4 ms·

Did Meta's Big Settlement Actually Help It?

58 points by thm 1mo ago

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
josefritzishere 1mo ago
[flagged]
- NDlurker 1mo ago
  That's a different issue than age verification.
  - alex1138 1mo ago
    Seriously? How is the comment you're replying to off-topic
    - Insanity 1mo ago
      They didn't claim it's off-topic, but they're saying it's not related to age verification.. which it isn't.
      - NDlurker 1mo ago
        Is the article not about age verification? I didn't RTFA because of the paywall
        Insanity 1mo ago
        Yeah it is, which is why I'm backing you up :P (Or well, generally about "underage" use of social media)
JohnnyLarue 1mo ago
It's laundering even more support for the age certification system they already wanted. So, yes.
justinmk 1mo ago
"Journalist discovers regulatory capture"
yoyohello13 1mo ago
Paying pocket change over the course of 10 years certainly didn't hurt Meta. So what was the point really? To further embolden companies to do whatever they want and at worst they get a slap on the wrist? The US legal system is a joke.
- kotaKat 1mo ago
  The point was for ignorant Americans (whom I believe Mark once called "dumb fucks") to just see "states win big Billions number from Facebook" and shut up and "trust it" at that point once they saw a headline they thought meant they won.
fritolayofcouns 1mo ago
I think our justice system is arguably the bad guy here. Parents need to tell their kids to put the phone down. Instead they abnegate this duty, and lawyers treat Facebook like a money piñata. Doritos make people fat, so why shouldn't we sue Frito Lay for billions? Cars allow you to drive fast and crash, let's sue carmakers. And so on... Our justice system is just one big scam. It finds a big, rich corporation, greedy plaintiffs looking for a lottery ticket, and a "jury of peers" in friendly jurisdiction. Facebook sucks but if your child is addicted to their phone take the phone away. The litigation lottery our legal system has devolved into is a total joke. This is a nightmare for second and third order effects.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- alex1138 1mo ago
  There's something to your point of overzealous litigation and making too many rules but on the other hand Facebook's ad delivery network is allowing CSAM onto it meaning they don't vet it at all That would be one thing except for Facebook's tendency to ban you, for any reason, while the horrific thing (like that, for example) you report is never taken down ever
  - aprilthird2021 1mo ago
    No scanning / safety system will be 100% you have no idea the amount and type of stuff they have to block every day
  - senordevnyc 1mo ago
    I run ads on Meta's platform, and they refuse to allow all kinds of things, including things a lot more mundane than CSAM. They also take down a metric fuckload of posts, ads, etc. So while I don't doubt that things get through, it's entirely inaccurate to say that they don't vet things or that content isn't taken down.
  - NDlurker 1mo ago
    I used to run a business selling CBD products when that was still controversial. Meta took down all my ads. Either their moderation got worse or people figured out how to sneak in illegal content. Maybe a bit of both. I regularly see ads now for 5MAPB, 7-OH, fake magic mushrooms, and other stuff like that
ChrisArchitect 1mo ago
Related: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819
lenerdenator 1mo ago
Of course it did. It let them off the hook for a small fraction of the cost they would have incurred should the jury have come back with a verdict assigning liability to Meta, and Zuckerberg didn't have to take the stand. In the words of Bender Bending Rodriguez, "Wa-hoo, the system fails again!"
bicepjai 1mo ago
If harming kids does not move the justice system to set precedence, I don’t understand what else will. Meta settled without admitting wrongdoing, so basically the next company facing the same claims has nothing binding it other than I have spare 1.7 billion/year for the next 10 years. The payment is $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit. The states had estimated a realistic verdict at around $200 billion. They took 8% of that. Settling is sometimes the right call. I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal.
- mrandish 1mo ago
  > $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit. Just 2.6% of profit or less than 0.8% of revenue. Seems like FB got the deal of the century since any judgement would have real restrictions and enforcement with teeth. Since this is just a consent decree, FB can now start the 'malicious compliance' game where they incrementally erode, reinterpret and route around any deal terms they don't like. The DA's position is now substantially weaker because they'll have to go back to court to stop FB's inevitable backsliding. > I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal. Ultimately, this is about politics and money. By taking a lousy deal the DAs got their headlines and payoff now and can claim a 'victory' before the next election cycle. The alternative is even after the DAs won this ruling, FB would certainly drag out the inevitable appeals because ~$200B tanks the stock, while 0.8% of rev is just a cost of business. By the time all appeals were done none of these DAs would even be in office. Neither the headlines nor cash would do them any good.

58 points by thm 1mo ago

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

josefritzishere 1mo ago

[flagged]

NDlurker 1mo ago
That's a different issue than age verification.
- alex1138 1mo ago
  Seriously? How is the comment you're replying to off-topic
  - Insanity 1mo ago
    They didn't claim it's off-topic, but they're saying it's not related to age verification.. which it isn't.
    - NDlurker 1mo ago
      Is the article not about age verification? I didn't RTFA because of the paywall
      - Insanity 1mo ago
        Yeah it is, which is why I'm backing you up :P (Or well, generally about "underage" use of social media)

JohnnyLarue 1mo ago

It's laundering even more support for the age certification system they already wanted. So, yes.

justinmk 1mo ago

"Journalist discovers regulatory capture"

yoyohello13 1mo ago

Paying pocket change over the course of 10 years certainly didn't hurt Meta. So what was the point really? To further embolden companies to do whatever they want and at worst they get a slap on the wrist? The US legal system is a joke.

kotaKat 1mo ago
The point was for ignorant Americans (whom I believe Mark once called "dumb fucks") to just see "states win big Billions number from Facebook" and shut up and "trust it" at that point once they saw a headline they thought meant they won.

fritolayofcouns 1mo ago

I think our justice system is arguably the bad guy here. Parents need to tell their kids to put the phone down. Instead they abnegate this duty, and lawyers treat Facebook like a money piñata. Doritos make people fat, so why shouldn't we sue Frito Lay for billions? Cars allow you to drive fast and crash, let's sue carmakers. And so on... Our justice system is just one big scam. It finds a big, rich corporation, greedy plaintiffs looking for a lottery ticket, and a "jury of peers" in friendly jurisdiction. Facebook sucks but if your child is addicted to their phone take the phone away. The litigation lottery our legal system has devolved into is a total joke. This is a nightmare for second and third order effects.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
alex1138 1mo ago
There's something to your point of overzealous litigation and making too many rules but on the other hand Facebook's ad delivery network is allowing CSAM onto it meaning they don't vet it at all That would be one thing except for Facebook's tendency to ban you, for any reason, while the horrific thing (like that, for example) you report is never taken down ever
- aprilthird2021 1mo ago
  No scanning / safety system will be 100% you have no idea the amount and type of stuff they have to block every day
- senordevnyc 1mo ago
  I run ads on Meta's platform, and they refuse to allow all kinds of things, including things a lot more mundane than CSAM. They also take down a metric fuckload of posts, ads, etc. So while I don't doubt that things get through, it's entirely inaccurate to say that they don't vet things or that content isn't taken down.
- NDlurker 1mo ago
  I used to run a business selling CBD products when that was still controversial. Meta took down all my ads. Either their moderation got worse or people figured out how to sneak in illegal content. Maybe a bit of both. I regularly see ads now for 5MAPB, 7-OH, fake magic mushrooms, and other stuff like that

ChrisArchitect 1mo ago

Related: Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819

lenerdenator 1mo ago

Of course it did. It let them off the hook for a small fraction of the cost they would have incurred should the jury have come back with a verdict assigning liability to Meta, and Zuckerberg didn't have to take the stand. In the words of Bender Bending Rodriguez, "Wa-hoo, the system fails again!"

bicepjai 1mo ago

If harming kids does not move the justice system to set precedence, I don’t understand what else will. Meta settled without admitting wrongdoing, so basically the next company facing the same claims has nothing binding it other than I have spare 1.7 billion/year for the next 10 years. The payment is $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit. The states had estimated a realistic verdict at around $200 billion. They took 8% of that. Settling is sometimes the right call. I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal.

mrandish 1mo ago
> $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit. Just 2.6% of profit or less than 0.8% of revenue. Seems like FB got the deal of the century since any judgement would have real restrictions and enforcement with teeth. Since this is just a consent decree, FB can now start the 'malicious compliance' game where they incrementally erode, reinterpret and route around any deal terms they don't like. The DA's position is now substantially weaker because they'll have to go back to court to stop FB's inevitable backsliding. > I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal. Ultimately, this is about politics and money. By taking a lousy deal the DAs got their headlines and payoff now and can claim a 'victory' before the next election cycle. The alternative is even after the DAs won this ruling, FB would certainly drag out the inevitable appeals because ~$200B tanks the stock, while 0.8% of rev is just a cost of business. By the time all appeals were done none of these DAs would even be in office. Neither the headlines nor cash would do them any good.