8 ms·
Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation
- k33n 7mo agoThe idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.
- gilrain 7mo agoLet’s force them to be obligated to do that, then. “Just let them hurt people, and then let them hide that hurt” kind of sucks for society.
- nkrisc 7mo agoFair enough. If they're not impartial then lets hold them accountable for the content published in their platform.
- wnevets 7mo ago[flagged]
- mc32 7mo agoTo me that’s how it should be. They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves yet they should be liable or accountable for harm they are found guilty of.
- k33n 7mo agoI’m not against these companies losing their Section 230 immunity. Social media platforms are, in my personal opinion, publishers in their current form. If they went back to operating as “friends and family feed providers” then letting them keep their 230 immunity would be easier to justify.
- wbobeirne 7mo agoYou are relying on the wrong people to be able to understand that nuanced distinction.
- TheCoelacanth 7mo agoYes, if they went back to being chronological feeds of people you follow, then they should get to keep Section 230 immunity. When they are making editorial decisions about what to content to promote to you and what content to hide from you, then they should lose it.
- pocksuppet 7mo agoSection 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. That was entirely made up by chronically online arguers. What it does say is you aren't liable for something someone else wrote. It doesn't create liability for things not covered by it. Guess who decides the order and contents of Facebook feeds? Facebook does. So they wouldn't be liable for someone writing a post saying "gas the jews" but they would still be liable for choosing to show it at the top of everyone's front page, if that was a choice, because the front page was choice-based rather than chronological.
- k33n 7mo ago> Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. This is a direct quote from the statute: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” You were so confident, too.
- schubidubiduba 7mo agoTOS are not laws. In fact, they often partially violate laws and those parts are then void. In some countries, anything written in TOS that is not "expected to be there" is void.
- raincole 7mo agoNo one says ToS are laws and especially not the parent commenter.
- Fraterkes 7mo agoThe parent comment brings up the ToS as an example of why it's naive to believe Meta is obligated to do something, but what Meta is obligated to do depends on the law.
- raincole 7mo agoAnd which laws state that Meta is obligated to show ads like this?
- Fraterkes 7mo agoIrrelevant. My point is that the parent comment did imply that the ToS created obligations for Meta in the way that laws do, which means your first comment was incorrect.
- raincole 7mo agoThey absolutely didn't imply that. They implied that Meta doesn't want to show the ads so it's native to think Meta would just show the ads without being forced to. Which is correct.
- zeroonetwothree 7mo agoOk but I don’t really see why this specific term would violate any law? Do we really want a society where platforms are forced to present speech that is harmful to them? If you own a store and I put a sign up on your wall advertising a rival store wouldn’t it be reasonable for you to disallow that?
- 3form 7mo agoMaybe, but so what? Your remark lacks a conclusion. Mine is that it could then well be required to do so by law. Companies are not individuals, so I don't think they are owed any freedoms beyond what is best for utility they can provide.
- iinnPP 7mo agoI tend to agree with you on this. I wanted to add however that Meta itself lets so many TOS violating ads in, that it seems like special treatment for ads that are much less undesirable than the ads normally pushed. It's not just a Meta issue either.
- pixl97 7mo ago[flagged]
- streetfighter64 7mo agoThe idea that a company can override laws via its TOS is a bit strange.
- BeetleB 7mo agoGenuinely curious. By not allowing a specific type of ad, what law are they breaking?
- Larrikin 7mo ago[flagged]
- mirashii 7mo agoThat idea was not expressed in the article, only the fact that the ads were removed. This is worth covering, especially when coupled with the context for what ads Meta regularly does allow. One does not have to believe that they're obligated to do so while also believing that it's incredibly scummy behavior that consumers should be aware of and question. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...
- freejazz 7mo agoOkay? They're exactly the assholes everyone says they are. That's the point.
- hashmap 7mo agoat certain scales, reality has to win out over whatever ideal you have in your head about how things should be. facebook is massive, a lot of society is on it, and its a problem to make recourse invisible to people most affected by the thing stealing their attention.
- Zigurd 7mo agoThere are so many ads for nostrums, cults, get rich quick scams, and other junk that violate TOS, that Meta has a legitimacy problem with their TOS.
- swiftcoder 7mo ago> The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial Is their defence of Section 230 protections not in part rooted in that claim of impartiality?
- nradov 7mo agoNo. Section 230 doesn't mention anything about impartiality.
- swiftcoder 7mo agoIt indeed doesn't, but conservative lawmakers signalled repeatedly that they were unhappy about Meta's protection under section 230 if their moderation policies were not politically neutral
- hansvm 7mo agoCompanies have to inform affected individuals of data breaches, especially when HIPAA gets involved. Brokers have to inform clients of transaction errors. Auto manufacturers have to inform owners of recalls. Retirement funds have to inform plan participants of lawsuits involving those funds. You don't even have to invoke the idea that Meta is big enough to be regulated as a public utility for this to have broad precedent in favor of forcing a malicious actor to inform its victims that they might be entitled to a small fraction of their losses in compensation.
- zeroonetwothree 7mo agoWell we aren’t discussing the government requiring meta to inform users. We are discussing whether meta can choose which private actors’ ads to allow. It would seem silly that a platform would be forced to allow all ads.
- hansvm 7mo agoAha, how clever. We aren't discussing whether they can be forced to display messaging; we're discussing whether they're going to later get slapped down for blocking that messaging. I get that the distinction matters a bit from time to time (court cases keep blurring the line in the US though), but: 1. With all the other shit that makes it through the filter, this was pretty clearly a targeted, strategic takedown rather than some sort of broad "we don't allow bad ads on the platform." Allowing "all ads" isn't the thing being argued; it's allowing "this ad." 2. The non-offensive idea of "abusers shouldn't be allowed to deceive and gaslight their victims" is pretty strongly in favor of this being a bad move on Meta's part if it was an intentional act. Maybe it shakes out fine for them legally in this particular instance, but the fact that as a society we routinely require companies and individuals to behave with more appearance of moral standing than this suggests that blocking this particular ad is over the line, and it's neither naive nor utopianistic to think so. Even if it's legally in the light-grey, it's an abuse of power worth talking about, and hopefully it inspires more people to leave their platform.
- dcrazy 7mo agoThis is why courts are empowered to infringe upon the rights of parties to the case.
- bilekas 7mo ago> "We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful." Wow.. That is quite a statement. Am I right in saying that in order to claim for the class action lawsuit, which facebook has been 'found negligent', that the victims need to take an action collectively in order to claim ? IE They need to be reached somehow to inform them of the possibility ? Seems the most obvious place to advertise would be Meta. I understand Meta can basically do whatever they like with their ToS but the statement from the Meta spokesperson seems like an extremely bad idea.
- 3form 7mo ago"Lawyer benefitting from cases about prostitution equals to a pimp" kind of argument.
- draw_down 7mo ago[dead]
- boringg 7mo agoI mean those class action lawsuits enrich trial lawyers and maybe force companies to behave better (though i bet empirical evidence would show that its more a cost of business). The 20$ dollars people get is nothing but a guise that the trial lawyers are helping people.
- bilekas 7mo agoI'm not sure if the lower price means that class actions shouldn't still be taken. It's to allow companies to not have to deal with individual claims for each person. I see that the ranges can be substantial though, several thousands, but seems to be criteria. > Nearly nine months later, Mark received a notification that his claim had been approved. Two weeks after that, $186 was deposited into his bank account. While the amount wasn’t substantial, it covered a grocery run and a phone bill—and more importantly, it reminded him that companies can be held accountable, even in small ways. [0] [0] https://peopleforlaw.com/blog/how-much-do-people-typically-get-in-a-class-action-lawsuit/ https://peopleforlaw.com/blog/how-much-do-people-typically-g... If the fine's don't dissuade companies from bad practices, the class actions with theoreticaly no upper limit might be a better option to enforce proper behaviour.
- mrwh 7mo agoMeta wants to be an impartial platform only and exactly when it suits them to be.
- tiberius_p 7mo agoThat's exactly what they're saying.
- kotaKat 7mo agoI mean, they spun up a bullshit "Oversight Board" that they can fully 100% choose to ignore and decline to implement their demands when they're made.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 7mo ago[flagged]
- kelnos 7mo agoThat phrase does not mean what you think it means.
- epistasis 7mo agoA few years ago this seemed a bit too extreme for me. Now, with the web mostly burned down anyway, I see little to lose and lots to gain in a section 230 repeal. My, how the Overton Window changes on some ideas. And when it's changing on some things it tends to accelerate on others too, like a social momentum on reconsidering past norms.
- Pxtl 7mo agoMy compromise pitch, since the "You need ID from your users" ship has sailed: Companies are not liable if they have proper ID of the person who submitted the content and can provide that to a plaintiff. If they have not made a good-faith effort to know who submitted this info (like taking ID, not just an email address) then they're taking responsibility for the submitted content. Which means sites that have responsible moderation can still allow anonymous contributions. The real problem is the inherent asymmetry of legal battles, where the wealthiest can fight forever with endless motions and have near-total impunity while a legal action would basically nuke a normal person's life. Not to mention the fact that an international border can often make this whole conversation moot.
- HumblyTossed 7mo agoDo photogs do that on purpose, or does Zuck really always have that sociopath stare?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 7mo agoZuckerberg is a rich and high profile guy, so photographers capture many pictures of him, and news editors often find that choosing unflattering pictures of people their readers don't like is helpful for reach. This picture in particular was taken after he'd just finished testifying for 8 hours in a February trial, which I think would wear down the best of us, and even among Getty's extensive gallery of pictures taken then (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/mark-zuckerberg-chief-executive-officer-of-meta-platforms-news-photo/2261841504 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/mark-zuckerber...) this one is particularly unflattering IMO.
- alex1138 7mo agoKeep in mind Zuckerberg is someone who supports things like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198 Zuckerberg was told about gay people being added to groups and it outed them by posting to their wall, and he ignored it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYnocZFuc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRYnocZFuc4 And obviously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 (guess we don't get access to his other messages, though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770818) His stare isn't the only thing about him that's sociopathic Edit: oh yeah and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42651178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42651178
- alex1138 7mo agoGuys, there's no need to insta-downvote. I provided substantive evidence. Look in the mirror, and evaluate who you work for
- 7mo ago
- pcardoso 7mo agoReminds me of Carl Sagan’s Contact, where Haden, the millionaire funding Ellie’s work, made a TV ad blocker and then sued the TV companies when they refused to play ads for his product. I wonder if that is what will happen next.
- neuroelectron 7mo agoReminds me of ChatGPT insisting all news about OpenAI is unverified speculation.
- guywithahat 7mo agoThere is a humor that these law firms won a case against Meta and the first thing they did is give them advertising money won from the court case. That said the ads sound pretty aggressive, and from what I've read it sounds like it wasn't a very fair decision. I understand the conflict of interest but I have sympathies for Meta here
- mekdoonggi 7mo agoI think these ads were to bait Meta into banning them (which they've done) and now the firm will follow up with a lawsuit because Meta suddenly is able to very rapidly decide what ads get shown if it's going to hurt their bottom line. I do not have any sympathy for Meta.
- josefritzishere 7mo agoSo they remove class action lawsuits but not pedos. Got it.
- stronglikedan 7mo ago[flagged]
- mekdoonggi 7mo agoI suspect the lawyers will use this as evidence as well. Meta can very quickly remove ads when it's going to cost them money.
- bastard_op 7mo agoI wonder what would happen posting these ads to truth social and twitter.
- Xeoncross 7mo agoAs an aside, class-action lawsuits seem less than ideal for the public. The awards benefit the lawyers and perhaps a small handful, but the actual plaintiffs only get $0.05. In addition, successful class-action suits prevent further litigation from being allowed for the same issue. Individuals bringing their own lawsuits seems like it would affect better change as 1) the award money would be better distributed instead of concentrated and 2) the amounts levied against the companies would be higher and more of concern than the class-action slap-on-the-wrist they currently get.
- rokkamokka 7mo agoA hundred million identical court cases might not be too good for the legal system
- ed312 7mo ago1. Why should harming a million people identically reduce their right to a fair legal evaluation and possibly compensation for damages? <-- maybe it makes sense for large corporations to carry insurance to pay for the potentially massive legal costs they could impose on governments? 2. Shouldn't we be able to quickly resolve these cases assuming there are no substantially different pieces of evidence?
- CrazyStat 7mo ago> 1. Why should harming a million people identically reduce their right to a fair legal evaluation and possibly compensation for damages? It doesn’t. You can almost[1] always opt out of class action lawsuits to pursue your own suit. This would be expensive and unwise for most people, but you have right. [1] There are rare exceptions.
- SecretDreams 7mo agoAgreed. Naturally, the solution is to get meta to compensate for the actual and cumulative damage they've done to mankind. Then plaintiffs might actually benefit. This is humanity vs Mark Zuckerberg.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- glaslong 7mo agoThus begins another Streisand Effect meme campaign of "MZ Is A Punk-Ass B payed for by Person & Guy LLP"
- fdeage 7mo ago"Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren't just teenage phases — they're symptoms linked to social media addiction in children." Seems like they couldn't write even three lines without a LLM.
- boelboel 7mo agoMaybe being unable to write us another symptom
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- cindyllm 7mo ago[dead]
- WesolyKubeczek 7mo agoLLMs love this style, but they love it because it's just about every single piece of advertisement writing for the last aeon or so, and it's a mighty chunk of their training corpora.
- skeeter2020 7mo agoCan't we all just agree there are no GOOD people in this situation? Meta, class-action lawyers, PE and big money that funds the lawsuits as a profit venture... The one thing they all appear to share: parasites extracting resources from their host.
- ginkgotree 7mo agoSocial Media, and specifically Facebook / Meta, will go down in history as one of the worst developments in technology in the 21st century. As Frances Haugen stated in her testimony, Mark Zuckberg needs to be removed from the helm at Meta.
- wvenable 7mo agoI think television has done more harm, politically.
- boelboel 7mo agoRadio did plenty of harm as well (especially post 1987). Rush Limbaugh had a peak audience of 20-30 million listeners a week in the 90s. The current state of politics might've been unpreventable, at least in the US.
- MandieD 7mo agoRadio did plenty of harm in 1930s Germany - Hitler was a master of the new medium.
- vachina 7mo agoThey started out good and then cranked the engagement trap to the max when they realize value of a captive audience.
- bcjdjsndon 7mo agoHang on a minute, meta apparently didn't have the time to be checking the content of adverts they get paid to serve when it was child porn, what's changed all of a sudden?
- henry2023 7mo agoThe crypto-“investing” deep fakes impersonating recognizable names are up and running too.
- mekdoonggi 7mo agoThis one actually cost them money.
- heresie-dabord 7mo agoExcellent point. Suddenly Corporatron finds it easy to censor content in its product. But why must we limit ourselves to simplistic, false dichotomies such as "Good vs Evil", "Education vs Ignorance", "Community Well-Being vs Disinformation and Arrant Nonsense", "Democracy and Social Confidence vs Propaganda and Conspiratorial Mayhem", and "Mental Health vs Despair and Self-Harm" ? We really are focused on building apps that people love.
- varispeed 7mo agoI wonder when they'll tackle literal porn showing up in Instagram shorts. If you want to browse Instagram in public, forget it.
- shevy-java 7mo agoI think it is time to disband Facebook. Ever since they attempted to infiltrate the linux ecosystem via age sniffing, they really need to go. Corporate systemd can also go - we should really clean up the whole ecosystem. What ever happened to "privacy first?
- elAhmo 7mo agoWe can effectively trace all of the problems we have today in a global scale back to social media.
- TiredOfLife 7mo agoExactly. Without social media there would have been no nazis.
- petre 7mo agoBierhalle, the social media of the 20s, to only without the personal data hoarding.
- NERD_ALERT 7mo agoI don’t disagree that social media has played a massive role in changing the world in a negative way. This is a very far reaching claim though and one that kinda misses the forest for the trees. The problem is that fundamentally capitalism demands that companies find more ways to siphon more money from customers every quarter or they fail. Social media is a perfect storm for the elites in this system. It’s a CIA wet dream. It’s literally a globalized and hyper personalized propaganda distribution platform. This is the inevitable outcome of capitalism and human behavior. Meta’s whole purpose is to create the most optimized pipeline for accepting money from 3rd parties in exchange for convincing as many people as possible of what they want those people to believe. Social media is evil but it’s also the natural course of what happens with current technology and the incentives of capitalism.
- hkpack 7mo agoI don’t know why it’s CIA wet dream, while it’s mostly used against western democracies. Are people in CIA incompetent?
- themafia 7mo ago> fundamentally capitalism demands Wall Street makes those demands. Those demands are backed up by court cases and precedent. Nothing about this is synonymous with "capitalism." > It’s a CIA wet dream. And they spend a significant amount of money. Is this "capitalism" still? Or are there more specific terms that would apply more directly to this arrangement? > Social media is evil The US is the largest manufacturer and seller of weapons in the world.
- neilv 7mo agoIdea of something that undergraduate colleges could do, to encourage reflection about ethics in careers: Annually poll all the students, to get rankings of how the ethics of well-known companies/brands are perceived by the students. Then publish the results to students, in a timely fashion, before they're deciding job offers and internships. I speculate that effects of this could include: 1. Good hiring candidates modifying what offers they pursue and accept -- influenced by awareness, self-reflection, and/or peer-pressure. 2. Students thinking and talking about ethics, when they didn't before. Then some of them carry this influence with them, as part of their character and intellect, going forward (like is one of the ideals of college education). Also, maybe the second year of the poll, the sentiments are better-informed, because a lot more people have started paying more attention to the question of ethics of a company. The perception breakdowns by college major would also be interesting, but maybe don't publish those, to reduce internal incentives to game the results. (Everyone knows some majors tend a bit more towards sociopathic than others, but some would rather that not be officials.)
- taormina 7mo agoThey already have ethics classes in college. The unethical already don’t care. Students already do basic research but when the market is so shit, do you really expect them to permanently hamstring their careers by torpedoing their only offer? Especially given that as a fresh college grad, it’s not like anyone cares about your opinion anyways. So let’s guilt the vaguely ethical ones into never getting involved and leaving all the sociopaths to run the show. This is an idea destined for success.
- neilv 7mo agoEthics classes (and certifications/trainings, like for doing human subjects research) are another thing that students are incentivized and conditioned to cheat on, rather than to reflect upon. I'm talking about a poll that raises awareness across the entire student population, in a low-cost way, with no incentive to cheat nor to do anything other than give honest answers. Regarding whether awareness of ethics would penalize those with any ethical tendency: We can already see the last 2 decades of rampant unethical behavior throughout tech companies. Virtually every tech company knowingly sells out its users to data brokers, for example. Sociopaths already dominate, and have conditioned everyone below them to behave in an at least compliant way even when doing something unethical. It's too bad we're starting late on that absolutely pervasive ethics problem, but we can't make the problem any worse by trying an education intervention now. And it's the traditional job of colleges to do this -- not to pump out oblivious worker drones.
- arendtio 7mo agoI love it, because it shows that advertisement is communication as well. Communication is highly regulated for good reasons, and advertisement is not. This is as if telecommunication companies would disconnect calls when what is being said does not fit their agenda. This should be illegal for advertising companies as well.
- finghin 7mo agoI rarely say this, but very fitting username.
- jerf 7mo agoAt the risk of going against the gestalt, Facebook openly and publicly rejecting the ads is actually one of the better outcomes. They could have just put their thumbs on the scale, deprioritizing them, serving them to people they think are least likely to bite, etc. Lying about the number of times it was served because, after all, who can check? Many of us suspect the ad platforms already do this pretty routinely through one mechanism or another anyhow, after all. It isn't reasonable to ask a platform to host content that is literally about suing them, not because of "freedom" concerns or whether or not Facebook is being hypocritical, but more because in the end there isn't a "fair" way for them to host that. The constraints people want to put on how Facebook would handle that ends up solving down to the null set by the time we account for them all. Open, public rejection is actually a fairly reasonable response and means the lawyers at least know what is up and can respond to a clear stimulus.
- lurk2 7mo ago> It isn't reasonable to ask a platform to host content that is literally about suing them Explicit rejection is better than opacity but better still is public accountability. Meta’s properties have a combined userbase that amounts to just over 1 in 4 people on earth; these platforms should have been regulated as utilities a long time ago. Suppose I wanted to run ad campaigns advocating for antitrust legislation targeting social media companies and ended up getting booted off of all of the major platforms; what feasible method is there for me to advance these ideas that could possibly compete with the platforms’ own abilities to influence public opinion?
- crazygringo 7mo agoI mean, I don't like Meta at all, but what do you expect? If you want to run a full-page in the New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, they're going to refuse to run it as well. Private companies generally don't publish things that run counter to their interests. It would certainly be interesting if we wanted legislation to force private companies who provide paid ad space to publish ads that paid the most regardless of the content, but then that opens up a whole other can of worms. What if the ad offering the most money is racist and horrible, or disgustingly obscene? At that point you start needing the government to decide what is allowed to be banned and what isn't, and then it's meddling in speech which is prohibited by the first amendment. So this just seems like an obvious non-story to me. Of course Meta is removing these ads, because pretty much any advertising platform would do the same about ads that criticized it.
- xuhu 7mo agoOnline stores don't remove 1-star reviews of their products from their store. Do they ?
- alex43578 7mo agoYes, they very frequently do.
- mschuster91 7mo agoTaking down "bad" Google reviews is an entire industry these days [1]. And of course there are scammers on all sides - not just legitimately bad stores trying to whitewash their online presence, but also entire scammer rackets that extort legitimately good stores by flooding them with BS reviews [2]. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-shady-companies-remove-bad-reviews-from-google-why-joy-hawkins-ppdyc https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-shady-companies-remove-ba... [2] https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/inside-the-extortion-racket-bombarding-small-businesses-with-fake-onestar-google-reviews/f7cf796d-d393-4154-be56-89ef2532533c https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/inside-the-extorti...
- indymike 7mo ago> New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, This has happened. > the government to decide what is allowed to be banned and what isn't, This is a civil lawsuit where people are trying to a) prove they were harmed and b) be compensated for that harm. The government is just the referee. > Meta is removing these ads, because pretty much any advertising platform would do the same about ads that criticized it. Which was not very smart because the next step will be a court order requiring them to put a banner on ever page with a link to sign up to join the lawsuit - for free.
- teunispeters 7mo agoI mean it probably shows that "common carrier" protection should emphatically not apply to them, but what do I know?
- 6thbit 7mo agoThought it was clickbait/circumstantial but they are quoting an actual spokesperson saying they are doing it on purpose !! > "We're actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them," a Meta spokesperson tells Axios.
- siruwastaken 7mo agoLegally finding plaintiffs, who can sue us for our illegal machinations is not allowed on our platform. What a world we live in. If this isn't the simplest demonstration of monopolization of social media that Facebook has, then I don't know what is.
- Traubenfuchs 7mo agoWould you allow it on yours? As a shareholder or on the board of directors of your company I would not be pleased. Nothing nefarious about that.
- jquery 7mo agoThere's a strong chance it's illegal so admitting to it is pretty breathtaking. They must be very confident they're in the clear, or the spokesperson didn't run this by the right people.
- feralsandwich 7mo agoWhat is illegal about it? What law does it break?
- JumpCrisscross 7mo agoCould these removals indicate editorial discretion that would remove § 230 protections from Facebook?
- 7mo ago
- data-ottawa 7mo agoYou’re either an open platform or you’re not. Why can Meta run fake ads of my prime minister or the CBC to front scams with no due process, but for this they can use their judgement to block? I know they’re an American company and my complaints are Canadian, but the double standard stinks.
- abustamam 7mo agoDid anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though?
- worik 7mo ago> Did anyone ever accuse Meta of being an open platform though? My memory says it was Meta who said that. Zuck himself....
- acdha 7mo agoIsn’t that their defense against responsibility for their customers’ content? Having some broad filtering for legal requirements or scams is one thing but if they’re doing this it seems like support for cases alleging that they have editorial control and therefore responsibility.
- abustamam 7mo agoThat's true. I haven't been keeping up with FB lawsuits but from what I gather of HN sentiment, FB is not open and never has been. Any FB exec claiming to be open is probably just doing exactly what you said, and they'll probably find a way to spin it to include this exclusion as part of their "openness."
- nickvec 7mo agoThis may be one of the most unethical decisions I have ever seen a company make in recent years (disregarding fraud and the like.)
- mvandermeulen 7mo agoEver != recent years
- nickvec 7mo ago"ever" - used for emphasis in questions and other remarks, expressing astonishment or outrage. "who ever heard of a grown man being frightened of the dark?"
- HelloMcFly 7mo agoThis is the kind of comment that you just really, truly do not need to make. Ever.
- nickvec 7mo agoYou're right. Thanks for calling it out. Doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way.
- jasomill 7mo agoThis sounds like a sensible policy for Meta and the basis for a good argument against media consolidation for everyone else. Win win.
- networkOne 7mo ago[dead]
- abhinaystha 7mo agoReally?
- rambojohnson 7mo agoWhy wouldn't they.
- giannicmptr1000 7mo agoi haven't looked at the site in a decade, strange people still like that slop
- ButlerianJihad 7mo agoThe really hilarious thing about Gmail is: there have been at least two class-action lawsuit announcements, that are totally legitimate from the legit senders, regarding a settlement with Google in some regard. Each of the messages has been duly sent directly to my spambox on Gmail. It would seem that Google and Gmail have a distinct COI in regards to delivering messages about these lawsuits to their victims/plaintiffs. It is like the USPS losing a lawsuit and "losing" your mail about it...