4 ms·
Judge: Zuckerberg not liable for social media harm to children
- endofreach 2y ago"Too rich to be liable". What a shame. Someday people will realize what he is responsible for. But if a poor man sells weed to kids, or even worse, truly addictive drugs...
- IncreasePosts 2y agoNo one said "Too rich to be liable". > But the judge found a lack of specifics about what Zuckerberg did wrong, and said “control of corporate activity alone is insufficient” to establish liability. Her decision does not affect related claims against Meta itself.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- noworriesnate 2y agoLaundering liability is expensive but a great option for those who are rich and unscrupulous. So yes... it is that they are too rich to be liable.
- jamiek88 2y agoZuck takes the wealth, Meta and society take the fall. If I could undo anything in this world it would be social media.
- thrill 2y ago"If I could undo anything in this world it would be social media." ... he posted.
- jamiek88 2y agoUgh that tired old thought terminator. ‘You criticize society yet you are part of society’ isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoYou should act on your principles when you have ample ability to do so.
- jamiek88 2y agoAgain. Thought terminator. Thanks for piling on though! That really helped the conversation.
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoWhat is preventing you from not using social media?
- noworriesnate 2y agoProbably because it's how society operates now and while they wish society was different, they don't want to become a hermit.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoNo, this is not how society operates. Recall just a few days ago when chronically social-mediaed people got the shock of their life when Trump won handily. Social media did not prepare them for this outcome. Why? Because a large fraction of society doesn't use social media.
- noworriesnate 2y ago> Because a large fraction of society doesn't use social media. They probably do use social media, but not in the bubble of the people who were surprised at the outcome of the election. That's actually one of the problems with social media. People are able to connect exclusively with in group and cut everyone else out of their lives.
- SauntSolaire 2y agoEven so, putting quotations around something never said is disingenuous.
- endofreach 2y agoTrue. Sorry, i somehow didn't think it would come across that i pretend this was an actual quote. I thought it would be obvious how it was meant.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoHow do you differentiate laundering liability and someone legitimately not knowing something?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- system2 2y agoIf it wasn't for him, it would be someone else. He is not the inventor of the internet. It is completely the parents' fault for allowing their children to use social media. Do we blame car manufacturers for young people driving and killing themselves or others? No.
- YakBizzarro 2y ago"If it wasn't for him, it would be someone else." wow, I will use this defence, it's perfect!
- system2 2y agoI already was someone else actually. Many times over and over again. He is not the inventor of social media. His site (or acquiring Instagram) was just another tool someone else already created in the past. His stuff was just more popular. China and Russia have their own versions too. If his stuff shuts down now, tomorrow someone else will create similar ones and fill the void in no time.
- croes 2y agoThen someone else is liable too. You could say the same about drug dealers, if one stops another one replaced him
- croes 2y agoA german philosopher once said, that is a stupid response to renounce responsibility, at this moment someone in Berlin rapes a woman, if I don’t do it …
- croes 2y agoIf cars could be driven without keys we would blame car manufacturers. How do you prevent kids using social media without 100% surveillance or not allowing internet access at all?
- fairity 2y ago
- ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago- They "trust me". Dumb f*cks - Mark Zuckerberg
- elashri 2y agoThis reminds me of the joke that says if you want to harm someone, do it under LLC and you will not go to jail. Its a joke of course but behind it a lot of criticism towards the current system.
- jamiek88 2y agoSame as if you want to kill someone do it with a car.
- Smar 2y agoAnd if done with a truck, recipient might be in for a surprise ;)
- wlesieutre 2y agoThat’s not true, you have to do it with a car and say “oops” afterward
- Ekaros 2y agoBonus points for getting drunk...
- nostrademons 2y agoEven better: do not personally harm someone, but instead create an LLC, hire people, and then create an incentive structure such that if your employees want to continue getting paid, they have to harm people.
- fma 2y agoIsn't that basically what happened to Michael Cohen.
- nostrademons 2y agoAmong many others.
- aliasxneo 2y ago> control of corporate activity alone is insufficient That's very vague. It seems like the accusation brought forth was Zuckerberg knowingly concealed the addictive behavior, but it seems like the best the prosecution came up with was just, "He's CEO, therefore he is liable." Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this.
- FpUser 2y ago>"control of corporate activity alone is insufficient" Compare with Pavel Durov. >"Her decision does not affect related claims against Meta itself." Does not smell right in combination with the first statement
- asdefghyk 2y agoLets be clear, Mark Zuckerberg could make changes to avoid this harm to children, As the controller of these companies he would sure be fully aware of the problem - its all over the media and has been for years. These social media companies place profit over the harm of children.
- carabiner 2y agoExpect this to grow as Zuck has revealed himself to be a centrist Trump supporter. He's pals with Musk, but he runs Threads as a liberal version of X/Twitter. It's the most blatant form of divide and conquer I've seen from the billionaire class.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoIf you were in his shoes, what would you do?
- parsimo2010 2y agoZuck could probably prevent lots of other bad things happening too. He has enough money to feed every starving person in San Francisco. Does that mean that if anyone in SF dies of starvation that we should try Zuck for manslaughter? I don’t think blame falls to him personally because he failed to do something that others wished he had. The judge did not say that Meta itself isn’t responsible. I think their corporate priorities are probably misaligned with the good of humanity. But it isn’t Zuck by himself who did all this- it’s teams of researchers and software devs and product managers- that’s a corporation. You probably couldn’t impose a large enough fine to prevent Meta optimizing for kids’ attention- they are such a huge source of profit. If you really want to protect the kids you need straight up regulatory bans.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago> Does that mean that if anyone in SF dies of starvation that we should try Zuck for manslaughter? There is an obvious difference between not preventing a harm that is a direct result of your activity, and not preventing a harm which isn't.
- Spivak 2y agoThis has got to be literally the dumbest batch of random blame being thrown around to explain "people get a dopamine hit when people like your posts and comments" which gets compounded when it's people you know IRL. Reddit and HN make it an explicit part of the platform by keeping score. Like no shit people, attention is addicting. This has been the cause of people doing stupid things since the dawn of community. Platforms providing the community / audience aren't responsible for the high of being on stage.
- slibhb 2y agoStrongly agree. I am weirded out by the "Facebook is evil" thing. Facebook (and other tech companies) have become a scapegoat for upper class people who don't find their lives meaningful or are disappointed that their children are on SSRIs.
- barbazoo 2y ago> Platforms providing the community / audience aren't responsible for the high of being on stage. Not at all? I don't think that's how the real world works.
- youoy 2y agoThere is a difference between keeping score of comments/posts and giving a general feed for everyone vs curating a visual personal feed to maximise addiction...
- croes 2y agoAnd know ask the same judge about copyright violations through social media
- trynumber9 2y agoDon't the judges need proof to show that the social media company deliberately ignored copyright claims before saying they are liable for copyright infringement? Am I wrong? This is simply my understanding for liability.
- croes 2y agoThey need certain controls to prevent uploads in the EU they need processes so others can report claims, and they must accordingly to the claims. So you must prove you at least tried.
- nashashmi 2y ago> But the judge found a lack of specifics about what Zuckerberg did wrong, and said “control of corporate activity alone is insufficient” to establish liability. Her decision does not affect related claims against Meta itself. So direct evidence that Zuck directed the wrongdoing was not given. If it was, Zuck would know precisely what he has to defend himself against. Instead, Zuck was labeled responsible by the plaintiff because he could stop the harm and did not stop the harm. This is not something anyone can defend themselves against. For starters, Zuck would have to admit that harm was done to be able to defend himself. Secondly, the method of harm should lead directly to him. Without a trial establishing the method of harm that was taken, he is not able to defend himself. What were the AGs thinking? Are they complicit in making the case weak enough for public dismissal.?
- asdefghyk 2y agoGovernments need to legislate what they want. In this case - something like children - say under 16 not to have access to social media - such as Facebook. The penalty for allowing access ( contrary to the new proposed legislation ) needs to be hugh. Like jail for company executives. And if can not be done after some date the service needs to be close down the social media service. (This is similar to what happens with gambling services. )
- rileymat2 2y ago> But the judge found a lack of specifics about what Zuckerberg did wrong, and said “control of corporate activity alone is insufficient” to establish liability. Her decision does not affect related claims against Meta itself. It is unclear to me how your position is different, it would seem that any fair law would have the same aspects where you would have to prove specifics. So without specifics hold the company liable, with hold the individuals.
- mrtksn 2y agoRecently there was this post about how bureaucracy structures itself to remove any responsibility. Apparently free market enterprises are not that different after all, they happen to collect all profits and those who run these systems don't have liability. I'm extremely curious how would the upcoming version of USA work as people who collected all the profits kept complaining endlessly and beared no responsibility for any problems are about to run it. Very interesting times.
- outside1234 2y agoAnd even if he was, he is a billionaire, so he wouldn't be held accountable
- jinushaun 2y agoNot surprised. It’s an unwinnable argument. However, I stand by my belief that Social Media is a cancer on society. I divide history between “before Twitter” and “after Twitter”. Facebook went to shit when they started copying Twitter.
- eddd-ddde 2y agoI've come to believe that society simply does not scale. Humans were never meant to be exposed to instant global connections.