5 ms·

The point of a fine is to change behavior. It's not outsize if it's enough to do that. >If this fine remains, and Meta pays out to the affected parties, these

The point of a fine is to change behavior. It's not outsize if it's enough to do that. >If this fine remains, and Meta pays out to the affected parties, these kids could end up rewarded with thousands of dollars for just for having a Facebook or Instagram account. Good. https://www.thefader.com/2015/12/03/on-fleek-peaches-monroee-meechie-viral-vines https://www.thefader.com/2015/12/03/on-fleek-peaches-monroee... These platforms are so profitable precisely because they fleece users for way more value vis a vis their data than they get back in service utility. Balancing that equation is the right thing to do.

cheschire 2mo ago
I feel like you skipped the next sentence from GP. This type of award might not balance the equation the way you think it does.
- 59percentmore 2mo ago
  I understand now that this line >and Meta pays out to the affected parties probably won't come to pass, which I agree is not nearly as good. But I was responding to that possibility, as put forward by the the parent.
  - Petersipoi 2mo ago
    The line you conveniently skipped is > Which creates some bizarre incentives
    - eastbound 2mo ago
      One would argue the kids got paid for finding a dangerous place and entering. Up to the building owner to prevent access. It’s a form of giant bug bounty. I wish I’d be paid a 7k$ bounty for every website where I can find an underage vulnerability.
      - ktallett 2mo ago
        The key thing is these people will get older and no longer be in that age bracket so you are relying on future groups in that age bracket to know this loophole which will be some but far fewer I suspect.
    - abustamam 2mo ago
      The status quo is already bizarre. Meta is actively profiting from harming minors. The alternative (minors getting a payout by visiting harmful websites) seems pretty tame by contrast, and in fact puts an active incentive on Meta to stop letting minors be harmed by their software.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
- shermantanktop 2mo ago
  The inverse incentive is what's in place today: a platform actively harming the users who signed up for it, in pursuit of ad dollars. The incentive is to extract maximum revenue while disregarding the real-world effects of actions, including driving children to self-harm or mental illness. That's bizarre. But I know for some people, it doesn't seem bizarre, and just seems like "capitalism."
  - philipallstar 2mo ago
    The platform isn't actively harming. It's actively driving them to content they engage with. What they're choosing to engage with is harmful. The fact their parents let them on the platform is the crazy part, but the state already extracts vast amounts of money from them.
    - lostlogin 2mo ago
      Governments regulate all sorts of things that could be handled by the parents. However it works better setting a standard via regulation. The world is moving to regulate these companies due to the harm they are causing.
    - bluefirebrand 2mo ago
      > The platform isn't actively harming. > It's actively driving them to content they engage with Regardless of whether or not that content is harmful or not
    - mlsu 2mo ago
      Why punish S.E. Massengill? It’s the parents, after all, who willingly allowed their children to drink sulfanilamide. Hell, if the children simply closed their mouths when the spoon is in front of them, they’d be perfectly fine!
      - philipallstar 2mo ago
        This is a silly comparison. Social media doesn't instantly kill your children, and we've known it's bad for them for ages now so parents have had time to adjust. Give kids devices, win stupid prizes.
- gopher_space 2mo ago
  Lots of hidden variables in this equation, like the number of ex-parents living only for retribution.
- munk-a 2mo ago
  If this ruling results in Meta fully withdrawing from New Mexico because it's unlikely they'll actually net on a per customer basis than nothing of value will be lost.
- DiscourseFan 2mo ago
  Yes but Meta is being rewarded for harming children currently. So you're arguing, in fact, that we should not give kids money as restitution because it would create a bad "incentive" for them, rather than disincentivize the company that has already brought them harm from further harming them?
mcmcmc 2mo ago
> The point of a fine is to change behavior. It's not outsize if it's enough to do that. This is definitely not true, or legal. Would a billion dollar fine for speeding change some behaviors? Yes. Is it completely out of proportion? Also yes. There’s a reason punitive damages are capped. Yeah one way to stop bad corporate behavior is fining them into insolvency, but that doesn’t really help anyone unless the company is purely net negative. And those companies tend to die on their own, since you won’t get a lot of revenue if you don’t provide someone value.
- zrobotics 2mo ago
  >>"Would a billion dollar fine for speeding change some behaviors? Yes. Is it completely out of proportion? Also yes." Maybe not the best example, since Finland does asses speeding fines based on income. So a 1bn fine would be appropriate if someone was ludicrously wealthy, although I'm not sure there's anyone rich enough on the planet to hit that mark. But for example, this guy [0] got a €54,000 speeding ticket in 2015. Honestly, this seems like a pretty good system. Would someone like Jeff Bezos even notice a speeding ticket in the US? The only real annoyance to him would be getting pulled over, the fine amounts to literal seconds of income. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that fines and legal penalties should be in proportion to the income of the person or company they are being assessed against. Otherwise, you end up with the problem of legal penalties just becoming part of doing business, and ideally they should be changing behavior. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
  - abustamam 2mo ago
    Can't remember where I saw it but some years back someone wrote something like "if the punishment for a crime is financial then it only deters poor people" which makes sense.
    - 59percentmore 2mo ago
      In the past, it has been humorously and falsely attributed to a Final Fantasy game.

cheschire 2mo ago

I feel like you skipped the next sentence from GP. This type of award might not balance the equation the way you think it does.

59percentmore 2mo ago
I understand now that this line >and Meta pays out to the affected parties probably won't come to pass, which I agree is not nearly as good. But I was responding to that possibility, as put forward by the the parent.
- Petersipoi 2mo ago
  The line you conveniently skipped is > Which creates some bizarre incentives
  - eastbound 2mo ago
    One would argue the kids got paid for finding a dangerous place and entering. Up to the building owner to prevent access. It’s a form of giant bug bounty. I wish I’d be paid a 7k$ bounty for every website where I can find an underage vulnerability.
    - ktallett 2mo ago
      The key thing is these people will get older and no longer be in that age bracket so you are relying on future groups in that age bracket to know this loophole which will be some but far fewer I suspect.
  - abustamam 2mo ago
    The status quo is already bizarre. Meta is actively profiting from harming minors. The alternative (minors getting a payout by visiting harmful websites) seems pretty tame by contrast, and in fact puts an active incentive on Meta to stop letting minors be harmed by their software.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
shermantanktop 2mo ago
The inverse incentive is what's in place today: a platform actively harming the users who signed up for it, in pursuit of ad dollars. The incentive is to extract maximum revenue while disregarding the real-world effects of actions, including driving children to self-harm or mental illness. That's bizarre. But I know for some people, it doesn't seem bizarre, and just seems like "capitalism."
- philipallstar 2mo ago
  The platform isn't actively harming. It's actively driving them to content they engage with. What they're choosing to engage with is harmful. The fact their parents let them on the platform is the crazy part, but the state already extracts vast amounts of money from them.
  - lostlogin 2mo ago
    Governments regulate all sorts of things that could be handled by the parents. However it works better setting a standard via regulation. The world is moving to regulate these companies due to the harm they are causing.
  - bluefirebrand 2mo ago
    > The platform isn't actively harming. > It's actively driving them to content they engage with Regardless of whether or not that content is harmful or not
  - mlsu 2mo ago
    Why punish S.E. Massengill? It’s the parents, after all, who willingly allowed their children to drink sulfanilamide. Hell, if the children simply closed their mouths when the spoon is in front of them, they’d be perfectly fine!
    - philipallstar 2mo ago
      This is a silly comparison. Social media doesn't instantly kill your children, and we've known it's bad for them for ages now so parents have had time to adjust. Give kids devices, win stupid prizes.
gopher_space 2mo ago
Lots of hidden variables in this equation, like the number of ex-parents living only for retribution.
munk-a 2mo ago
If this ruling results in Meta fully withdrawing from New Mexico because it's unlikely they'll actually net on a per customer basis than nothing of value will be lost.
DiscourseFan 2mo ago
Yes but Meta is being rewarded for harming children currently. So you're arguing, in fact, that we should not give kids money as restitution because it would create a bad "incentive" for them, rather than disincentivize the company that has already brought them harm from further harming them?

mcmcmc 2mo ago

> The point of a fine is to change behavior. It's not outsize if it's enough to do that. This is definitely not true, or legal. Would a billion dollar fine for speeding change some behaviors? Yes. Is it completely out of proportion? Also yes. There’s a reason punitive damages are capped. Yeah one way to stop bad corporate behavior is fining them into insolvency, but that doesn’t really help anyone unless the company is purely net negative. And those companies tend to die on their own, since you won’t get a lot of revenue if you don’t provide someone value.

zrobotics 2mo ago
>>"Would a billion dollar fine for speeding change some behaviors? Yes. Is it completely out of proportion? Also yes." Maybe not the best example, since Finland does asses speeding fines based on income. So a 1bn fine would be appropriate if someone was ludicrously wealthy, although I'm not sure there's anyone rich enough on the planet to hit that mark. But for example, this guy [0] got a €54,000 speeding ticket in 2015. Honestly, this seems like a pretty good system. Would someone like Jeff Bezos even notice a speeding ticket in the US? The only real annoyance to him would be getting pulled over, the fine amounts to literal seconds of income. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that fines and legal penalties should be in proportion to the income of the person or company they are being assessed against. Otherwise, you end up with the problem of legal penalties just becoming part of doing business, and ideally they should be changing behavior. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
- abustamam 2mo ago
  Can't remember where I saw it but some years back someone wrote something like "if the punishment for a crime is financial then it only deters poor people" which makes sense.
  - 59percentmore 2mo ago
    In the past, it has been humorously and falsely attributed to a Final Fantasy game.