Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 579 posts

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#81

Post by intended »

Aurornis wrote: post #4

Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…

Rock meet hard place?

Harm to kids is actually happening, and this is always going to be a hot button topic.

E2E is critical for our current ability to communicate online, but will be a lower priority when pitted against child safety.

Fighting the good fight is one thing, fighting for the sake of it, without a plan that addresses the tactical reality is another altogether.

Personally, I think E2E will be defended, but it’s becoming a lightning rod for attention. As if removing encryption will solve the emerging issues.

I suspect providing alternatives to champion, such as privacy preserving ways to verify age, will force a conversation on why E2E needs to go.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#83

Post by intended »

newscracker wrote: post #61
pylua wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.

In a way, this is like saying that one trusts total strangers in some random large tech company and total strangers in government agencies to read and/or manipulate conversations that kids have. This also paves the way to disallow E2EE for other classes of people based on arbitrary criteria. I don’t believe this is good for society overall.

The reason we are having this discussion, is because the private route worked up to a point.

Firms have a fiduciary duty to shareholders and profit.

On the other hand, You ultimately decide the rules and goals that operate government organizations, and do not have a profit maximization target.

They aren’t the same tool, and they work for different situations.

The E2EE slippery slope is a different challenge, and for that I have no thoughts

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#84

Post by intended »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #28
pylua wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.

The problem is all these ‘for the children’ arguments contain collateral damage.

Well, the problem is that the “don’t do it” arguments have children as the collateral damage.

We are at a point where we are picking and choosing collateral damage targets.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#85

Post by vaylian »

bradley13 wrote: post #77

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.

Those two things are unrelated to each other. And yes, we can do without age verification and we can have E2E encryption. Age verification is causing more harm than good. It also doesn't meaningfully help with any of the problems mentioned in the article.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#86

Post by vaylian »

gostsamo wrote: post #67
fragmede wrote: post #63

So... end to end message encryption means meta can't see messages child molesters are sending to children.

When you see traffic between 40 yo man and 12 yo girl which don't have any common social connections and the messages are initiated by the man, you don't have to crack e2e to suspect dickpicks.

> which don't have any common social connections

How would you actually know this? Facebook is a surveillance company, but they are not omniscient.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#87

Post by vaylian »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #28
pylua wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.

The problem is all these ‘for the children’ arguments contain collateral damage.

And the effectiveness for the stated goal is also often questionable.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#88

Post by duskdozer »

bradley13 wrote: post #77

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.

Well, assuming you won't also think it's okay for Meta to just be held liable anyway.

There are people who are against age verification just on principle and others who are against it because they know any realistic implementation is going to be abused.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#89

Post by duskdozer »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #49
triceratops wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many don't. Bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies.

We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too. It honestly looks like an emotional panic. People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves. Social media is like e-cigarettes in the sense that the shift toward nicotine salts (think Juul) around 2015 resulted in e-cigarettes b…

>We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too.

Do we not? Sellers often don't just look at IDs now, they scan them into their system, and naturally, keep and sell your identity info, purchase data, and anything else they have access to.

>Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.

This basically makes it clear. The problem is not that children are on social media. The problem is that "social media" has been allowed to become a platform for exploitation and manipulation by their owners. Adults aren't free from this either.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#90

Post by nomel »

gostsamo wrote: post #79
b112 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So nice of you to know what I want without me even implying it Yet you did imply it, as I said, by mentioning the age of the persons involved. There is no accurate way to know age, without some form of identity or age verification. Presuming a child will have an account marked "child" is folly, for kids can just sign up without a parent's knowledge, creating a second account. If the goal is to actually protect and be…

No, the child can mark itself as a child. The implication is in your imagination. There are lots of children (even most) which do not feel the need to upage themselves on the internet, but where they get only the downsides of children accounts and get utilized by the platform.

> No, the child can mark itself as a child

and, an adult can mark itself as a child.

Post reply on HN