Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- "Journalist discovers regulatory capture"by justinmk
- Paying pocket change over the course of 10 years certainly didn't hurt Meta. So what was the point really? To further embolden companies to do whatever they want and at worst they get a slap on the wrist? The US legal system is a joke.by yoyohello13
- The point was for ignorant Americans (whom I believe Mark once called "dumb fucks") to just see "states win big Billions number from Facebook" and shut up and "trust it" at that point once they saw a headline they thought meant they won.by kotaKat
- Of course it did.
It let them off the hook for a small fraction of the cost they would have incurred should the jury have come back with a verdict assigning liability to Meta, and Zuckerberg didn't have to take the stand.
In the words of Bender Bending Rodriguez, "Wa-hoo, the system fails again!"
by lenerdenator - Related:
Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children
- If harming kids does not move the justice system to set precedence, I don’t understand what else will. Meta settled without admitting wrongdoing, so basically the next company facing the same claims has nothing binding it other than I have spare 1.7 billion/year for the next 10 years. The payment is $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit. The states had estimated a realistic verdict at around $200 billion. They took 8% of that. Settling is sometimes the right call. I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal.by bicepjai
- > $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit.
Just 2.6% of profit or less than 0.8% of revenue. Seems like FB got the deal of the century since any judgement would have real restrictions and enforcement with teeth. Since this is just a consent decree, FB can now start the 'malicious compliance' game where they incrementally erode, reinterpret and route around any deal terms they don't like. The DA's position is now substantially weaker because they'll have to go back to court to stop FB's inevitable backsliding.
> I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal.
Ultimately, this is about politics and money. By taking a lousy deal the DAs got their headlines and payoff now and can claim a 'victory' before the next election cycle. The alternative is even after the DAs won this ruling, FB would certainly drag out the inevitable appeals because ~$200B tanks the stock, while 0.8% of rev is just a cost of business. By the time all appeals were done none of these DAs would even be in office. Neither the headlines nor cash would do them any good.
by mrandish - I think our justice system is arguably the bad guy here.
Parents need to tell their kids to put the phone down.
Instead they abnegate this duty, and lawyers treat Facebook like a money piñata.
Doritos make people fat, so why shouldn't we sue Frito Lay for billions?
Cars allow you to drive fast and crash, let's sue carmakers.
And so on...
Our justice system is just one big scam. It finds a big, rich corporation, greedy plaintiffs looking for a lottery ticket, and a "jury of peers" in friendly jurisdiction.
Facebook sucks but if your child is addicted to their phone take the phone away.
The litigation lottery our legal system has devolved into is a total joke. This is a nightmare for second and third order effects.
- There's something to your point of overzealous litigation and making too many rules but on the other hand Facebook's ad delivery network is allowing CSAM onto it meaning they don't vet it at all
That would be one thing except for Facebook's tendency to ban you, for any reason, while the horrific thing (like that, for example) you report is never taken down ever
by alex1138 - That’s a bit like blaming parents for their kids smoking cigarettes. Meta intentionally ignored warnings that bad things were happening as a result of its products, and doubled down on the addictive design.by azinman2
- Still, even in the examples given, cars allow you to drive fast, but you can still sue a car manufacturer if they sells cars without airbags and a seatbelt. Doritos can make you fat, but you can still sue Frito Lay if they put overly addictive and harmful chemicals to keep customers coming back. Isn't this the same?by yosef123
- It is not OK to knowingly create harmful products, spend millions on A/B testint so that they are as addictive as possible ... and then blame others for not counteracting it.by watwut
- If you're interested in understanding things rather than just throwing around lazy generalizations, the questions you are asking have answers!
Meta is getting sued because they knew that their product caused harm to users, could detect which users were harmed, and chose to do nothing. It's a little bit like selling food to a customer that you know will give them food poisoning. It's very different from selling someone something that's slightly less healthy than their other options.
Ofc not all of these cases are so clear cut. There are big systemic problems with our food system and our mobility system that you seem to be aware of - but also if you notice Frito Lay is not getting sued by the justice department. Neither are car manufacturers writ large. There's actually a lot of writing and reflection on where the line is between "reasonable service" and "exploiting consumers".
by aeturnum - > Facebook sucks but if your child is addicted to their phone take the phone away.
I can't really disagree with that, but I still wonder why it's okay to use the same addictive methods on adults. To me it doesn't matter if it's children or adults, not if you know this will harm people and you still do it.
It's extremely weird you're allowed to actively built in addictive properties to your product, in an attempt to make users stay. If it was a side effect which happens get a certain (low) percentage addicted that's one thing, but to actively seek out the properties is another. Again, especially when you know that it causes psychological damage and destabilizes communities. How the hell Zuckerberg, Meta management and shareholders sleep at night is beyond me.
by mrweasel - Do you have children?
While parents have some control, they don't have as much control as you think. It is a constant, "but my friends can do this", and you have to deal with it all the time.
Parents now have to work 2 jobs, so the kid spends most of their time outside of home.
Also, comparing FB to cars, doritos is not fair imo, FB is closer to crack. It can also be accessed on other devices than phones, WHICH they need for school. Not every parent knows how to block it, and kids find ways around road blocks anyway.
by avgDev - Becoming a parent was probably the point in my life when I stopped thinking I was in control of everything.
Before you become a parent, you think it's easy. You think you can just decide things for the kid, and that's the way it goes. Especially if you're a high flier, everything just seems like it works out if you put in a little effort.
The thing that's really frustrating is that this is also a lottery. Some kids will actually simply do the thing that you want, and generally choose things that are good for them. Like my first kid. If I only had one I would think it was simple, and that everyone can just raise a kid who can read books for adults before they're ten, or do calculus before tenth grade, or cook a full meal for himself. I mean, you just tell them what you think they should do, right?
But you can also have a kid that will not do what you want. You will get all the same well-meaning advice about making it fun for them, explaining your choices to them, and providing incentives. These advisors are at a loss when you do all the things they said, and yet the kid still won't eat their vegetables. They don't want to read, they don't want to try the sports you take them to, and they are having constant tantrums.
While you think you are simply doing what you did the first time around.
As the kids get older, it also becomes clear that you are not their only parent. And I don't mean your better half. They get an awful lot of impressions from the rest of society, which you are not in control of. If everyone has a phone, you then need to decide whether you want to just go with the flow, or your kid is going to be the one without. If their friends are on social media, you then have to decide what you think about that.
Parents have the busiest schedule of anyone in our society. If we're going to hold them responsible for their choices, the least we can do is provide them with some sensible defaults.
by lordnacho - It's laundering even more support for the age certification system they already wanted. So, yes.by JohnnyLarue