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

51–60 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#51

Post by which »

malfist wrote: post #44
mchusma wrote: post #39

Earlier 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.

If you read the settlements that come out of these lawsuits, you will pretty much always find an 8 to low 9 figure settlement (that the lawyers get a third of), maybe some superficial policy changes, and $12 checks to the supposed victims who only became victims when they randomly got an email telling them they should join the lawsuit. The only people who benefit are the lawyers.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#52

Post by reaperducer »

mchusma wrote: post #39
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]

You may think Meta is bad. But plaintiff counsel like this are generally the scummiest people in the US. (Maybe not universal, but 90% are morally repugnant).

As they say, "95% of lawyers give the remaining 5% a bad name."

At the same time, 99% of social networks give the remaining 1% a bad name.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#53

Post by mywittyname »

schubidubiduba wrote: post #5
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.

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.

I kind of wish countries would just define, "terms of service" for everyone and not allow companies to modify them further.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#54

Post by alex1138 »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #32

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

Keep in mind Zuckerberg is someone who supports things like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198

Zuckerberg was told about gay people being added to groups and it outed them by posting to their wall, and he ignored it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYnocZFuc4

And obviously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 (guess we don't get access to his other messages, though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770818)

His stare isn't the only thing about him that's sociopathic

Edit: oh yeah and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42651178

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#56

Post by pixl97 »

mc32 wrote: post #17
pixl97 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves This is not how it works when you're found guilty of committing harm. Tobacco companies are a good example of this.

If the government mandates them then yes. If it’s not mandated they have the right to refuse service.

The bigger you get the more iffy it gets refusing service to others. Also it can and will be used against you in future civil and criminal cases.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#57

Post by reaperducer »

which wrote: post #51
malfist wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you read the settlements that come out of these lawsuits, you will pretty much always find an 8 to low 9 figure settlement (that the lawyers get a third of), maybe some superficial policy changes, and $12 checks to the supposed victims who only became victims when they randomly got an email telling them they should join the lawsuit. The only people who benefit are the lawyers.

The only people who benefit are the lawyers.

My special savings account where I deposit the settlement checks from the various tech companies that have violated my privacy or other rights disagrees.

Sometimes it's 43¢. Sometimes it's $400.

In the last three years, I've put… checking… $5,351.83 in that account because tech companies think laws and morals don't apply to them.

Saying that these lawsuits only benefit lawyers is both false and yet another lazy tech bubble cliche.

Yes, the lawyers get way more than I do. They also did 99% the work, so I don't hold it against them.

Just read the newspaper. Every time you see an article about one of these suits, check it out to see if it applies to you.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#58

Post by swiftcoder »

nradov wrote: post #35
swiftcoder wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It indeed doesn't, but conservative lawmakers signalled repeatedly that they were unhappy about Meta's protection under section 230 if their moderation policies were not politically neutral

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#59

Post by pixl97 »

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…

Tobacco lawyers "Putting that cigarettes are harmful on the box would be devastating to our profits!"
Post reply on HN