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

81–90 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#81

Post by quantum_magpie »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #46
schubidubiduba wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok but I don’t really see why this specific term would violate any law? Do we really want a society where platforms are forced to present speech that is harmful to them? If you own a store and I put a sign up on your wall advertising a rival store wouldn’t it be reasonable for you to disallow that?

It’s not a rival store, or speech against them.

It’s a lawsuit, with the users of the platform as the damaged party, against the platform. Removing the possibility to reach the users should result in a default judgement with maximum damages immediately.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#83

Post by deaux »

reactordev wrote: post #73
pixl97 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Literally every ceo

You missed an adjective: literally every megacorp CEO. Plenty of small companies with transparent and honest CEOs.

Also why we need much less megacorps than there are now.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#84

Post by smsm42 »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #36
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…

The judge should have ordered Meta to place a banner on FB so that everyone can see it and join if they're a victim.

Not likely to survive 1st Amendment challenge - it is possible to compel somebody to certain speech as a result of losing a case, but doing this as a prerequisite when the case has just started is not likely to fly. Otherwise I could force Facebook (or any other platform) to publish anything just by suing them - and anybody could sue anybody else on virtually any grounds.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#85

Post by bko »

pixl97 wrote: post #59
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!"

Imagine NYT banning an ad in it's newspaper telling people how to cancel and sue NYT?

Wild stuff

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#86

Post by quantum_magpie »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #46
schubidubiduba wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok but I don’t really see why this specific term would violate any law? Do we really want a society where platforms are forced to present speech that is harmful to them? If you own a store and I put a sign up on your wall advertising a rival store wouldn’t it be reasonable for you to disallow that?

An alternative reply, with analogy, if you like them:

You own a restaurant, where you sell poisoned (intentionally and knowingly) food. A group of people band up for class action lawsuit for poisoning them, and have the lawyers post a sign at your restaurant, that everyone poisoned there should reach out and get some compensation.

Should you be allowed to take the sign down?

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#87

Post by bdangubic »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #65
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.

And the lawyers will make millions and the people will make nothing. Facebook won’t make any significant revenue affecting changes.

that is a problem of the system that needs to be solved. meta is among the purest forms of evil inflicting irreversible effects on our society (and youth in particular) and the fact that you are quite right isn't really an issue with the lawyers but system that allows punishment to not fit the crime.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#88

Post by akersten »

pixl97 wrote: post #59
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!"

It would be a better analogy if tobacco companies sold ad space on their packs and chose not to do business with a private for-profit anti-smoking solicitation group.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#89

Post by roysting »

pixl97 wrote: post #59
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!"

I understand the impulse, but there are not only significant differences, i.e., the requirement to add labeling to cigarettes was mostly a judicial or legislative action, but there is also that rather perverse fact that this kind of legislation that people are championing is often funded by profit and greed just like the harm being sued over.

The article even at least mentions that at least one of the suits is private equity funded; which generally will result in the partners and/or investors of the private equity firm and the attorneys suing, which are often all one and the same in what is just a financial and legal shell game, net tens of millions of dollars, while the supposed victims will end up with nothing but pennies on the dollar of harm and injury.

I get the impulse to also “cheer” for the lawsuits, but if you thought Meta, etc. are bad; you really don’t want to look into the vile pestilence that is the law firms that are basically organized crime too by the core definition of crime being an offense and harm upon society.

I don’t really know a solution for this problem because it is so rooted in the core foundation of this rotten system we still call America for some reason, but for the time being I guess, the only moderately effective remedy for harm and injury is to combat it with more harm and injury.

Post reply on HN