We don't want age verification, and we do want E2E encryption. Yet, because Meta is an evil company, we cheer on this judgement. Reality, folks: you can't have both.
Why can we not have both? I don't see the assertion backed up at all.
Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
471–480 of 579 posts
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.
Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.
Theoretically only
> Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#473375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.
$5000 is not even enough for trauma counseling, unless you have expensive insurance!
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.
Children do not want child locked devices and they will find alternatives
The issue is not just age verification but also device pinning.
I think the framework here is to have community driven age verifiers( i recall there is an EU effort for digital wallets which besides it's bad parts has some of these good parts) which can verify ages for people and link them to( local biometrically encrypted) devices for pinning. This would be privacy preserving. The only downside is a mandate for all devices have a built-in hardware biometric encryption like a finger/face print so phones can't be just(used) with these apps installed.
The verification part is a job that could be done by all the teachers and coaches and ofc parents. Any one verifying identities would be cryptographically nominated/revoked by a number of more senior members of the community. A prent always get the right to say ok for their kid ofc but so could teachers or legal guardians..
We(legally) need a mandate for smart devices to have local device only biometric verification. The law should be to have these apps follow device app store protocols.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.
Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.
Exactly.
Trying to approach it from the direction of websites determining if you are an adult is a privacy nightmare and provides a huge attack surface. (Which is what the government wants--the ability to monitor.) Flipping it over is much, much safer--but fails the real mission of exposing dissent.
(On-device security, the credential of the adult is loaded onto the device but not transmitted anywhere, it can only be obtained locally. The device simply responds as to whether it has a credential loaded. Bad guys are unlikely to want to sell such devices as the phone could be traced back to them.)
And the parents can select a strict child lock, or permitted but copies forwarded to the parent.)
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#476If Meta did advertise the "safety of its platforms for young users" then they should be held accountable for that. It seems clear from the whistleblowers that Meta had internal data that they knew they were not safe for young users, but Zuck gotta get those ads($$$) in front of young kids.
Yup, this is the real issue.
You can't realistically make a space that's free from predators. The real answer is teaching children to recognize unacceptable behavior. But most abuse is from inside--typically adults that the parents put in a position of trust or quasi-trust.
I do not fault Meta for there being predators, I fault Meta for pretending they're being kept out.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
To start off with my personal beliefs... I agree - I see a much broader harm in how platforms try and make themselves addictive as I've worked on such systems in the past. I think the public and even most technical folks that aren't deep into engagement metrics underestimate how studied the field has been and how many iterations of approaches to daily engagement reminders, friction removal and FOMO have been worked t…
I guess we have deep deep divisions on what everyone is doing in society, and what makes a 'good' society. As I've aged, I've entered new-to-me territory where a good society needs to reflect the world as it is, so that its members have high survivability. At the local family level for instance. When my kids were young. I had dreams of being super financially successful so that I could give them lots of nice things.…
[deleted]
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#478375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.
That's not how the legal framework in society works. Victims are compensated. The business pays. The precedent of wrongdoing is specifically established which means that further infringements can be quickly resolved. The legal system does not seek to destroy the business, or individual criminal. Instead it wants them to be able to continue doing their other non-criminal stuff.
Just so I'm clear: What is Meta's non-criminal business?
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
To start off with my personal beliefs... I agree - I see a much broader harm in how platforms try and make themselves addictive as I've worked on such systems in the past. I think the public and even most technical folks that aren't deep into engagement metrics underestimate how studied the field has been and how many iterations of approaches to daily engagement reminders, friction removal and FOMO have been worked t…
I guess we have deep deep divisions on what everyone is doing in society, and what makes a 'good' society. As I've aged, I've entered new-to-me territory where a good society needs to reflect the world as it is, so that its members have high survivability. At the local family level for instance. When my kids were young. I had dreams of being super financially successful so that I could give them lots of nice things.…
> When my kids were young. I had dreams of being super financially successful so that I could give them lots of nice things. I just don't want that for them anymore.
That is a decision you had the freedom to make for yourself and your family. In this case, the millions of children didn’t get to make that choice and meta knowingly exploited that. I hope you see our point of view as to why meta doesn’t get the benefit of doubt here.
Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
#480375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.
This represents 0.6% of meta's 2025 profits, or 0.2% of revenue. Though presumably it was based on harms from previous years, I haven't read the lawsuit.
> This represents 0.6% of meta's 2025 profits
By coincidence, New Mexico represents 0.6% of America's population.