8 ms·

Per the court ruling [0], the specific law that Meta violated was New Mexico’s public-nuisance law, NMSA 1978 § 30-8-1. The relevant section that was violated i

Per the court ruling [0], the specific law that Meta violated was New Mexico’s public-nuisance law, NMSA 1978 § 30-8-1. The relevant section that was violated is [1]: A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either: - A. injurious to public health, safety, morals or welfare; or - B. interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property. Whoever commits a public nuisance for which the act or penalty is not otherwise prescribed by law is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The judge found that Meta’s operation of Facebook and Instagram created a public nuisance which injured public health, safety, and welfare; and burdened public schools, hospitals, and law enforcement. The judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund to abate the harm done. [0] https://www.kob.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/D-101-CV-2023-02838-Final-FOFCOL-and-Judgment-of-the-Court.pdf https://www.kob.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/D-101-CV-2023... [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-8/section-30-8-1/ https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-8...

judge2020 3mo ago
Is there also a sort-of injunction to stop doing x y z? Or is just existing as a social media company a public nuisance?
- tristanj 3mo ago
  From the article: The company must also enact certain safety features such as limiting the amount of time underage users in the state spend on Facebook and Instagram, hiding by default the number of “likes” on photos for such people and disclosing to users there the risks of its platforms. For users under 18, Meta will eliminate push notifications during night time (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) on all days; and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on school days during the academic year. They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month. TBH, these restrictions will just push kids to use Snapchat.
  - ElProlactin 3mo ago
    > They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month. When you consider that the average person is awake for somewhere between 450 and 500 hours per month, 90 hours still represents ~20% of waking time. For comparison, a K-12 student spends 110-140 hours per month at school. So this is still a ridiculous amount of time for anyone to be spending on social media, teen or adult.
    - judge2020 3mo ago
      The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? Hardly social media if most of your usage is just using it to DM friends/family, a la texting. Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach, but it's hard, and the government can't mandate parents take the correct approach when it's so high-friction.
      - skeledrew 3mo ago
        Lots of messaging apps out there. No need to use one that's connected to a toxic platform.
      - troupo 3mo ago
        > The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? How is this a problem? We've had messaging apps 24/7 for 15 years. For many millenia we didn't have them, and it was hardly ever a problem.
        judge2020 3mo ago
        Because we removed the physical distance barrier to relationships, no reason to artificially close it now.
        troupo 3mo ago
        And this has been shown time and again to be quite detrimental. Yes, you have to disconnect. No, disconnecting for a few hours is not a problem just because "these are messaging apps".
qwe----3 3mo ago
These rulings are stupid and if generalized would make doing business impossible. Parents should parent their kids. That law is so board - "public morals"? Should every porn site be taken down?
- techblueberry 3mo ago
  > Should every porn site be taken down? I mean, I like porn as much as the next guy, but probably yes?
  - sneak 3mo ago
    I’m curious the moral basis for which you have appointed yourself more qualified than the adult viewers themselves about what adults should be able to view in their web browser.
    - techblueberry 3mo ago
      I find it amusing that you think that anyone trying to declare themselves an authority does so on a moral basis.
- fivetenpen 3mo ago
  Yes they should, but guess what they’re doing instead? Scrolling. Engagement algorithm needs to be made illegal.
- tw04 3mo ago
  The world would almost assuredly be a better place if 14 year olds were looking at playboy magazines instead of having easy access to every fetish under the sun. It has distorted many a young man’s ideas of intimacy and sexual relations.
  - krapp 3mo ago
    "Playboy magazines" are part of the problem. Fetishes aren't what has distorted mens' ideas of intimacy and sexual relations. Fetishes can be a perfectly healthy and consensual form of sexual expression. The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy, and they learn to see their own self worth as a function of their sexual prowess, and women as sexual currency. Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender kids, and any site about womens' health issues, because "public morals" tends to consider all of it obscene, inherently pornographic or just "icky."
matt123456789 3mo ago
The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Meta isn't a public nuisance any more than Philip Morris. Both are regulated already, both produce addictive products, both are optional.
- bormaj 3mo ago
  The level of regulation applied to Meta is very different from Philip Morris.
  - pessimizer 3mo ago
    This dumb lawfare is a safety valve to allow them to continue not to regulate. Just like the under-18 bans are also an excuse not to regulate (and to root everyone's computer.) Somehow the evil algorithms become fine the day people turn 18, so all they have to do to comply is check. It's individuals' responsibility to make it easy for them.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Yes, it's much lower
- mcmcmc 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- cucumber3732842 3mo ago
  >The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Exactly. Meta will agree to pay a reduced settlement. Meta will agree to give the state a cut going forward (they won't make it that obvious, it'll be like a recurring fund contribution to services that are related to online harassment or something). Biggest win for FB would be being forced to have some stupid license going forward.
- CPLX 3mo ago
  > Meta isn't a public nuisance The premise of the article is that they are, as determined by an actual judge, as well as a jury after a full trial where evidence was presented. Replying “no they aren’t” is utterly free of substance.
aprilthird2021 3mo ago
Can any lawyer chime in for us laymen? This seems like such a broad law that can be interpreted to allow any punishment against basically anything especially since "public morals" are such a subjective thing.
- dodobirdlord 3mo ago
  Laws tend to be written pretty broadly, with the understanding that when you encounter a law that seems like it could be construed in a ridiculous way, it’s the ridiculous construal that is silly and not the law. Judges and juries exist to ensure that silly stuff doesn’t happen, rather than trying to write laws so that they hold up to the most adversarial possible reading. Is writing a book about being a bank robber going to pass muster as a threat to public morals? Probably no. Is setting up a free cigarette dispenser outside of an elementary school? Probably yes.
- everforward 3mo ago
  Am not a lawyer, but I follow these kinds of things. Many states have a catch all law like this, probably all of them to some degree. If you google for your state, the charge is usually either “public nuisance” or “disturbing the peace”. They’re virtually all like this, so broad that you violate it just by being alive. They usually only get used either in plea deals (ie a DUI gets downgraded to disturbing the peace), or on people who are being a pain in the ass but not technically violating any specific laws. Someone having a mental health crisis and screaming at people on the sidewalk might get picked up for it, or a drunk that won’t stop singing at the top of their lungs at 3am. This is way, way beyond anything I’ve ever seen as far as impact, though. Public nuisance is usually a slap on the wrist charge. A day or two in jail, $100 in fines, something like that. This is sort of a wild route for the state to go. These laws are super vague, but the penalties are usually so low I think the courts let it go. I suspect now that they’re pushing for a billion dollars in fines the courts will want to take a closer look.
altern8 3mo ago
Will they actually pay the fine..?
barbazoo 3mo ago
> The judge found that Meta’s operation of Facebook and Instagram created a public nuisance which injured public health, safety, and welfare; and burdened public schools, hospitals, and law enforcement. Hopefully one day this is what people think of when they hear people say "I work for Meta".
- vkou 3mo ago
  It'll probably happen the day after 'Thank you for your service' will take stock of the human misery that service has inflicted upon the world. I wouldn't hold my breath.
  - vkou 2mo ago
    It's interesting how people want to tar and feather people for working at... A shitty social media/advertising firm for being in the periphery of morally questionable practices, but are waaaaaaay more lenient when it comes to people who volunteer to work in an imperial military.
- jmye 3mo ago
  [dead]
Gunax 3mo ago
After reading your comment, I am very concerned. This is a very general law. Saying something is 'injurious to public health, safety, morals, or welfare' is such a broad category. Let's remember what we started with. It's a website where people chat and share images. Some people found information that caused or exaserbated consitions. If that is injurious to public health, then just about anything is. I think this is very dangeous and it leads to any business or organization being potentially liable. Doesn't every bar cause piblic nuisances? How about libraries? I can find all sorts of dangerous information at a library. I think the real piblic hate is because people lost their minds when Trump won. People blamed Facebook for allowing that to happen (ie allowing free speech).

judge2020 3mo ago

Is there also a sort-of injunction to stop doing x y z? Or is just existing as a social media company a public nuisance?

tristanj 3mo ago
From the article: The company must also enact certain safety features such as limiting the amount of time underage users in the state spend on Facebook and Instagram, hiding by default the number of “likes” on photos for such people and disclosing to users there the risks of its platforms. For users under 18, Meta will eliminate push notifications during night time (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) on all days; and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on school days during the academic year. They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month. TBH, these restrictions will just push kids to use Snapchat.
- ElProlactin 3mo ago
  > They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month. When you consider that the average person is awake for somewhere between 450 and 500 hours per month, 90 hours still represents ~20% of waking time. For comparison, a K-12 student spends 110-140 hours per month at school. So this is still a ridiculous amount of time for anyone to be spending on social media, teen or adult.
  - judge2020 3mo ago
    The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? Hardly social media if most of your usage is just using it to DM friends/family, a la texting. Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach, but it's hard, and the government can't mandate parents take the correct approach when it's so high-friction.
    - skeledrew 3mo ago
      Lots of messaging apps out there. No need to use one that's connected to a toxic platform.
    - troupo 3mo ago
      > The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? How is this a problem? We've had messaging apps 24/7 for 15 years. For many millenia we didn't have them, and it was hardly ever a problem.
      - judge2020 3mo ago
        Because we removed the physical distance barrier to relationships, no reason to artificially close it now.
        troupo 3mo ago
        And this has been shown time and again to be quite detrimental. Yes, you have to disconnect. No, disconnecting for a few hours is not a problem just because "these are messaging apps".

qwe----3 3mo ago

These rulings are stupid and if generalized would make doing business impossible. Parents should parent their kids. That law is so board - "public morals"? Should every porn site be taken down?

techblueberry 3mo ago
> Should every porn site be taken down? I mean, I like porn as much as the next guy, but probably yes?
- sneak 3mo ago
  I’m curious the moral basis for which you have appointed yourself more qualified than the adult viewers themselves about what adults should be able to view in their web browser.
  - techblueberry 3mo ago
    I find it amusing that you think that anyone trying to declare themselves an authority does so on a moral basis.
fivetenpen 3mo ago
Yes they should, but guess what they’re doing instead? Scrolling. Engagement algorithm needs to be made illegal.
tw04 3mo ago
The world would almost assuredly be a better place if 14 year olds were looking at playboy magazines instead of having easy access to every fetish under the sun. It has distorted many a young man’s ideas of intimacy and sexual relations.
- krapp 3mo ago
  "Playboy magazines" are part of the problem. Fetishes aren't what has distorted mens' ideas of intimacy and sexual relations. Fetishes can be a perfectly healthy and consensual form of sexual expression. The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy, and they learn to see their own self worth as a function of their sexual prowess, and women as sexual currency. Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender kids, and any site about womens' health issues, because "public morals" tends to consider all of it obscene, inherently pornographic or just "icky."

matt123456789 3mo ago

The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Meta isn't a public nuisance any more than Philip Morris. Both are regulated already, both produce addictive products, both are optional.

bormaj 3mo ago
The level of regulation applied to Meta is very different from Philip Morris.
- pessimizer 3mo ago
  This dumb lawfare is a safety valve to allow them to continue not to regulate. Just like the under-18 bans are also an excuse not to regulate (and to root everyone's computer.) Somehow the evil algorithms become fine the day people turn 18, so all they have to do to comply is check. It's individuals' responsibility to make it easy for them.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Yes, it's much lower
mcmcmc 3mo ago
[flagged]
cucumber3732842 3mo ago
>The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Exactly. Meta will agree to pay a reduced settlement. Meta will agree to give the state a cut going forward (they won't make it that obvious, it'll be like a recurring fund contribution to services that are related to online harassment or something). Biggest win for FB would be being forced to have some stupid license going forward.
CPLX 3mo ago
> Meta isn't a public nuisance The premise of the article is that they are, as determined by an actual judge, as well as a jury after a full trial where evidence was presented. Replying “no they aren’t” is utterly free of substance.

aprilthird2021 3mo ago

Can any lawyer chime in for us laymen? This seems like such a broad law that can be interpreted to allow any punishment against basically anything especially since "public morals" are such a subjective thing.

dodobirdlord 3mo ago
Laws tend to be written pretty broadly, with the understanding that when you encounter a law that seems like it could be construed in a ridiculous way, it’s the ridiculous construal that is silly and not the law. Judges and juries exist to ensure that silly stuff doesn’t happen, rather than trying to write laws so that they hold up to the most adversarial possible reading. Is writing a book about being a bank robber going to pass muster as a threat to public morals? Probably no. Is setting up a free cigarette dispenser outside of an elementary school? Probably yes.
everforward 3mo ago
Am not a lawyer, but I follow these kinds of things. Many states have a catch all law like this, probably all of them to some degree. If you google for your state, the charge is usually either “public nuisance” or “disturbing the peace”. They’re virtually all like this, so broad that you violate it just by being alive. They usually only get used either in plea deals (ie a DUI gets downgraded to disturbing the peace), or on people who are being a pain in the ass but not technically violating any specific laws. Someone having a mental health crisis and screaming at people on the sidewalk might get picked up for it, or a drunk that won’t stop singing at the top of their lungs at 3am. This is way, way beyond anything I’ve ever seen as far as impact, though. Public nuisance is usually a slap on the wrist charge. A day or two in jail, $100 in fines, something like that. This is sort of a wild route for the state to go. These laws are super vague, but the penalties are usually so low I think the courts let it go. I suspect now that they’re pushing for a billion dollars in fines the courts will want to take a closer look.

altern8 3mo ago

Will they actually pay the fine..?

barbazoo 3mo ago

> The judge found that Meta’s operation of Facebook and Instagram created a public nuisance which injured public health, safety, and welfare; and burdened public schools, hospitals, and law enforcement. Hopefully one day this is what people think of when they hear people say "I work for Meta".

vkou 3mo ago
It'll probably happen the day after 'Thank you for your service' will take stock of the human misery that service has inflicted upon the world. I wouldn't hold my breath.
- vkou 2mo ago
  It's interesting how people want to tar and feather people for working at... A shitty social media/advertising firm for being in the periphery of morally questionable practices, but are waaaaaaay more lenient when it comes to people who volunteer to work in an imperial military.
jmye 3mo ago
[dead]

Gunax 3mo ago

After reading your comment, I am very concerned. This is a very general law. Saying something is 'injurious to public health, safety, morals, or welfare' is such a broad category. Let's remember what we started with. It's a website where people chat and share images. Some people found information that caused or exaserbated consitions. If that is injurious to public health, then just about anything is. I think this is very dangeous and it leads to any business or organization being potentially liable. Doesn't every bar cause piblic nuisances? How about libraries? I can find all sorts of dangerous information at a library. I think the real piblic hate is because people lost their minds when Trump won. People blamed Facebook for allowing that to happen (ie allowing free speech).