4 ms·

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 regul

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 2mo ago
The level of regulation applied to Meta is very different from Philip Morris.
- pessimizer 2mo 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 2mo ago
  Yes, it's much lower
mcmcmc 2mo ago
[flagged]
cucumber3732842 2mo 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 2mo 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.
everforward 2mo ago
I’m doubtful, I think you’re reading it too much as plain English. “Lawful” in a legal context means “in accordance with the law”. You are immune to this law if you are operating under authority granted by law. It would be generally understood that the intent is to immunize police officers, ambulances with sirens, highway construction, etc. People granted specific authority over something by law. Meta has very little lawful authority, and the little they have would only apply to their own property. Even that is severely curtailed relative to private citizens, there are a _ton_ of things you can do as a citizen that you can’t as a business (eg I can refuse to allow Rastafarians into my house if I want, a business cannot). Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. I can start smoking, quit smoking, change brands, nothing outside of me really changes. Facebook doesn’t have that. I can’t go down the street and switch to Twitter without either convincing everyone else to switch or giving up on them. My mom plans parties as Facebook events. She won’t switch. Ergo I am forced to use Facebook to participate in family events. Phillip Morris lacks that. Family events aren’t suddenly invisible because I smoke Djarums now (although they might avoid me before I start ranting about “the man”). That’s why Facebook is a nuisance in a way Phillip Morris isn’t. Facebook isn’t nearly as optional for many people, they get roped in by circumstances largely outside their control.
- akersten 2mo ago
  Not to take one side or another but these assertions are wrong on their face: > Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. I can start smoking, quit smoking, change brands, nothing outside of me really changes. Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull. And remember all the 90's/00's campaigns highlighting the dangers of peer pressure. Not to mention the plumes of smoke being blown into the air for passerby to inhale - that is not a public nuisance?
  - simoncion 2mo ago
    > Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull. Sure. But the specific claim was that Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. While I can imagine a smoke break group that prohibits members that smoke cigarettes from brands other than those owned by Phillip Morris, I expect the number of such groups to be very, very close to zero. In contrast, groups that use Facebook to socialize are very likely to exclude folks who refuse to use Facebook. It's very easy for the members of a smoke break group to continue to interact fully with a member who switches from Marlboro to American Spirit cigarettes. It's a right pain in the ass for the members of a Facebook group to continue to interact fully with someone who switches from Facebook to X/Twitter.
barbazoo 2mo ago
Are both optional in the same way? Where I live a child has a much harder time getting cigarettes than getting access to Facebook. What's the regulation here that applies to Meta you're thinking of?
- matt123456789 2mo ago
  Optional != accessible ChatGPT would be happy to give you a list of regulations applicable to Meta's operations in NM. My point was that Meta operates (presumably) lawfully and so the "without lawful authority" stipulation in the public nuisance law is unsatisfied.

bormaj 2mo ago

The level of regulation applied to Meta is very different from Philip Morris.

pessimizer 2mo 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 2mo ago
Yes, it's much lower

mcmcmc 2mo ago

[flagged]

cucumber3732842 2mo 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 2mo 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.

everforward 2mo ago

I’m doubtful, I think you’re reading it too much as plain English. “Lawful” in a legal context means “in accordance with the law”. You are immune to this law if you are operating under authority granted by law. It would be generally understood that the intent is to immunize police officers, ambulances with sirens, highway construction, etc. People granted specific authority over something by law. Meta has very little lawful authority, and the little they have would only apply to their own property. Even that is severely curtailed relative to private citizens, there are a _ton_ of things you can do as a citizen that you can’t as a business (eg I can refuse to allow Rastafarians into my house if I want, a business cannot). Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. I can start smoking, quit smoking, change brands, nothing outside of me really changes. Facebook doesn’t have that. I can’t go down the street and switch to Twitter without either convincing everyone else to switch or giving up on them. My mom plans parties as Facebook events. She won’t switch. Ergo I am forced to use Facebook to participate in family events. Phillip Morris lacks that. Family events aren’t suddenly invisible because I smoke Djarums now (although they might avoid me before I start ranting about “the man”). That’s why Facebook is a nuisance in a way Phillip Morris isn’t. Facebook isn’t nearly as optional for many people, they get roped in by circumstances largely outside their control.

akersten 2mo ago
Not to take one side or another but these assertions are wrong on their face: > Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. I can start smoking, quit smoking, change brands, nothing outside of me really changes. Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull. And remember all the 90's/00's campaigns highlighting the dangers of peer pressure. Not to mention the plumes of smoke being blown into the air for passerby to inhale - that is not a public nuisance?
- simoncion 2mo ago
  > Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull. Sure. But the specific claim was that Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. While I can imagine a smoke break group that prohibits members that smoke cigarettes from brands other than those owned by Phillip Morris, I expect the number of such groups to be very, very close to zero. In contrast, groups that use Facebook to socialize are very likely to exclude folks who refuse to use Facebook. It's very easy for the members of a smoke break group to continue to interact fully with a member who switches from Marlboro to American Spirit cigarettes. It's a right pain in the ass for the members of a Facebook group to continue to interact fully with someone who switches from Facebook to X/Twitter.

barbazoo 2mo ago

Are both optional in the same way? Where I live a child has a much harder time getting cigarettes than getting access to Facebook. What's the regulation here that applies to Meta you're thinking of?

matt123456789 2mo ago
Optional != accessible ChatGPT would be happy to give you a list of regulations applicable to Meta's operations in NM. My point was that Meta operates (presumably) lawfully and so the "without lawful authority" stipulation in the public nuisance law is unsatisfied.