4 ms·

Even a few tens of billions in fines doesn't come close to putting Meta into insolvency. The histrionics are entirely uncalled for. A billion dollar fine is en

Even a few tens of billions in fines doesn't come close to putting Meta into insolvency. The histrionics are entirely uncalled for. A billion dollar fine is entirely unnecessary to dissuade a typical driver from speeding. The fine needs to be enough to change the behavior, not 500,000,000% that amount. Meta is worth $1.5T while most of us getting tickets are worth less than $200K. Meta brings in $200B/yr. Taking 10% of that, even 20%, would hardly slow the company down in most of its business. I think 15% of revenue per year of uncorrected behavior is about the right amount. After a few years of that, I'd wager Meta would start to change how it treats children, probably by screwing over adults even more, but that's fine with me. Adults get what they deserve. Children deserve better than being handed over to a mega-corporation for monetization.

mcmcmc 2mo ago
My point is that saying “there is no unreasonable fine if it works” is naive absolutism. Even with proportional fines, does fining someone 99% of their income count as too high? If proportionality is irrelevant than there is no way to differentiate which crimes deserve what punishments.
- 59percentmore 2mo ago
  It depends. Does fining someone 99% of their income make it impossible for them to live with basic dignity? There are many, many people for which it wouldn't, especially if you limit to W2 income (as so many income-based tests do). I've long been of the opinion that the focus on "how much is being taken" is wrongheaded, and pushed primarily to advantage elites. What about, "how much are you left with?" Now, suddenly, it's in their best interests for the popular understanding of "enough to live on" to be quite high. If we're talking perverse incentives, we are currently living in a regime worse than many of the alternatives.

mcmcmc 2mo ago

My point is that saying “there is no unreasonable fine if it works” is naive absolutism. Even with proportional fines, does fining someone 99% of their income count as too high? If proportionality is irrelevant than there is no way to differentiate which crimes deserve what punishments.

59percentmore 2mo ago
It depends. Does fining someone 99% of their income make it impossible for them to live with basic dignity? There are many, many people for which it wouldn't, especially if you limit to W2 income (as so many income-based tests do). I've long been of the opinion that the focus on "how much is being taken" is wrongheaded, and pushed primarily to advantage elites. What about, "how much are you left with?" Now, suddenly, it's in their best interests for the popular understanding of "enough to live on" to be quite high. If we're talking perverse incentives, we are currently living in a regime worse than many of the alternatives.