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

New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 455 posts

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#81

Post by krapp »

PixyMisa wrote: post #63
krapp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Playboy magazines" are part of the problem. Fetishes aren't what has distorted mens' ideas of intimacy and sexual relations. Fetishes can be a perfectly healthy and consensual form of sexual expression. The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men…

Why are sites about women's health issues posting porn, exactly?

They aren't, I never said they were.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#83

Post by judge2020 »

troupo wrote: post #68
judge2020 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? Hardly social media if most of your usage is just using it to DM friends/family, a la texting. Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach, but it's hard, and the government can't mandate parents take the correct approach when it's so high-friction…

> The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? How is this a problem? We've had messaging apps 24/7 for 15 years. For many millenia we didn't have them, and it was hardly ever a problem.

Because we removed the physical distance barrier to relationships, no reason to artificially close it now.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#84

Post by aucisson_masque »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #74
qwe----3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These rulings are stupid and if generalized would make doing business impossible. Parents should parent their kids. That law is so board - "public morals"? Should every porn site be taken down?

How can I parent my kids when every child in the school is a social media addict? If heroin were commonplace and available in every kid’s pockets would parents be to blame then too?

That's why phone are banned in school in France.

And you can still regulate what your kid does when he's not at school.

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#85

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"Meta raised an affirmative defense that it is immune from the States public nuisance claim pursuant to Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA. Defendants Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses at 65, 17, State ex rel. Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., D-101-CV-2023-02838 (1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Aug. 2, 2024). This Court concludes that Meta is not immune from the public nuisance claim."

https://www.debevoise.com/-/media/files/insights/publication...

https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announc...

https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2...

https://uclawreview.org/2026/04/03/is-social-media-the-next-...

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#86

Post by thin_carapace »

krapp wrote: post #49
dash2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US? > Kill all the porn sites…

>The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US? I don't know, probably. >There is no reason this has to be true. The incessant need of moralists and God-botherers to purge society of anything they deem immoral is the reason. You give these people an inch and and a legal pretext and they take a mile.

i consider the negative impact of child exposure to hardcore pornography as outweighing the positives of online sex education and would prefer them both deleted rather than having the former involved

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#87

Post by yieldcrv »

what wrote: post #62
tw04 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you want me to articulate a point that you fabricated and then attributed to me? I think I’m going to pass, but feel free to continue the discussion with yourself about things I didn’t say.

Psst, he didn’t reply to you. He replied to the person that replied to you.

Good catch, I also wouldn’t have posted if I noticed that

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#88

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

49204301 | NM court orders Meta to pay $567M, make changes for underage users | https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nm-court-orders-meta-to-pay-5... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204301

49204500 | New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567M over harms to children's mental health | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/06/new-mexic... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204500

49204501 | Meta fined $567M in largest child safety ruling against social media giant | https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7lz3wr2rlo | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204501

49205817 | Meta ordered to pay $567M in New Mexico for teen mental health fund | https://www.reuters.com/world/new-mexico-court-orders-meta-p... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49205817

Re: New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

#90

Post by ElProlactin »

judge2020 wrote: post #28
ElProlactin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month. When you consider that the average person is awake for somewhere between 450 and 500 hours per month, 90 hours still represents ~20% of waking time. For comparison, a K-12 student spends 110-140 hours per month at school. So this is still a ridiculous amount of time for anyone to be spending on social media, teen or adult.

The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? Hardly social media if most of your usage is just using it to DM friends/family, a la texting. Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach, but it's hard, and the government can't mandate parents take the correct approach when it's so high-friction…

> Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach...

In theory, this sounds reasonable. The problem is that these platforms are inherently toxic. They have been intentionally designed to be addictive and there are so many examples proving that they have operated with no duty of care to protect children.

We wouldn't put free crack vending machines in school cafeterias and tell parents "talk to your kids about their crack use", would we?

We also should acknowledge how insidious the harm of these platforms is. You could keep your kid off of them and he or she could still be the victim of social media bullying.

All efforts to make social media use "safe" will fail unless and until we accept that these platforms are irredeemably flawed and detrimental to human health, mental and physical. They're no different than cigarettes, and probably worse.

Post reply on HN