Skip to main content


‘The era of invincibility is over’: the week big tech was brought to heel


in reply to Powderhorn

Doesn't this just sound like what they want from all this anyhow? A reason to implement 'age verification'
in reply to Tyrq

I don't think that's what the parents or kids want, but I do think that'll be what happens, yes.
in reply to t3rmit3

I guess I should clarify I'm referring to the corporate overlord illuminati 'they', not the victims of the aforementioned conspitators 'they'
in reply to Tyrq

Not sure this is what social media wants. They want to maximize shareholder value. The teen segment is crazy valuable since a lot of them are able to convince parents to buy them all kinds of shit. Without this segment, advertisers will turn to other platforms and thus remove lots of ad money from these platforms
in reply to Powderhorn

I would be hopeful if this wasn't up to the US justice system
in reply to floquant

"US Justice" system exists like the tooth fairy exists. We have a legal system, not a justice system, and it's working exactly as intended.
in reply to Powderhorn

Mark Zuckerberg should’ve started a pedophile ring instead. He would’ve gotten off easier.
in reply to favoredponcho

I think we're still waiting to learn whether he did, or not, though.
in reply to Powderhorn

Don’t let this become a “protect the kids” thing. The intentionally addictive and manipulative design of these platforms has been just as harmful to people across a wide spectrum of ages. The solution is not to ban kids from using these platforms, the solution is to hold these platforms accountable for their behavior and put regulations in to ban intentionally manipulative design. Adults are just as much victims of having their brains cooked by this shit, and it’s had larger scale societal consequences that we need to take seriously.
in reply to megopie

Agreed, unfortunately I think this will only fuel further age and ID verification enforcements. And of course change nothing in the design of the platforms.
in reply to Mothra

The article highlights how the UK is moving to ban infinite scrolling access autoplay videos. So, thankfully, those changes are coming in at least some jurisdictions.

That said, the article also helpfully points out that the Republican administration has stuffed their science & tech advisory panel with Meta and Google execs, so I'm doubtful that the US will regulate anything reasonable.

I'd like a ban in effect for children below 16, but enforcement should be a misdemeanor on the parent. It should be a social worker coming to discuss with the parents the known harms of the platforms and let them get away with a warning, but that there will be fines if this damaging behaviour continues with an automatic 1-year (or whatever) follow-up. Basically, treat it the way it's treated if parents are giving cigarettes to their children.

in reply to Powderhorn

ordered to pay $375m by a New Mexico court.

Meta total assets: US$366 billion (2025)... with a fucking B


I'm sorry, which big tech company is brought to who's heel?

This entry was edited (3 days ago)
in reply to P03 Locke

As I understand it there are dozens of similar cases already started. The precedent is what's meaningful
in reply to P03 Locke

That is $375M to a single person. This wasn’t a class action. This was a precedent-setting case that opens the floodgates for future lawsuits. Until now, actually getting courts to agree with plaintiffs has been impossible. But since courts use precedent, this allows future plaintiffs to refer to it when filing their own lawsuits.
in reply to mic_check_one_two

nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-me…

Not a lawyer, but doesn't this mean it was the state the sued and won, and not a private citizen..?

in reply to mic_check_one_two

That is $375M to a single person.


Wrong, this was state-initiated consumer protection enforcement action by the state of New Mexico. How those funds get distributed is up to the state government.

in reply to Powderhorn

I'll believe they were "brought to heel" if I see change.

Doubt.

in reply to Powderhorn

Wtf is up with the Guardian lately and these headlines? Not as bad as the "slams" or "politician did this one thing slop" but getting there. I digress...

They are invincible. That fine is a pittance. Thats a get out of jail free card.

This entry was edited (1 day ago)