7 ms·

Hook, hold, harvest and hide: Meta's alleged strategy laid out in first week

221 points by sbulaev 2mo ago

jochem9 2mo ago
https://archive.is/ND9GL https://archive.is/ND9GL
josefritzishere 2mo ago
More CEOs need to go to prison.
- barbazoo 2mo ago
  One thing China does well. Put people that damage their society or economy behind bars.
  - PeterHolzwarth 2mo ago
    In China, "harmed society or the economy" is very very often the excuse used to put political enemies into prison.
    - scotty79 2mo ago
      So? It works. Their economy is starting to lap the West one. Maybe cutting a little bit off the top works regardless of who exactly is being cut?
      - SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
        It sounds appealing when you imagine that nobody you like would ever be cut, but that's not how the Chinese system works. I would guess that at some point in the past you've laughed at memes making fun of political leaders; in China, this is not allowed, because the authorities believe that posting mean things about the system or its leadership damages the trust in government which is required for a healthy society.
        scotty79 2mo ago
        You won't scare me into compassion for people so different than me that they might as well not be carbon based.
      - PeterHolzwarth 2mo ago
        Just want to be clear here: you appear to be saying that you support a regime putting people in prison that a regime doesn't like, on made-up charges, with the excuse of "harmed society or the economy" - have I got that right?
        scotty79 2mo ago
        Reality is the same behind the polite facades both in the East and the West. The problem with the West is that being rich mostly excludes you from being put in prison for being not liked by the powerful. Excuses are also irrelevant. You can put people behind bars on made-up charges in USA as well, if they interfere with powerful enough interests. Just not the rich enough people. China doesn't make that exception. Is that worse or better?
  - Lio 2mo ago
    Is that true or is it just people that challenge the power of the current Communist Party leadership that get punished?
    - barbazoo 2mo ago
      There is this recent example https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/20/evergrande-founder-jailed-life-fraud-hui-ka-yan https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/20/evergrande-...
      - gruez 2mo ago
        Which seems exactly like the sort of thing an authoritarian regime would do to placate the masses. Make an example of some big boss, but conveniently fail to fix or even acknowledge the issues that led to the crisis in the first place. In the example of the property bubble, it's domestic financial repression making real estate the only option for savings, and local governments being hooked (heh) on land sales to fund their budgets. The whole system was designed to pump up property prices and drive a bubble.
        deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
        deaux 2mo ago
        That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't. They try to fix the issues and rightly jail the CEO. To act as if he was just an unknowing cog in the system is nonsensical.
        gruez 2mo ago
        >That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't. Except you know, all the incentives for keeping the current system in place. Financial repression still exists. Same with the local government funding model. Also the government's intervention was arguably what led to the crisis, by abruptly disrupting real estate companies' cashflow. The problem needed to be solved, but in typical CCP fashion, rash decisions made the situation worse. Same as with the one child policy. Finally, what makes you think meta "haven't tried to fix the issues"? They're trying very hard with age verification :^)
  - gruez 2mo ago
    Yeah, like Jack Ma (of alibaba) who disappeared for months, and got his company's IPO canceled, all because he criticized the government's financial regulations a bit too much? Trump wishes he has as much ability to put people behind bars as Xi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown
    - lokar 2mo ago
      While that is bad, so is unregulated crypto, sports betting, prediction markets, gutting of consumer financial protection, etc we are getting now.
    - Spooky23 2mo ago
      Read about Joseph Nacchio sometime.
- dgellow 2mo ago
  Some do in other countries. Though Trump would pardon them asap, as he has done with all the others
- rr808 2mo ago
  Luckily we have rule of law here so if you say someone in particular needs to go to prison there needs to be a law that you have proven to break. Just because you dont like someone you can't just lock them up.
  - miltonlost 2mo ago
    We have rule of law here? have you seen the non-independent DOJ today? The Supreme court's rubber stamp and bribed justices? Trump's blatant illegalities? (Yes, Clarence Thomas has been bribed. That's what the RV and the trips are.)
    - deaux 2mo ago
      It's funny isn't it, what the word China triggers in people. They'll say that the US is going down the gutter, but then the very next sentence if China is mentioned, it's all "we have rule of law, we're a just, democratic, lawful country, unlike them". There's still far too much pride.
  - deaux 2mo ago
    > we have rule of law here You're in the lead for funniest comment of the year award! How's Ghislaine Maxwell doing nowadays? Last I heard, living a very comfy VIP "prison" life. How are her mates? Right, running free. Now let's look at how people jailed for marijuana possession are doing. Everyone commits crimes, yet prosecution is hilariously selective. Everyone knows this. White collar crimes have a prosecution rate of <1%. Three felonies per day. There is absolutely no meaningful rule of law in the US. The absurd degree of selective prosecution is antithetical to this.
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
  CEOs do go to prison. They go to prison for misleading investors. They don't go to prison for environmental or social harm.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
rvz 2mo ago
Morals at Meta is an oxymoron. No person with 'morals' would join this company in 2026, unless with the next RSU cliff, the morality hormone immediately gets triggered when the bank account reaches 7 figures.
- cmiles74 2mo ago
  I don’t think any company has “morals”. For sure individuals might but a big advantage of the corporate structure is this diffusion of decision making and blame. Anthropomorphizing corporations isn’t helping us get a clearer picture of how they work or why they do what they do.
  - jjj123 2mo ago
    The comment you’re replying to doesn’t anthropomorphize meta. “Morals at Meta” refers to the morals of the people that work at meta.
  - afpx 2mo ago
    I'm sure everyone here understands that. But, there's a difference between a company that puts morality and ethics first vs. one that abandons it altogether or even encourages its opposition. I've worked for all three types, and after unwittingly working for scum, I recommend to always check who one's bosses are. In my understanding, I believe Zuckerburg has always operated in opposition to morality.
  - deaux 2mo ago
    A company is made up out of people. Some are made up out of people with morals (yes, these exist). Those companies have morals. Some, like Meta, consist of people with no morals. Those companies have no morals.
jdejean 2mo ago
I hate when people say things like “Google did this” or “Meta did that.” There are actual named humans making these decisions. I want them found and held accountable. As of late these people have more power than ever. A single contributor at a company like Meta can make a change that impacts 0.025% of users (potentially hundreds of thousands of people) with zero notice or oversight, for their own individual gain. Not even to mention the systemic decisions this article describes.
- vjulian 2mo ago
  It’s lazy shorthand and also serves the obscurity that these individuals seek. Similarly, I get irritated when people frequently almost continuously attribute actions and results to ‘the President’ or such state heads.
- anal_reactor 2mo ago
  On one hand I totally see your point. It's just disgusting that someone on high position is fully aware that Facebook is about making people addicted to slop and serve them exploitative ads. On the other hand, it is an organizational failure, because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius.
  - SaltyBackendGuy 2mo ago
    > because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius. I generally agree with you, however this makes an assumption about what "correctly" means. In this case, Meta could be working correctly and take it's orders directly from the Zuck commander's intent. In which case he would be a single person that would have a massive impact on the outcome. Therefore, should be appropriately accountable.
- gruez 2mo ago
  As someone else noted "Hook, hold, harvest and hide" is the framing from the plaintiffs. There likely wasn't some twirly mustached executive giving a presentation with those words on the slide deck. Instead the "decisions" made are far more banal. Shareholders wants growing revenues and users, executives tell their subordinates to implement those objectives, and it eventually hits the ICs where they're tweaking the color of the buttons to be maximally engaging. All these tweaks cumulatively makes the product addicting, but it's not like making meth or cigarettes where it's addicting from day 1.
blagie 2mo ago
I think what's missing here is elderly. Arguably, that's even more harmful.
- azan_ 2mo ago
  How would hurting elderly be more harmful than hurting children? I know that we are about to live in gerontocracy, but it’s still a wild statement to make.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
    The elderly can vote, and are easier to scam. Harming kids creates harmed kids. Harming elders helps install terrible governments which harm everyone - including kids.
  - Spooky23 2mo ago
    Look around. The raging dumpster fire consuming everything was started by armies of stupid old people manipulated on platforms like Facebook. The kids will be ok. The revolution won’t be started by boomer dads.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
      There's just no conceivable legal case there. Manipulating "stupid old people" and causing them to believe bad things is First Amendment protected activity.
      - Spooky23 2mo ago
        Sure there is, they are conspiring to break a variety of federal laws and continue to do so. I continue to get ads to join WhatsApp “investor groups” supposedly endorsed by Warren Buffet. I got one the other day that is run by Charlie Munger, who apparently rose from the dead to promote pump and dump schemes. It’s inconceivable that Facebook doesn’t spot that sort of thing. They took a similar eyes off approach to the illegal foreign entity election manipulation.
  - 2mo ago
bentt 2mo ago
Let’s be clear: Meta is Zuckerberg.
- Avicebron 2mo ago
  Is the defense that everyone else was just following orders?
  - bentt 2mo ago
    No, but unless the penalties are specifically targeted at Zuck, it's a miss.
- the_gipsy 2mo ago
  Meta is Facebook, forever.
m00dy 2mo ago
$META has everything it needs: the best distribution channels on the internet, a massive user base, GPU infrastructure, and an amazing, talented young team. I think $META will succeed.
- jondwillis 2mo ago
  Not that anyone is asking the question that you’re answering, but what’s amazing about their talented young team?
  - m00dy 2mo ago
    [flagged]
api 2mo ago
In my opinion at least, any attempt to intentionally engineer addiction is morally wrong and should be at the very least civilly if not criminally actionable (if it can be proven). It's mind control. That phrase is often associated with woo woo conspiracy theory, but I don't think that's hyperbolic. If you are engineering addiction, what you're doing is attempting to run a black hat security attack against the human central nervous system to violate a person's will and autonomy. That is the definition of mind control. Properly framed I think it's a form of assault, especially when deployed with deliberate concealment of motive or against children, the elderly, the mentally ill, anyone not strong enough to resist it. The medium doesn't matter: addictive drugs, slot machines, web sites, social media apps, games. In that list I actually think explicitly labeled gambling stuff like Las Vegas is the least evil since at least in that case it's kind of up front and overt about what it is. I mean, it's a casino. WTF do you think a casino does? Hard drugs are kind of the same at this point. The thing that makes this case so awful is that people genuinely didn't know. Nobody including myself understood just how effective addiction engineering in a digital medium could be, and these companies were secretive about just how hard-core they were getting about studying and engineering this. They hired psychologists. There's stories of studies putting people in FMRI machines. It was a deliberate R&D program with the (secretive) stated goal of addiction. The next thing important to understand is that businesses are structurally incapable of self-policing something with a profit incentive. I didn't say unwilling. I said incapable. Businesses, like all "corporate" entities (non-profits, governments, etc.) operate with a certain set of constraints, social customs, and rules, and for a business one of those is that they must earn revenue and/or attract investment to survive. If addiction results in revenue, then any business that refuses to engineer addiction will fail. This is also why regulation of things like child labor, forced labor, safety requirements, etc. are required. If a safe workplace reduces profits than any company implementing a safe workplace loses to those who do not, etc. BTW this is something a lot of "online Marxist" type anti-capitalists don't understand when they vilify business leaders. A business that doesn't do the profitable thing stops being a business. It's outcompeted by those who do the thing. The only way to stop these things is to universally police them, which levels the playing field and allows businesses who don't do the bad thing to keep operating. It's an instant race to the bottom because a business cannot not race. So yeah... lots of words but I think this is an important issue and it's good that it's happening. I really hope an example gets made here, or that this at least raises awareness. I think it's critically important that we start dealing with digital addiction engineering as an issue before the AI funding bubble pops. When that happens all the AI companies will have to look for other sources of revenue. Addiction engineering online became a thing after the dot.com bubble popped for exactly that reason. We already have AI driven addictionware in the form of digital partner apps and such, but if the AI investment gold rush stalls and we have a mass push for revenue among AI companies then with no policing here this will get really really bad. A final moral to the story, I think, is that science f'ing works. Like I said, it shocked me to see how much addiction a web site or a mobile app could create. Learning that it was deliberately engineered makes it less surprising. Science works. When you apply the scientific method to an engineering goal, progress gets made, often dramatic progress. If the laws of physics and the nature of the system you're studying will allow it, you can get so far that the result can be shocking. Look at the hydrogen bomb. Look at aviation, space flight, AI, modern medicine. There's good and bad in there of course cause people do both good and bad things. Which is why saying "we are going to apply science to make our product more addictive" should be criminal conspiracy. "We are going to apply science to do X" where X is some form of assault should be criminal. "We didn't think it would work that well" is a poor defense because I think at this point we should have learned that science works.
tech_army 2mo ago
One man to blame only
- tjpnz 2mo ago
  Every single person who's ever worked for that piece of shit company shares some blame. The CEO is just the most visible.
erelong 2mo ago
Sounds like the lawyer's spinning what any successful business does with trying to acquire customers and serve their needs as though they were dealing drugs (granted, the line can be blurry between things that are simply enjoyable versus that which is more strongly addictive - some people get "addicted" to eating, but we can't really ban food, for example)
- tikimcfee 2mo ago
  Perhaps, then, it's a matter of degree like most things. And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind? I'm so tired of the whatabouts and the normalization and the pretending like this billion trillion whatever company has does anything but take advantage of its power to defend itself with slants and lies that any normal person or small group could never get away with. You can be a big company and not be pointedly or maliciously harmful to society. Facebook is not that. And no, I will never refer to it as "meta" to allow yet another opportunity for these people to sane wash their behavior. We know who they are. We know what they choose and chose to do. Let the tattered and broken laws of the world actually do something. "What normal businesses do"... sheesh.
  - gruez 2mo ago
    >And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind? If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecution.
    - Avicebron 2mo ago
      Or industry-wide cancerous practices only now being addressed in some way.
    - georgemcbay 2mo ago
      > If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecution. Not necessarily. Even government resources are finite. If you are doing what everyone else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted (currently), it could be (and often is) because the people doing the prosecuting have limited resources, and the best practical course of action for them is to go after one highly visible target and get a ruling that will spook everyone else into self-correcting (or be the next largest target).
koolala 2mo ago
This HHHH strategy phrase is made up by these lawyers. It's not like the Microsoft version their mimicking where Microsoft actually said it. It makes the headline misleading like it alleges they said it internally as their strategy.
- beering 2mo ago
  My local grocery chain does the same HHHH strategy: 1. Get new customers 2. Retain them as customers 3. Track what the customers do 4. Keep internal operations confidential Honestly I dislike them but they are the closest store to me.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- yodon 2mo ago
  >Microsoft actually said it Not quite https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400754
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - koolala 2mo ago
    "McGeady testified that Maritz told Intel that Microsoft’s strategy was to “embrace, extend, extinguish.” McGeady, 11/9/98pm, at 53:17 - 54:8; McGeady, 11/10/98 am, at 21:22 - 23:19; GX 564." Was this testimony false?
the_gipsy 2mo ago
> Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout. Those evil states!
phyzix5761 2mo ago
I hope people can see Meta is funding the other side in order to get Child Safety laws passed so they can have an out when children use their parent's device and Meta spies on them. Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one.
- gruez 2mo ago
  >Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one. I thought they were pushing for on-device age verification, which from a "mass surveillance" perspective is pretty bad? If you wanted mass surveillance, you'd want mandatory ID verification by sites and/or government SSO, both of which allows you to capture a persistent identifier. Of course, meta isn't doing all this lobbying out of altruism. Doing on-device verification means they're off the hook for it, and google/apple has the shoulder the burden instead.
  - digitaltrees 2mo ago
    The only reason age verification isn’t mandatory is because it isn’t scalable. A few states are moving forward with digital drivers licenses. When there are digital drivers licenses, passports and social security cards you’ll see a renewal to push verification.
- dsabanin 2mo ago
  I seriously doubt that the FaceMash guy was planning mass surveillance from day one. The people who propped him up might have, though.
  - phyzix5761 2mo ago
    FaceMash is a very primitive example of mass surveillance and data gathering: use people's pictures without their consent, collect the social rankings in a database somewhere.
  - digitaltrees 2mo ago
    Wrong. He literally made fun of users for giving information that he could use to spy on them and share that ability with friends. It was a childish form of spying but the intent was there and the monetization tactic came later.
conartist6 2mo ago
Side note: what the everliving fuxxorz is up with their cookie banner. It seems wildly illegal. Enough that I'm not gonna read their shit ever again if they stick with THAT. The only two options are "accept all" and "reject all and subscribe".
- conartist6 2mo ago
  Seriously why use privacy as a form of anticonsumer leverage? This was supposed to be a form of consumer empowerment, not a literal extortion mechanism. How am I supposed to take their stance seriously? They rag on people who do shit like this
Aurornis 2mo ago
In the opening sentence: > according to a lawyer who is prosecuting the world’s largest social media company. The headline makes it sound like something internal at Meta got revealed. The catchy four-H phrase is the clever hook the lawyer came up with to try to hold the jury’s mind through the case. If you’re unfamiliar with how these trials work, the lawyers are trying to create a compelling narrative to support their case and catchy phrases that sound like marketing lingo are often used. This wasn’t some internal Meta doc that got revealed.
- xeonmc 2mo ago
  If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.
- DiabloD3 2mo ago
  Its the same way "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was coined. "Embrace and extend", without extinguish/exterminate, was used in Microsoft corp docs that were handed to the DOJ during the famous antitrust case, but it was the DOJ that turned it into EEE after realizing what "embrace and extend" actually meant in the broader context of Microsoft's machinations. The DOJ's clever hook won them the case.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2mo ago
    > The DOJ's clever hook won them the case. Or, rather, the fact that Microsoft was blatantly illegally abusing their monopoly position to kill competitors.
    - digitaltrees 2mo ago
      Blatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric. So catch phrases are essential elements to conveying the truth about the behavior
      - ambicapter 2mo ago
        [citation needed]
tclancy 2mo ago
INT META BOARDROOM - DAY Expensive Image Consultant: "It's vital we present a friendly, innocuous brand throughout what promises to be a long--" Zuck: "We still got that scary fucker who looks like he just defends mobsters on retainer?" Lackey: "We do, boss." Zuck: "Think we're done here." exeunt by taking off glasses
hncbw02z5a 2mo ago
This is oddly reassuring
mmooss 2mo ago
> The jury’s role is advisory, which means they will give recommendations to the presiding judge, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will make the final decision on the verdict and damages. What kind of trial is that, and what provision is there for it in the law? Who gets to choose that? The trial is in US federal court in Oakland [0]. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/18/meta-child-safety-addiction-lawsuit-states https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/18/meta-chil...

221 points by sbulaev 2mo ago

jochem9 2mo ago

https://archive.is/ND9GL https://archive.is/ND9GL

josefritzishere 2mo ago

More CEOs need to go to prison.

barbazoo 2mo ago
One thing China does well. Put people that damage their society or economy behind bars.
- PeterHolzwarth 2mo ago
  In China, "harmed society or the economy" is very very often the excuse used to put political enemies into prison.
  - scotty79 2mo ago
    So? It works. Their economy is starting to lap the West one. Maybe cutting a little bit off the top works regardless of who exactly is being cut?
    - SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
      It sounds appealing when you imagine that nobody you like would ever be cut, but that's not how the Chinese system works. I would guess that at some point in the past you've laughed at memes making fun of political leaders; in China, this is not allowed, because the authorities believe that posting mean things about the system or its leadership damages the trust in government which is required for a healthy society.
      - scotty79 2mo ago
        You won't scare me into compassion for people so different than me that they might as well not be carbon based.
    - PeterHolzwarth 2mo ago
      Just want to be clear here: you appear to be saying that you support a regime putting people in prison that a regime doesn't like, on made-up charges, with the excuse of "harmed society or the economy" - have I got that right?
      - scotty79 2mo ago
        Reality is the same behind the polite facades both in the East and the West. The problem with the West is that being rich mostly excludes you from being put in prison for being not liked by the powerful. Excuses are also irrelevant. You can put people behind bars on made-up charges in USA as well, if they interfere with powerful enough interests. Just not the rich enough people. China doesn't make that exception. Is that worse or better?
- Lio 2mo ago
  Is that true or is it just people that challenge the power of the current Communist Party leadership that get punished?
  - barbazoo 2mo ago
    There is this recent example https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/20/evergrande-founder-jailed-life-fraud-hui-ka-yan https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/20/evergrande-...
    - gruez 2mo ago
      Which seems exactly like the sort of thing an authoritarian regime would do to placate the masses. Make an example of some big boss, but conveniently fail to fix or even acknowledge the issues that led to the crisis in the first place. In the example of the property bubble, it's domestic financial repression making real estate the only option for savings, and local governments being hooked (heh) on land sales to fund their budgets. The whole system was designed to pump up property prices and drive a bubble.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - deaux 2mo ago
        That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't. They try to fix the issues and rightly jail the CEO. To act as if he was just an unknowing cog in the system is nonsensical.
        gruez 2mo ago
        >That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't. Except you know, all the incentives for keeping the current system in place. Financial repression still exists. Same with the local government funding model. Also the government's intervention was arguably what led to the crisis, by abruptly disrupting real estate companies' cashflow. The problem needed to be solved, but in typical CCP fashion, rash decisions made the situation worse. Same as with the one child policy. Finally, what makes you think meta "haven't tried to fix the issues"? They're trying very hard with age verification :^)
- gruez 2mo ago
  Yeah, like Jack Ma (of alibaba) who disappeared for months, and got his company's IPO canceled, all because he criticized the government's financial regulations a bit too much? Trump wishes he has as much ability to put people behind bars as Xi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown
  - lokar 2mo ago
    While that is bad, so is unregulated crypto, sports betting, prediction markets, gutting of consumer financial protection, etc we are getting now.
  - Spooky23 2mo ago
    Read about Joseph Nacchio sometime.
dgellow 2mo ago
Some do in other countries. Though Trump would pardon them asap, as he has done with all the others
rr808 2mo ago
Luckily we have rule of law here so if you say someone in particular needs to go to prison there needs to be a law that you have proven to break. Just because you dont like someone you can't just lock them up.
- miltonlost 2mo ago
  We have rule of law here? have you seen the non-independent DOJ today? The Supreme court's rubber stamp and bribed justices? Trump's blatant illegalities? (Yes, Clarence Thomas has been bribed. That's what the RV and the trips are.)
  - deaux 2mo ago
    It's funny isn't it, what the word China triggers in people. They'll say that the US is going down the gutter, but then the very next sentence if China is mentioned, it's all "we have rule of law, we're a just, democratic, lawful country, unlike them". There's still far too much pride.
- deaux 2mo ago
  > we have rule of law here You're in the lead for funniest comment of the year award! How's Ghislaine Maxwell doing nowadays? Last I heard, living a very comfy VIP "prison" life. How are her mates? Right, running free. Now let's look at how people jailed for marijuana possession are doing. Everyone commits crimes, yet prosecution is hilariously selective. Everyone knows this. White collar crimes have a prosecution rate of <1%. Three felonies per day. There is absolutely no meaningful rule of law in the US. The absurd degree of selective prosecution is antithetical to this.
TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
CEOs do go to prison. They go to prison for misleading investors. They don't go to prison for environmental or social harm.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

rvz 2mo ago

Morals at Meta is an oxymoron. No person with 'morals' would join this company in 2026, unless with the next RSU cliff, the morality hormone immediately gets triggered when the bank account reaches 7 figures.

cmiles74 2mo ago
I don’t think any company has “morals”. For sure individuals might but a big advantage of the corporate structure is this diffusion of decision making and blame. Anthropomorphizing corporations isn’t helping us get a clearer picture of how they work or why they do what they do.
- jjj123 2mo ago
  The comment you’re replying to doesn’t anthropomorphize meta. “Morals at Meta” refers to the morals of the people that work at meta.
- afpx 2mo ago
  I'm sure everyone here understands that. But, there's a difference between a company that puts morality and ethics first vs. one that abandons it altogether or even encourages its opposition. I've worked for all three types, and after unwittingly working for scum, I recommend to always check who one's bosses are. In my understanding, I believe Zuckerburg has always operated in opposition to morality.
- deaux 2mo ago
  A company is made up out of people. Some are made up out of people with morals (yes, these exist). Those companies have morals. Some, like Meta, consist of people with no morals. Those companies have no morals.

jdejean 2mo ago

I hate when people say things like “Google did this” or “Meta did that.” There are actual named humans making these decisions. I want them found and held accountable. As of late these people have more power than ever. A single contributor at a company like Meta can make a change that impacts 0.025% of users (potentially hundreds of thousands of people) with zero notice or oversight, for their own individual gain. Not even to mention the systemic decisions this article describes.

vjulian 2mo ago
It’s lazy shorthand and also serves the obscurity that these individuals seek. Similarly, I get irritated when people frequently almost continuously attribute actions and results to ‘the President’ or such state heads.
anal_reactor 2mo ago
On one hand I totally see your point. It's just disgusting that someone on high position is fully aware that Facebook is about making people addicted to slop and serve them exploitative ads. On the other hand, it is an organizational failure, because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius.
- SaltyBackendGuy 2mo ago
  > because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius. I generally agree with you, however this makes an assumption about what "correctly" means. In this case, Meta could be working correctly and take it's orders directly from the Zuck commander's intent. In which case he would be a single person that would have a massive impact on the outcome. Therefore, should be appropriately accountable.
gruez 2mo ago
As someone else noted "Hook, hold, harvest and hide" is the framing from the plaintiffs. There likely wasn't some twirly mustached executive giving a presentation with those words on the slide deck. Instead the "decisions" made are far more banal. Shareholders wants growing revenues and users, executives tell their subordinates to implement those objectives, and it eventually hits the ICs where they're tweaking the color of the buttons to be maximally engaging. All these tweaks cumulatively makes the product addicting, but it's not like making meth or cigarettes where it's addicting from day 1.

blagie 2mo ago

I think what's missing here is elderly. Arguably, that's even more harmful.

azan_ 2mo ago
How would hurting elderly be more harmful than hurting children? I know that we are about to live in gerontocracy, but it’s still a wild statement to make.
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
  The elderly can vote, and are easier to scam. Harming kids creates harmed kids. Harming elders helps install terrible governments which harm everyone - including kids.
- Spooky23 2mo ago
  Look around. The raging dumpster fire consuming everything was started by armies of stupid old people manipulated on platforms like Facebook. The kids will be ok. The revolution won’t be started by boomer dads.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
    There's just no conceivable legal case there. Manipulating "stupid old people" and causing them to believe bad things is First Amendment protected activity.
    - Spooky23 2mo ago
      Sure there is, they are conspiring to break a variety of federal laws and continue to do so. I continue to get ads to join WhatsApp “investor groups” supposedly endorsed by Warren Buffet. I got one the other day that is run by Charlie Munger, who apparently rose from the dead to promote pump and dump schemes. It’s inconceivable that Facebook doesn’t spot that sort of thing. They took a similar eyes off approach to the illegal foreign entity election manipulation.
- 2mo ago

bentt 2mo ago

Let’s be clear: Meta is Zuckerberg.

Avicebron 2mo ago
Is the defense that everyone else was just following orders?
- bentt 2mo ago
  No, but unless the penalties are specifically targeted at Zuck, it's a miss.
the_gipsy 2mo ago
Meta is Facebook, forever.

m00dy 2mo ago

$META has everything it needs: the best distribution channels on the internet, a massive user base, GPU infrastructure, and an amazing, talented young team. I think $META will succeed.

jondwillis 2mo ago
Not that anyone is asking the question that you’re answering, but what’s amazing about their talented young team?
- m00dy 2mo ago
  [flagged]

api 2mo ago

In my opinion at least, any attempt to intentionally engineer addiction is morally wrong and should be at the very least civilly if not criminally actionable (if it can be proven). It's mind control. That phrase is often associated with woo woo conspiracy theory, but I don't think that's hyperbolic. If you are engineering addiction, what you're doing is attempting to run a black hat security attack against the human central nervous system to violate a person's will and autonomy. That is the definition of mind control. Properly framed I think it's a form of assault, especially when deployed with deliberate concealment of motive or against children, the elderly, the mentally ill, anyone not strong enough to resist it. The medium doesn't matter: addictive drugs, slot machines, web sites, social media apps, games. In that list I actually think explicitly labeled gambling stuff like Las Vegas is the least evil since at least in that case it's kind of up front and overt about what it is. I mean, it's a casino. WTF do you think a casino does? Hard drugs are kind of the same at this point. The thing that makes this case so awful is that people genuinely didn't know. Nobody including myself understood just how effective addiction engineering in a digital medium could be, and these companies were secretive about just how hard-core they were getting about studying and engineering this. They hired psychologists. There's stories of studies putting people in FMRI machines. It was a deliberate R&D program with the (secretive) stated goal of addiction. The next thing important to understand is that businesses are structurally incapable of self-policing something with a profit incentive. I didn't say unwilling. I said incapable. Businesses, like all "corporate" entities (non-profits, governments, etc.) operate with a certain set of constraints, social customs, and rules, and for a business one of those is that they must earn revenue and/or attract investment to survive. If addiction results in revenue, then any business that refuses to engineer addiction will fail. This is also why regulation of things like child labor, forced labor, safety requirements, etc. are required. If a safe workplace reduces profits than any company implementing a safe workplace loses to those who do not, etc. BTW this is something a lot of "online Marxist" type anti-capitalists don't understand when they vilify business leaders. A business that doesn't do the profitable thing stops being a business. It's outcompeted by those who do the thing. The only way to stop these things is to universally police them, which levels the playing field and allows businesses who don't do the bad thing to keep operating. It's an instant race to the bottom because a business cannot not race. So yeah... lots of words but I think this is an important issue and it's good that it's happening. I really hope an example gets made here, or that this at least raises awareness. I think it's critically important that we start dealing with digital addiction engineering as an issue before the AI funding bubble pops. When that happens all the AI companies will have to look for other sources of revenue. Addiction engineering online became a thing after the dot.com bubble popped for exactly that reason. We already have AI driven addictionware in the form of digital partner apps and such, but if the AI investment gold rush stalls and we have a mass push for revenue among AI companies then with no policing here this will get really really bad. A final moral to the story, I think, is that science f'ing works. Like I said, it shocked me to see how much addiction a web site or a mobile app could create. Learning that it was deliberately engineered makes it less surprising. Science works. When you apply the scientific method to an engineering goal, progress gets made, often dramatic progress. If the laws of physics and the nature of the system you're studying will allow it, you can get so far that the result can be shocking. Look at the hydrogen bomb. Look at aviation, space flight, AI, modern medicine. There's good and bad in there of course cause people do both good and bad things. Which is why saying "we are going to apply science to make our product more addictive" should be criminal conspiracy. "We are going to apply science to do X" where X is some form of assault should be criminal. "We didn't think it would work that well" is a poor defense because I think at this point we should have learned that science works.

tech_army 2mo ago

One man to blame only

tjpnz 2mo ago
Every single person who's ever worked for that piece of shit company shares some blame. The CEO is just the most visible.

erelong 2mo ago

Sounds like the lawyer's spinning what any successful business does with trying to acquire customers and serve their needs as though they were dealing drugs (granted, the line can be blurry between things that are simply enjoyable versus that which is more strongly addictive - some people get "addicted" to eating, but we can't really ban food, for example)

tikimcfee 2mo ago
Perhaps, then, it's a matter of degree like most things. And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind? I'm so tired of the whatabouts and the normalization and the pretending like this billion trillion whatever company has does anything but take advantage of its power to defend itself with slants and lies that any normal person or small group could never get away with. You can be a big company and not be pointedly or maliciously harmful to society. Facebook is not that. And no, I will never refer to it as "meta" to allow yet another opportunity for these people to sane wash their behavior. We know who they are. We know what they choose and chose to do. Let the tattered and broken laws of the world actually do something. "What normal businesses do"... sheesh.
- gruez 2mo ago
  >And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind? If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecution.
  - Avicebron 2mo ago
    Or industry-wide cancerous practices only now being addressed in some way.
  - georgemcbay 2mo ago
    > If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecution. Not necessarily. Even government resources are finite. If you are doing what everyone else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted (currently), it could be (and often is) because the people doing the prosecuting have limited resources, and the best practical course of action for them is to go after one highly visible target and get a ruling that will spook everyone else into self-correcting (or be the next largest target).

koolala 2mo ago

This HHHH strategy phrase is made up by these lawyers. It's not like the Microsoft version their mimicking where Microsoft actually said it. It makes the headline misleading like it alleges they said it internally as their strategy.

beering 2mo ago
My local grocery chain does the same HHHH strategy: 1. Get new customers 2. Retain them as customers 3. Track what the customers do 4. Keep internal operations confidential Honestly I dislike them but they are the closest store to me.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
yodon 2mo ago
>Microsoft actually said it Not quite https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400754
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- koolala 2mo ago
  "McGeady testified that Maritz told Intel that Microsoft’s strategy was to “embrace, extend, extinguish.” McGeady, 11/9/98pm, at 53:17 - 54:8; McGeady, 11/10/98 am, at 21:22 - 23:19; GX 564." Was this testimony false?

the_gipsy 2mo ago

> Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout. Those evil states!

phyzix5761 2mo ago

I hope people can see Meta is funding the other side in order to get Child Safety laws passed so they can have an out when children use their parent's device and Meta spies on them. Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one.

gruez 2mo ago
>Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one. I thought they were pushing for on-device age verification, which from a "mass surveillance" perspective is pretty bad? If you wanted mass surveillance, you'd want mandatory ID verification by sites and/or government SSO, both of which allows you to capture a persistent identifier. Of course, meta isn't doing all this lobbying out of altruism. Doing on-device verification means they're off the hook for it, and google/apple has the shoulder the burden instead.
- digitaltrees 2mo ago
  The only reason age verification isn’t mandatory is because it isn’t scalable. A few states are moving forward with digital drivers licenses. When there are digital drivers licenses, passports and social security cards you’ll see a renewal to push verification.
dsabanin 2mo ago
I seriously doubt that the FaceMash guy was planning mass surveillance from day one. The people who propped him up might have, though.
- phyzix5761 2mo ago
  FaceMash is a very primitive example of mass surveillance and data gathering: use people's pictures without their consent, collect the social rankings in a database somewhere.
- digitaltrees 2mo ago
  Wrong. He literally made fun of users for giving information that he could use to spy on them and share that ability with friends. It was a childish form of spying but the intent was there and the monetization tactic came later.

conartist6 2mo ago

Side note: what the everliving fuxxorz is up with their cookie banner. It seems wildly illegal. Enough that I'm not gonna read their shit ever again if they stick with THAT. The only two options are "accept all" and "reject all and subscribe".

conartist6 2mo ago
Seriously why use privacy as a form of anticonsumer leverage? This was supposed to be a form of consumer empowerment, not a literal extortion mechanism. How am I supposed to take their stance seriously? They rag on people who do shit like this

Aurornis 2mo ago

In the opening sentence: > according to a lawyer who is prosecuting the world’s largest social media company. The headline makes it sound like something internal at Meta got revealed. The catchy four-H phrase is the clever hook the lawyer came up with to try to hold the jury’s mind through the case. If you’re unfamiliar with how these trials work, the lawyers are trying to create a compelling narrative to support their case and catchy phrases that sound like marketing lingo are often used. This wasn’t some internal Meta doc that got revealed.

xeonmc 2mo ago
If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.
DiabloD3 2mo ago
Its the same way "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was coined. "Embrace and extend", without extinguish/exterminate, was used in Microsoft corp docs that were handed to the DOJ during the famous antitrust case, but it was the DOJ that turned it into EEE after realizing what "embrace and extend" actually meant in the broader context of Microsoft's machinations. The DOJ's clever hook won them the case.
- hn_throwaway_99 2mo ago
  > The DOJ's clever hook won them the case. Or, rather, the fact that Microsoft was blatantly illegally abusing their monopoly position to kill competitors.
  - digitaltrees 2mo ago
    Blatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric. So catch phrases are essential elements to conveying the truth about the behavior
    - ambicapter 2mo ago
      [citation needed]

tclancy 2mo ago

INT META BOARDROOM - DAY Expensive Image Consultant: "It's vital we present a friendly, innocuous brand throughout what promises to be a long--" Zuck: "We still got that scary fucker who looks like he just defends mobsters on retainer?" Lackey: "We do, boss." Zuck: "Think we're done here." exeunt by taking off glasses

hncbw02z5a 2mo ago

This is oddly reassuring

mmooss 2mo ago

> The jury’s role is advisory, which means they will give recommendations to the presiding judge, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will make the final decision on the verdict and damages. What kind of trial is that, and what provision is there for it in the law? Who gets to choose that? The trial is in US federal court in Oakland [0]. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/18/meta-child-safety-addiction-lawsuit-states https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/18/meta-chil...