, and Chapter 7 divisions that failed to fix problems the judg…

Post by 59percentmore » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 2:46 PM UTC

philipallstar wrote: post #414

shermantanktop wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inverse incentive is what's in place today: a platform actively harming the users who signed up for it, in pursuit of ad dollars. The incentive is to extract maximum revenue while disregarding the real-world effects of actions, including driving children to self-harm or mental illness. That's bizarre. But I know for some people, it doesn't seem bizarre, and just seems like "capitalism."

The platform isn't actively harming. It's actively driving them to content they engage with. What they're choosing to engage with is harmful. The fact their parents let them on the platform is the crazy part, but the state already extracts vast amounts of money from them.

Post by 59percentmore » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 2:59 PM UTC

mcmcmc wrote: post #399

asadotzler wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a few tens of billions in fines doesn't come close to putting Meta into insolvency. The histrionics are entirely uncalled for. A billion dollar fine is entirely unnecessary to dissuade a typical driver from speeding. The fine needs to be enough to change the behavior, not 500,000,000% that amount. Meta is worth $1.5T while most of us getting tickets are worth less than $200K. Meta brings in $200B/yr. Taking 10%…

My point is that saying “there is no unreasonable fine if it works” is naive absolutism. Even with proportional fines, does fining someone 99% of their income count as too high? If proportionality is irrelevant than there is no way to differentiate which crimes deserve what punishments.