6 ms·

LOL, chump change to the real game. Regulatory capture gets another example.

by plussed_reader 4y ago

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
Right? And may I say, if you’re using any Meta products you’re complicit in this continuing harm of children.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  To the people down voting this, can you say why it’s true or not? I’m curious, I’m actually curious. Because if a product is harming children, if the company has been fined for it, charged guilty for it, and you’re still using it, how do you think you’re not complicit?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    You referred to it as "continuing", which is probably why, since that's not true. The practice they were fined for ended. If you eat food, some child labor was probably involved. Same with wearing clothes. Allowing accounts for teens to share their email addresses seems like reasonably small potatoes in comparison.
    - 0xedd 4y ago
      This iteration of the practice. The highest revenue stream is children. Companies making billions off them won't stop at trivial hurdles. Source: workplace.
      - tourist2d 4y ago
        Actually, I disagree. If you look at the stats they say otherwise. Source: me
      - Barrin92 4y ago
        >The highest revenue stream is children No it isn't given that children tend to have no substantial income to spend. The highest revenue group is generally young, single, professionals given that they tend to have high amounts of disposable income, and that's generally reflected in advertisement preferences.
        FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        Children have parents that eventually buy them the thing they are constantly nagging them about.
  - askonomm 4y ago
    You're probably being downvoted because your argument makes as much sense as asking someone why they drive a car if some people kill people with them, so surely they must be complicit. Just because illegal activity can happen, doesn't make everyone part of that illegal activity.
    - 0xedd 4y ago
      If Apple makes phones using kids, buying an iPhone makes you implicit. Despite western narrowed vision. That's not your example. Your example: If one iPhone was used as a hammer to bash a window, when you make a call, with a different iPhone, you're implicit. Which is wrong. The idea is criticizing where you put your money. In companies that exploit children, and actively build our generation's "9 out of 10 doctors smoke" mentality, or elsewhere?
      - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        I literally don’t get these replies. Of course if I use iPhones and Apple exploited children I’m complicate as well. You comparing using a phone to bash a window is nonsensical. Buying the phone makes you complicit.
  - Meekro 4y ago
    I've been trying, in vain, to figure out whether it's true or not. The article doesn't say what Meta did to earn such a large fine. A reuters article on the same subject spoke of "child users between the ages of 13 and 17 who were allowed to operate business accounts, which facilitated the publication of the user's phone number and/or email address." [1] Frankly, this doesn't seem that bad at all. Revealing the phone and email address of a business account? Most business accounts want their official phone and email to be public. But the business accounts were made by 13-17 year olds? Some minors really do operate businesses, though. To be quite honest, it seems like the readers here are furious with Meta/Facebook for reasons that have nothing to do with the phone numbers and emails of European children. This story has nothing to do with the thing we'd really love to be having a grand ol' fight about right now-- which is whether Facebook endangered American democracy by censoring conservatives too much, or by not censoring them enough. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/irish-regulator-fines-instagram-400-million-over-chidrens-data-2022-09-05/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/irish-regulator-fines-ins...
    - Cacti 4y ago
      Man, Americans are good enough endangering their own democracy just fine on their own. Don’t act like things _just_ got his way, this has been picking up steam steadily for 50+ years. Facebook is like an average gust compared to things like gerrymandering, media consolidation, discarding fair use doctrine, economic stratification, inflation, economic instability, corporate personhood, corruption, lack of legal reform, lack of land reform, etc.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    The problem isn’t what I do, it’s what somebody else does. I’m not complicit because it’s Meta causing the problem. It’s not me causing global warming, it’s the corporations.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      I can’t tell if this is a sarcastic common or not but I’ll assume that it’s not. If you, along with everyone else, supports his corporations that are causing Global warming, then you are complicit. To think that the corporations will change when they continue to profit off of your behavior is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of a boycott before?
  - notacoward 4y ago
    > if a product is harming children ... how do you think you’re not complicit? Not saying you're wrong, but do you have any idea how many companies that covers? Privacy violations are not the only kind of harm. Every "energy" company, every food or consumer-goods conglomerate, every electronics company, has probably been fined somewhere for acts that involved harm of children. We can and should do better, both by direct consumer choice and via regulation, but "you're complicit" finger-pointing is non-constructive if not outright hypocritical.

LOL, chump change to the real game. Regulatory capture gets another example.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

Right? And may I say, if you’re using any Meta products you’re complicit in this continuing harm of children.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
To the people down voting this, can you say why it’s true or not? I’m curious, I’m actually curious. Because if a product is harming children, if the company has been fined for it, charged guilty for it, and you’re still using it, how do you think you’re not complicit?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  You referred to it as "continuing", which is probably why, since that's not true. The practice they were fined for ended. If you eat food, some child labor was probably involved. Same with wearing clothes. Allowing accounts for teens to share their email addresses seems like reasonably small potatoes in comparison.
  - 0xedd 4y ago
    This iteration of the practice. The highest revenue stream is children. Companies making billions off them won't stop at trivial hurdles. Source: workplace.
    - tourist2d 4y ago
      Actually, I disagree. If you look at the stats they say otherwise. Source: me
    - Barrin92 4y ago
      >The highest revenue stream is children No it isn't given that children tend to have no substantial income to spend. The highest revenue group is generally young, single, professionals given that they tend to have high amounts of disposable income, and that's generally reflected in advertisement preferences.
      - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        Children have parents that eventually buy them the thing they are constantly nagging them about.
- askonomm 4y ago
  You're probably being downvoted because your argument makes as much sense as asking someone why they drive a car if some people kill people with them, so surely they must be complicit. Just because illegal activity can happen, doesn't make everyone part of that illegal activity.
  - 0xedd 4y ago
    If Apple makes phones using kids, buying an iPhone makes you implicit. Despite western narrowed vision. That's not your example. Your example: If one iPhone was used as a hammer to bash a window, when you make a call, with a different iPhone, you're implicit. Which is wrong. The idea is criticizing where you put your money. In companies that exploit children, and actively build our generation's "9 out of 10 doctors smoke" mentality, or elsewhere?
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      I literally don’t get these replies. Of course if I use iPhones and Apple exploited children I’m complicate as well. You comparing using a phone to bash a window is nonsensical. Buying the phone makes you complicit.
- Meekro 4y ago
  I've been trying, in vain, to figure out whether it's true or not. The article doesn't say what Meta did to earn such a large fine. A reuters article on the same subject spoke of "child users between the ages of 13 and 17 who were allowed to operate business accounts, which facilitated the publication of the user's phone number and/or email address." [1] Frankly, this doesn't seem that bad at all. Revealing the phone and email address of a business account? Most business accounts want their official phone and email to be public. But the business accounts were made by 13-17 year olds? Some minors really do operate businesses, though. To be quite honest, it seems like the readers here are furious with Meta/Facebook for reasons that have nothing to do with the phone numbers and emails of European children. This story has nothing to do with the thing we'd really love to be having a grand ol' fight about right now-- which is whether Facebook endangered American democracy by censoring conservatives too much, or by not censoring them enough. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/irish-regulator-fines-instagram-400-million-over-chidrens-data-2022-09-05/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/irish-regulator-fines-ins...
  - Cacti 4y ago
    Man, Americans are good enough endangering their own democracy just fine on their own. Don’t act like things _just_ got his way, this has been picking up steam steadily for 50+ years. Facebook is like an average gust compared to things like gerrymandering, media consolidation, discarding fair use doctrine, economic stratification, inflation, economic instability, corporate personhood, corruption, lack of legal reform, lack of land reform, etc.
- paulcole 4y ago
  The problem isn’t what I do, it’s what somebody else does. I’m not complicit because it’s Meta causing the problem. It’s not me causing global warming, it’s the corporations.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    I can’t tell if this is a sarcastic common or not but I’ll assume that it’s not. If you, along with everyone else, supports his corporations that are causing Global warming, then you are complicit. To think that the corporations will change when they continue to profit off of your behavior is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of a boycott before?
- notacoward 4y ago
  > if a product is harming children ... how do you think you’re not complicit? Not saying you're wrong, but do you have any idea how many companies that covers? Privacy violations are not the only kind of harm. Every "energy" company, every food or consumer-goods conglomerate, every electronics company, has probably been fined somewhere for acts that involved harm of children. We can and should do better, both by direct consumer choice and via regulation, but "you're complicit" finger-pointing is non-constructive if not outright hypocritical.