5 ms·

Note that Facebook does not have the choice to agree. To do so would be to open Facebook to unimaginable legal liability. So Facebook's opinion in the matter is

by ipnon 5y ago

Note that Facebook does not have the choice to agree. To do so would be to open Facebook to unimaginable legal liability. So Facebook's opinion in the matter is moot. There are practically no inputs to this function that will change its behavior.

oh_sigh 5y ago
How so? Isn't there a link to types of alcohol use and depression(and cancer, and diminished mental capacity, and early death)? It's not like alcohol companies are being sued out of existence. Realistically I think that it just so happens that the people who would work at facebook are the people who naturally don't believe that facebook is a force of badness in the world because their worldview already aligned with facebook before they joined.
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  Companies are allowed to provide dangerous products. It's just that they can't do so without warning people and (potentially) without changing designs or taking other measures to protect people from the harm, unless the danger is already common knowledge.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    Alcohol labels don't warn people about increased odds of colorectal, liver, or esophageal cancer....at least any of the labels I've read. All they say is don't operate machinery and don't drink it while pregnant.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Well - it depends on the product. Do recall that until recently MJ was illegal across the board and the US Federal Government is still against legality. It's also illegal to own a tank. Honestly, companies are prohibited from selling dangerous products unless there is some reason they are viewed as being dangerous but of more value being legal than illegal. While libertarianism is rife in America - there is no inherent right to trade in dangerous products. If I decided to sell needles full of deadly poison at my store - even if very clearly labeled and even if I sat you down for a twenty minute presentation before each sale occurred - it's quite likely I'd be shut down.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
      Tiny niptick: > It's also illegal to own a tank. It isn't. It's estimated there are around 1000 private tanks in the US, and there are tank dealers in the US, UK, and Australia. Surely other places too. Here's some in Australia https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-19/tinkering-with-tanks-and-preserving-australian-farming-history/8017194 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-19/tinkering-with-tanks-...
      - jfoutz 5y ago
        my great uncle owned an armored car when I was a child. He lived a few states away so I only saw pictures. British Ferret. Apparently it still had the guns, but they were spiked, so they would never fire again. Also, he tried to explain how you shift, but I never quite understood it. the clutch was a lever, with some sort of handle to spin the flywheel up or down to the next gear.
        wearywanderer 5y ago
        Most privately owned tanks have demilitarized guns, though I think not all. But with the right paperwork in America, it should be legal to put working artillery in your legally owned tank. There is a fair bit of working artillery privately owned in America already, but you'd have to find a gun that is compatible with installation on your tank. Of course this is not a cheap hobby, and if you want explosive shells you'd need to do paperwork for each shell. Even if you only want to fire inert projectiles, it's not as though you can buy those at walmart.
        shard 5y ago
        Here is a place in Texas where you can rent a tank, drive it, and shoot it: https://www.drivetanks.com/ https://www.drivetanks.com/ Here are the prices for the Sherman tank: SHERMAN TANK $1,850.00 – Drive the tank $950.00 – Ride the tank, driven by a Cadre $2,800.00 – Drive & Shoot the tanks 76mm main gun (1 round) Here is a guy who rented a tank and shot it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqC2kJNdJjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqC2kJNdJjE
- Barrin92 5y ago
  > It's not like alcohol companies are being sued out of existence. Take a look at the history of litigation against tobacco companies and the policy consequences over the decades as the harm became known and public. If not legal issues at the very least Facebook would face severe regulatory problems if administrations and consumers actually started to look at digital media consumption from a public health perspective.
munk-a 5y ago
I think this has evolved to be correct with how corporate stewardship has evolved since the 70's. I don't think it would have ever been responsible to shareholders for them to openly support the study. It'd be nice if they kept their mouth shut, but honestly in the modern world everyone needs to have an opinion on everything so. Actually yes, I completely agree with you even though it's depressing. Calling it "inconclusive" is probably the least offensive response they could've executed.
fnord77 5y ago
if they have internal documents that confirm links to depression, they're open to legal liability anyway. It does not matter what their PR says.
- decide 5y ago
  Their PR just helps delay when those documents are discovered
Kranar 5y ago
What expertise in law do you have to make such a stunning conclusion about Facebook's liability? Is there any precedent for media companies being held liable over such a thing? Do you also understand that if it were true that Facebook could be held legally liable for what you're claiming, that it wouldn't matter if they admit it or not. Admission of liability or guilt is never a requirement to be awarded damages or subject to penalties in any circumstance. Is it your position that if someone produces content that causes depression, that they are liable for damages? Do you also extend this legal opinion you likely just made up and have no subject matter knowledge on to other forms of media or websites? Depressing music? Depressing novels? Depressing video games? Or is it only depressing social media websites that you feel are held to some kind of standard about depression?
- zepto 5y ago
  Generally, admitting that your product causes a medical problem makes it easy for people to sue you over it. You’re right that they could be sued even if they don’t admit it, but then they would have a defense which would be far weaker if they had already admitted it.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    Okay, let's say I don't believe you and I have made a good faith effort to look into this subject and have found no evidence that anyone has ever been sued for causing depression, do you have any evidence or way to substantiate your claim and demonstrate to me that you are correct? I am aware of emotional distress lawsuits, but what's being claimed here is quite different. Do I have no choice but to take you at your word that you're right about what is a pretty big legal claim being made here. Are people just making up things about how the law works, or am I genuinely just very ignorant on this subject? In other words, can you cite the legal principal here, or precedent, or some kind of actual reference that shows some kind of informed discussion is taking place on this subject instead of a bunch of people making uninformed claims that sound appealing? From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on, suing Facebook for causing depression makes about as much sense as suing McDonald's for obesity. There is no legal principal upon which one could successfully do so and while people have tried, they failed miserably [1] (as in the case was dismissed with prejudice, which is one of the worst outcomes). [1] https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/ https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/
tomc1985 5y ago
If that is true than that just makes me despise the current state of liability and corporate communications even further. We are so far away from letting people speak the truth, or even just their mind, it is scary. Instead we get all this flowery ultra-inclusive PR nonsense that makes dealing with tech far more cringe-worthy than it should be Smile, while social media milks you like the cash cow that you are! We'll throw in a cute mascot, a curvy font, and a bunch of highly diverse group photos if that makes you feel better! Oh, does this attitude make you feel worse, not better? Well maybe the studies you're reading are wrong! Chin up, suckers, we have more ads for you to consume!
decide 5y ago
> Note that Facebook does not have the choice to agree. To the requests made so far, you are correct. Depositions and subpoenas would change that. And if you know who to ask inside FB, there are some ugly skeletons in their closet.

by ipnon 5y ago

oh_sigh 5y ago

How so? Isn't there a link to types of alcohol use and depression(and cancer, and diminished mental capacity, and early death)? It's not like alcohol companies are being sued out of existence. Realistically I think that it just so happens that the people who would work at facebook are the people who naturally don't believe that facebook is a force of badness in the world because their worldview already aligned with facebook before they joined.

GavinMcG 5y ago
Companies are allowed to provide dangerous products. It's just that they can't do so without warning people and (potentially) without changing designs or taking other measures to protect people from the harm, unless the danger is already common knowledge.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Alcohol labels don't warn people about increased odds of colorectal, liver, or esophageal cancer....at least any of the labels I've read. All they say is don't operate machinery and don't drink it while pregnant.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Well - it depends on the product. Do recall that until recently MJ was illegal across the board and the US Federal Government is still against legality. It's also illegal to own a tank. Honestly, companies are prohibited from selling dangerous products unless there is some reason they are viewed as being dangerous but of more value being legal than illegal. While libertarianism is rife in America - there is no inherent right to trade in dangerous products. If I decided to sell needles full of deadly poison at my store - even if very clearly labeled and even if I sat you down for a twenty minute presentation before each sale occurred - it's quite likely I'd be shut down.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    Tiny niptick: > It's also illegal to own a tank. It isn't. It's estimated there are around 1000 private tanks in the US, and there are tank dealers in the US, UK, and Australia. Surely other places too. Here's some in Australia https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-19/tinkering-with-tanks-and-preserving-australian-farming-history/8017194 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-19/tinkering-with-tanks-...
    - jfoutz 5y ago
      my great uncle owned an armored car when I was a child. He lived a few states away so I only saw pictures. British Ferret. Apparently it still had the guns, but they were spiked, so they would never fire again. Also, he tried to explain how you shift, but I never quite understood it. the clutch was a lever, with some sort of handle to spin the flywheel up or down to the next gear.
      - wearywanderer 5y ago
        Most privately owned tanks have demilitarized guns, though I think not all. But with the right paperwork in America, it should be legal to put working artillery in your legally owned tank. There is a fair bit of working artillery privately owned in America already, but you'd have to find a gun that is compatible with installation on your tank. Of course this is not a cheap hobby, and if you want explosive shells you'd need to do paperwork for each shell. Even if you only want to fire inert projectiles, it's not as though you can buy those at walmart.
        shard 5y ago
        Here is a place in Texas where you can rent a tank, drive it, and shoot it: https://www.drivetanks.com/ https://www.drivetanks.com/ Here are the prices for the Sherman tank: SHERMAN TANK $1,850.00 – Drive the tank $950.00 – Ride the tank, driven by a Cadre $2,800.00 – Drive & Shoot the tanks 76mm main gun (1 round) Here is a guy who rented a tank and shot it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqC2kJNdJjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqC2kJNdJjE
Barrin92 5y ago
> It's not like alcohol companies are being sued out of existence. Take a look at the history of litigation against tobacco companies and the policy consequences over the decades as the harm became known and public. If not legal issues at the very least Facebook would face severe regulatory problems if administrations and consumers actually started to look at digital media consumption from a public health perspective.

munk-a 5y ago

I think this has evolved to be correct with how corporate stewardship has evolved since the 70's. I don't think it would have ever been responsible to shareholders for them to openly support the study. It'd be nice if they kept their mouth shut, but honestly in the modern world everyone needs to have an opinion on everything so. Actually yes, I completely agree with you even though it's depressing. Calling it "inconclusive" is probably the least offensive response they could've executed.

fnord77 5y ago

if they have internal documents that confirm links to depression, they're open to legal liability anyway. It does not matter what their PR says.

decide 5y ago
Their PR just helps delay when those documents are discovered

Kranar 5y ago

What expertise in law do you have to make such a stunning conclusion about Facebook's liability? Is there any precedent for media companies being held liable over such a thing? Do you also understand that if it were true that Facebook could be held legally liable for what you're claiming, that it wouldn't matter if they admit it or not. Admission of liability or guilt is never a requirement to be awarded damages or subject to penalties in any circumstance. Is it your position that if someone produces content that causes depression, that they are liable for damages? Do you also extend this legal opinion you likely just made up and have no subject matter knowledge on to other forms of media or websites? Depressing music? Depressing novels? Depressing video games? Or is it only depressing social media websites that you feel are held to some kind of standard about depression?

zepto 5y ago
Generally, admitting that your product causes a medical problem makes it easy for people to sue you over it. You’re right that they could be sued even if they don’t admit it, but then they would have a defense which would be far weaker if they had already admitted it.
- Kranar 5y ago
  Okay, let's say I don't believe you and I have made a good faith effort to look into this subject and have found no evidence that anyone has ever been sued for causing depression, do you have any evidence or way to substantiate your claim and demonstrate to me that you are correct? I am aware of emotional distress lawsuits, but what's being claimed here is quite different. Do I have no choice but to take you at your word that you're right about what is a pretty big legal claim being made here. Are people just making up things about how the law works, or am I genuinely just very ignorant on this subject? In other words, can you cite the legal principal here, or precedent, or some kind of actual reference that shows some kind of informed discussion is taking place on this subject instead of a bunch of people making uninformed claims that sound appealing? From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on, suing Facebook for causing depression makes about as much sense as suing McDonald's for obesity. There is no legal principal upon which one could successfully do so and while people have tried, they failed miserably [1] (as in the case was dismissed with prejudice, which is one of the worst outcomes). [1] https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/ https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/

tomc1985 5y ago

If that is true than that just makes me despise the current state of liability and corporate communications even further. We are so far away from letting people speak the truth, or even just their mind, it is scary. Instead we get all this flowery ultra-inclusive PR nonsense that makes dealing with tech far more cringe-worthy than it should be Smile, while social media milks you like the cash cow that you are! We'll throw in a cute mascot, a curvy font, and a bunch of highly diverse group photos if that makes you feel better! Oh, does this attitude make you feel worse, not better? Well maybe the studies you're reading are wrong! Chin up, suckers, we have more ads for you to consume!

decide 5y ago

> Note that Facebook does not have the choice to agree. To the requests made so far, you are correct. Depositions and subpoenas would change that. And if you know who to ask inside FB, there are some ugly skeletons in their closet.