I wonder what would happen posting these ads to truth social and twitter.
Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
61–70 of 276 posts
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#62Do photogs do that on purpose, or does Zuck really always have that sociopath stare?
I'm sure if people were taking 500 pictures of you, they would capture you in a state like that. Are you a sociopath?
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#63Meta 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.
Meta does both. It has long been said that businesses have little organic reach in Meta’s platforms, as an incentive for them to use ads.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 law…
Hey at least you get to pocket all of that. Here in Europe the government keeps the money and then distributes it to the scum of the Earth. I'd rather give the money to lawyers, at least they did _something_.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#65Earlier 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.
And the lawyers will make millions and the people will make nothing. Facebook won’t make any significant revenue affecting changes.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#66The 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.
This is why courts are empowered to infringe upon the rights of parties to the case.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#67Earlier 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.
$12 dollars is $12 dollars people wouldn't have without them. You can always opt out of a class action settlement and sue yourself if you're not happy with the terms.
But at the end of the day, the lawyers did real work, took on real risk and achieved something. They held a big tech company accountable, and that is a meaningful difference from the status quo. I don't care that they made money doing that, they should.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#68Do 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…
Guys, there's no need to insta-downvote. I provided substantive evidence. Look in the mirror, and evaluate who you work for
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#69Do photogs do that on purpose, or does Zuck really always have that sociopath stare?
Both.
Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And which laws state that Meta is obligated to show ads like this?