4 ms·

All their fines are merely a cost of doing business, and they won't change their ways until the fines hurt.

burningChrome 3mo ago
This is so true. When you have a billion users, you can literally lose hundreds of millions of users and it wouldn't make a dent. The only way is to get the government involved and regulate this and just keep hammering them with massive fines that really make a dent in their bottom line. For a lot of people, government regulation of this sort is not desirable, but at what point does someone need to drop the hammer to stop this?
- ASalazarMX 3mo ago
  I guess you're used to standard billions (a million millions). A US billion would certainly suffer from losing hundreds of millions, you're talking about a double-digit percent.
  - anamexis 3mo ago
    I doubt they are saying any services out there have 1,000,000,000,000 users.
  - yetanotherjosh 3mo ago
    10^9 is the standard definition of a billion, it's very wrong to call 10^12 a "standard billion." You can say "long scale billion" if you want to refer to the definitively non-standard 10^12 billion.
    - Terr_ 3mo ago
      To quibble/add-nuance: The words have diverged into a false-friend [0] situation. It looks like the same word, but the correct/standard meaning depends on which language is being used at the time. If someone is writing English and puts "billion" for 10^12, that's a translation error, much like writing "my grandfather became pregnant when he realized he'd locked the keys inside the car." (Instead of "embarrassed.") Conversely, if I wrote a French or German sentence and put "billion" for 10^9, then I'd be the one making the translation mistake. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend
      - yetanotherjosh 2mo ago
        Yes, but we're speaking in English. If the definition of a same-sounding word changes in another language, it doesn't invalidate a point made within a language. It's fundamentally incorrect to say a standard billion is ever, in any modern context, 10^12, because we are speaking in English in 2026, and even the British mean 10^9 for the standard definition of a billion.
    - happymellon 2mo ago
      It's a shame as we used the correct definition for almost 300 years until the US pushed everyone to switch to their system. https://www.etymonline.com/word/billion https://www.etymonline.com/word/billion I would vote to revert it.
- yndoendo 3mo ago
  Something like three strikes and the CEO, top executives, and three primary share holders go to jail while forcing the company to dissolve seems to be the only solution to removing bad actors in corporate settings.
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    As long as we can also shoot tresspassers and thieves, you got a deal.
    - happymellon 2mo ago
      Why are you desiring the ability to murder someone?
      - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        Seems to be the only solution to removing bad actors
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Okay, let's start now. Hey! This comment section is my property! Bang bang bang bang bang.
      - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        you get it :D Everyone can have their justice boner (TM). We dont need proportionality or a system to determine it it. Just pick a desired outcome and dial consequences up to 11.
  - tadfisher 3mo ago
    Careful, I was called a "radical" on this site for suggesting a corporate death penalty. Because jobs are so important that when a corporation risks its own existence so it can break laws, dissolving the corporation as punishment is the government's fault and not the corporation's.
- alex1138 3mo ago
  > When you have a billion users What if they make a shadow profile for you? Do you count as a user? What if you've tried to delete your account and you can't? (I meant a real account here, not even a shadow profile. People have had the things reactivated years later)
Ajedi32 3mo ago
As it should be. If the cost of fixing the problem is greater than the amount of harm the problem is actually causing to society, then it shouldn't be fixed. Set fine amounts accordingly. (Whether we actually do set fines this way is, of course, questionable. And probably this particular problem would get fixed even if there were no fine merely because of the reputational damage it's causing, but I'm speaking in generalities here.)
- mplewis 3mo ago
  you don't think one of the world's biggest media platforms disseminating CSAM is causing meaningful harm to society?
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    First let's not use an unqualified label of "CSAM" when talking about generated images. But if a thousand people see some ad then the amount of damage is not much compared to their overall business. I'd go for a healthy penalty on top, and adding in more transparency to make sure they don't hide the real extent of the problem, but it's still probably small to them. Getting Facebook to put in a reasonable amount of blocking effort is good. But it wouldn't fully fix the problem.
    - happymellon 2mo ago
      They could also put in place a real reporting button to remove CSAM. Instead it's a "I don't like this" and they will continue to ignore it.
  - Ajedi32 3mo ago
    Yes it's meaningful, and the fine amount should reflect that. But hypothetically, if it's (just throwing a random number out there) 1 image in 50 billion, and Facebook gets more benefit from the 50 billion good images than society loses from the 1 bad one, and society recovers its loss from Facebook via a fine, but the fine isn't big enough to make them change their behavior, how exactly is that a problem?
xtajv 2mo ago
"They call them fines because if you can pay it, it's fine"
xtajv 2mo ago
I appreciate recent EU regulations choosing to penalize corporations on the basis of a percentage of revenue. It effectively mandates a lower-limit on spend for budgeting purposes. Sure, that money might be spent ineffectively... but corporations will figure it out if their only options are to 1. Not invest in regulatory compliance at all and get fined for noncompliance. 2. Throw money at the problem, spend it inefficiently, and STILL get fined for noncompliance. 3. Throw money at the problem, spend it well enough to pass muster, avoid fines.

This is so true. When you have a billion users, you can literally lose hundreds of millions of users and it wouldn't make a dent. The only way is to get the government involved and regulate this and just keep hammering them with massive fines that really make a dent in their bottom line. For a lot of people, government regulation of this sort is not desirable, but at what point does someone need to drop the hammer to stop this?

ASalazarMX 3mo ago
I guess you're used to standard billions (a million millions). A US billion would certainly suffer from losing hundreds of millions, you're talking about a double-digit percent.
- anamexis 3mo ago
  I doubt they are saying any services out there have 1,000,000,000,000 users.
- yetanotherjosh 3mo ago
  10^9 is the standard definition of a billion, it's very wrong to call 10^12 a "standard billion." You can say "long scale billion" if you want to refer to the definitively non-standard 10^12 billion.
  - Terr_ 3mo ago
    To quibble/add-nuance: The words have diverged into a false-friend [0] situation. It looks like the same word, but the correct/standard meaning depends on which language is being used at the time. If someone is writing English and puts "billion" for 10^12, that's a translation error, much like writing "my grandfather became pregnant when he realized he'd locked the keys inside the car." (Instead of "embarrassed.") Conversely, if I wrote a French or German sentence and put "billion" for 10^9, then I'd be the one making the translation mistake. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend
    - yetanotherjosh 2mo ago
      Yes, but we're speaking in English. If the definition of a same-sounding word changes in another language, it doesn't invalidate a point made within a language. It's fundamentally incorrect to say a standard billion is ever, in any modern context, 10^12, because we are speaking in English in 2026, and even the British mean 10^9 for the standard definition of a billion.
  - happymellon 2mo ago
    It's a shame as we used the correct definition for almost 300 years until the US pushed everyone to switch to their system. https://www.etymonline.com/word/billion https://www.etymonline.com/word/billion I would vote to revert it.
yndoendo 3mo ago
Something like three strikes and the CEO, top executives, and three primary share holders go to jail while forcing the company to dissolve seems to be the only solution to removing bad actors in corporate settings.
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  As long as we can also shoot tresspassers and thieves, you got a deal.
  - happymellon 2mo ago
    Why are you desiring the ability to murder someone?
    - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
      Seems to be the only solution to removing bad actors
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Okay, let's start now. Hey! This comment section is my property! Bang bang bang bang bang.
    - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
      you get it :D Everyone can have their justice boner (TM). We dont need proportionality or a system to determine it it. Just pick a desired outcome and dial consequences up to 11.
- tadfisher 3mo ago
  Careful, I was called a "radical" on this site for suggesting a corporate death penalty. Because jobs are so important that when a corporation risks its own existence so it can break laws, dissolving the corporation as punishment is the government's fault and not the corporation's.
alex1138 3mo ago
> When you have a billion users What if they make a shadow profile for you? Do you count as a user? What if you've tried to delete your account and you can't? (I meant a real account here, not even a shadow profile. People have had the things reactivated years later)

Ajedi32 3mo ago

As it should be. If the cost of fixing the problem is greater than the amount of harm the problem is actually causing to society, then it shouldn't be fixed. Set fine amounts accordingly. (Whether we actually do set fines this way is, of course, questionable. And probably this particular problem would get fixed even if there were no fine merely because of the reputational damage it's causing, but I'm speaking in generalities here.)

mplewis 3mo ago
you don't think one of the world's biggest media platforms disseminating CSAM is causing meaningful harm to society?
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  First let's not use an unqualified label of "CSAM" when talking about generated images. But if a thousand people see some ad then the amount of damage is not much compared to their overall business. I'd go for a healthy penalty on top, and adding in more transparency to make sure they don't hide the real extent of the problem, but it's still probably small to them. Getting Facebook to put in a reasonable amount of blocking effort is good. But it wouldn't fully fix the problem.
  - happymellon 2mo ago
    They could also put in place a real reporting button to remove CSAM. Instead it's a "I don't like this" and they will continue to ignore it.
- Ajedi32 3mo ago
  Yes it's meaningful, and the fine amount should reflect that. But hypothetically, if it's (just throwing a random number out there) 1 image in 50 billion, and Facebook gets more benefit from the 50 billion good images than society loses from the 1 bad one, and society recovers its loss from Facebook via a fine, but the fine isn't big enough to make them change their behavior, how exactly is that a problem?

xtajv 2mo ago

"They call them fines because if you can pay it, it's fine"

xtajv 2mo ago

I appreciate recent EU regulations choosing to penalize corporations on the basis of a percentage of revenue. It effectively mandates a lower-limit on spend for budgeting purposes. Sure, that money might be spent ineffectively... but corporations will figure it out if their only options are to 1. Not invest in regulatory compliance at all and get fined for noncompliance. 2. Throw money at the problem, spend it inefficiently, and STILL get fined for noncompliance. 3. Throw money at the problem, spend it well enough to pass muster, avoid fines.