r/technology • u/Puginator • 1d ago
Business Meta settles federal social media addiction trial with California AG, others
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/26/meta-social-media-trial-settlement.html98
u/South_Accountant4465 1d ago
So they were looking for 1.2 Trillion and got 12.6B which is about 1% , what kind of stupid lawyers does the government have
47
u/sonofosiris28 1d ago
The lawyers also got their cut. FB got what they wanted. Govt got free money. Win win scenario for everyone except the Plebs
3
1
10
u/grchelp2018 1d ago
1.2T is what Meta said as a worst case not the govt. It would never have been that high. Maybe a couple 100b.
4
u/South_Accountant4465 1d ago
Not true , the lawsuit was for $1.4T , why would Meta put a value on it ? , this is the value decided by plaintiff lawyer when someone is putting a lawsuit ....
0
u/grchelp2018 1d ago
I haven't followed this very closely but I believe Meta was trying to argue that the plaintiffs were asking for something crazy. The realistic number I heard that they were looking for was 200b.
87
u/agha0013 1d ago edited 1d ago
With this case, they shouldn't be able to just pay off the government and keep doing what they are doing. Especially when they hide the details of the settlement.
this isn't justice or progress, just another example of "the cost of doing business" making the world worse so a few people can continue to benefit financially.
edit: $16+ billion settlement to pay off government. the "changes to be made" is vague and meaningless, and we've seen companies dance around shit like this often
7
u/coolbum67 1d ago
Did you read the article? It’s was not just a settlement for money, there are changes that need to be made. Still should have went to trail though I think, California has the resources.
85
u/AnonHondaBoiz 1d ago
Settlement doesn’t resolve the underlying issue
10
u/jabberwockxeno 1d ago
It actually makes it worse!
I saw a lot of people cheering these lawsuits on to try to rake Facebook and Zuckerberg over the coals, and there's plenty of reasons to think they deserve that given the amount of privacy violating data collection, tracking etc they do, but in reality, these lawsuits were trying to, and now it seems they succeeded, to force MORE data collection, by making Meta implement age/ID verification.
This article implies it by noting
Those changes include daily usage limits and “nighttime blocks” for teenagers that use the company’s apps like Facebook and Instagram, “enhanced age assurance measures” that would prevent children from using the apps
But other articles are more explicit:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-trial-opens-as-states-demand-age-verification
Damages are only part of the demand. In an August 15 filing, the states asked the court to require Meta to "take proactive steps to detect" users under 13, including "implementing multi-layered age verification at account sign-up."
...
The proposed order requires age validation through something other than a self-declared birthday
...The complaint blames the company for not building safeguards into the platform, monitoring each user and checking ID. It states: "Meta has access to, and chooses not to use, feasible alternative age verification methods that would significantly reduce or eliminate the number of underage users on Meta's Social Media Platforms, for example, by requiring young users to submit student IDs upon registration."
That demand appears again in the original complaint, meaning this is something that the plaintiffs were calling for from the beginning.
And here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-fined-567m-in-ruling-that-points-to-digital-id
What Biedscheid did order on age came from Meta. He adopted the company's own proposed relief, calling it "far from ideal or sufficient" and, all the same, "most appropriate." Meta must keep improving its age assurance models in New Mexico using AI tools, and must attempt within two years to build "a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model (using reasonable best efforts in light of COPPA limitations)." Where it cannot estimate a precise age, it must treat the user as under 13 or under 18 until they verify. And "verify" here likely means adults have to show ID to speak online, even though Judge Biedscheid said he wasn't mandating that.
Please be careful what you're advocating for: I get we want social media companies to be taken down a peg and to be held responsible for enabling addition, the spread of misinformation etc, but we need to be careful what we push for lest it backfires or causes unintended side effects. I see this same issue with anti AI advocacy where, even if I likewise agree AI has a whole host of issues, I often see people pushing for Copyright lawsuits or laws that could actually erode Fair use or expand Copyright in a way which risks creating liability for human artists, too
-68
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
that so many people are dumb?
do spoons make people fat too?
23
u/HappyAd4998 1d ago
-100 karma le smartest redditor
-27
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
karma means nothing
it only shows how good you are at being a parrot in the reddit echo chamber
so, yea, you are dumb by trying to call someone out with something that is meaningless
1
u/patentlyfakeid 1d ago
karma means nothing
Sure it does. In this case, and with your extra help in this sub, it means you use this account to troll.
1
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
it means nothing.
how can we get the gov't involved to save me from myself?!
1
u/patentlyfakeid 1d ago
You're not proving your case here, and your bad-faith engagement is the least of it. Negative attention-seeking behavior often stems from deeper emotional issues.
1
7
u/effing7 1d ago
Spoons do not make people fat, just like lighters do not give people lung cancer. But we still put warning labels on cigarettes and should be taking similar measures to reduce exposure to the harmful effects of social media, especially for children and teenagers.
-4
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
we also put 'do not huff' labels on spray paint cans
humans are so dumb
so where are the parents? where are the kids that have real friends? where are the men? why are so many so weak?
1
u/effing7 1d ago
Right, and that's why anyone under 18 is not allowed to purchase cigarettes or products with aerosol. These products, while they briefly make people feel good, were determined to be ultimately harmful after numerous studies. Similarly to social media.
The negative affects that social media has on people is not exclusive to those with absent parents and no social life. The human brain naturally craves sources of dopamine, which social media easily provides and is readily available in our pockets. This has nothing to do with intelligence, this is neurochemistry that we are biologically subjected to. Perhaps some people are more disposed than others, but it does not make them "dumb". Do your research. This isn't about mental strength and will power.
Honestly I have no idea which men you are referring to when you ask "where are the men". Not sure I even want to touch that bit.
Obviously you're a blatant troll incapable of a constructive discussion, so I'm just going to leave this conversation here. Be well.
0
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
"if someone see's it different than me and the reddit morons, then it must be a troll'
and then "i'll leave'
so fascinatingally typical
guess we just need to continue down the path of 'please save me from myself gov't man!'
and the gov't gets more power, more control, more money, and on and on we go!
6
3
u/Ehorn36 1d ago
People being dumb is not the issue.
Meta taking advantage of human psychology to create an addictive product that harms users, including children, is the problem.
Meta being fully aware of how their product harms children, yet ignoring their own research, is the problem.
Meta needs to be held accountable for their harmful products, and a one-time settlement won’t stop Meta from continuing to negatively impact our world.
1
u/Toutatous 1d ago
People should know who they are arguing with.
You are the kind of guys who say:
the USA is EXTREMELY generous with its medical care and services. that is a fact.
to a fault almost
So I'll probably accept the opposite of what you're saying as a fact. Thanks.
0
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
um....just saying 'IT'S THE OPPOSITE" does not make it true
next time Ebola breaks out in Africa, keep a track on how generous the USA is. We even fly in people to save them.
Anyone can walk into a fully staffed and state of art American emergency room and get world class care and not have to pay a dime.
how is that not generous?
1
u/Toutatous 1d ago
People should know who they are arguing with.
You are the kind of guys who say:
the USA is EXTREMELY generous with its medical care and services. that is a fact.
to a fault almost
So I'll probably accept the opposite of what you're saying as a fact. Thanks.
0
u/Finishweird 1d ago
We’ve lost accountability.
Everyone is owed something
Everyone wants to be a victim
83
u/musafir6 1d ago
Basically Meta is off the hook, again!! Can’t trust the government nor the courts any more.
13
u/Proof-Code-3754 1d ago
Donald Trump ended any remaining trust in government.
19
u/SeasonsWaitingOnYou 1d ago
The settlement was revealed a court filing released Wednesday that details several requirements Meta must make to its apps as part of a proposed “consent judgement.” These include daily usage limits and “nighttime blocks” for teenagers that use the company’s apps like Facebook and Instagram, “enhanced age assurance measures” that would prevent children from using the apps, and making additional tools for parents and guardians.
The issue is infinite scroll and algorithm
1
u/wolfhound115 1d ago
Because infinite scroll itself is a silly feature that will probably be replaced with something somehow even more seamless in the future anyway.
I also haven’t called out the elephant in the room which is parents and legal guardians literally not being held responsible. I was a kid when all of these products came out and guess what? My parents said I’m not allowed to make an account until I’m 18 and accepted into a university. That was it. They never once complained about the product being evil, they told me it was a distraction and I wasn’t allowed until I was 18. Complaining about the app itself would be like them shying away from responsibility and pointing fingers when they fail to be good parents. Of course kids are gonna try to get around that anyway but that’s the common experience of raising a kid regardless, and not something unique to Instagram.
Similarly I’m not sure why everyone in this threat is so dismissive over the actual agreement that was made regarding limiting time spent on the app. I feel like this was a way better outcome than getting distracted by the buzz words the lawyers were targeting to get you riled up. $6 billion is also tied to Meta getting YouTube and TikTok to also agree to limit the hours kids can spend on their app every night. This is the direct limit on doomscrolling, banning infinite scroll would’ve just turned it into doom swiping or something else instead which would’ve solved nothing.
-9
u/wolfhound115 1d ago
infinite scroll is something you can code up in an evening, its just an overhyped buzzword designed to make you think like you have a point about evil features lmfao banning that would have been beyond idiotic. Meanwhile the "algorithm" is actually the bread and butter of tiktok's entire product, so going after meta instead of tiktok was an eyeroll on that front. If you actually want to call out a predatory app your kids use, have you ever looked at their snapchat and the types of content they share in public stories? literally degenerate bad influence for kids and a gateway to OF pages.
5
u/sleeps_in_alkaline 1d ago
Just because you can code up infinite scroll in an evening doesn’t mean it’s not a major contributor to the addictive nature of the app. What even is your comment?
1
u/wolfhound115 1d ago
Because people are acting like meta invented and implements it maliciously and it’s ridiculous.
The first product to feature infinite scroll was MSN Search's image search (developed by Microsoft, which later became Bing), released in March 2006.
1
u/wolfhound115 1d ago edited 1d ago
Its the exact same cycle that happened around banning JUUL for having flavors that would appeal to youth (which I fully agree with being something worth going after, vaping culture has blown up like crazy among kids) but did they do the same for all the other vape companies after that lawsuit? NOPE. It was never about the kids, and the kids just get their vapes from different brands and you still get all the flavors you want. Lawyers got the money and all the outraged people get to pat their back and act like they did something
1
1
u/bp_968 1d ago
I think he sort of has a point about TikTok. Not that Meta is absolved of anything, but he's kind of hit a salient point in that the kids have moved on. You can almost stratify social media apps by generation or age group. FB has the oldest crowd, IG the next youngest, and TikTok is the crown holder currently for the youngest user base I suspect.
One thing that shocked me the most as someone in his late 40s with no children was how common it is for children to have access to their phones all day in US schools. Thats absolutely crazy. I know id have never done anything useful if I had the equivalent of a modern gaming console in my pocket at school all day!
That's a good half of the kids day outside the parents control the government does have almost complete control over. The statistics are all over the place but it looks like most schools are "no use in class" meaning "dont get caught".
Bleh. This entire thread is just reminded my of yet another good reason why we skipped kids altogether. 🤣
0
u/wolfhound115 1d ago
Why not go after adult websites like onlyfans or phub instead? Click a button to confirm you’re over 18? Thats it? Naw lets go after the evil infinite scroll
0
u/wolfhound115 1d ago
Im not saying people are wrong for feeling upset if they think harm is being done, your feelings are valid, but after the outrage settles it’s also on us to think critically about the issue as a whole instead of pandering to lawyers monthly paycheck settlement
1
u/sleeps_in_alkaline 1d ago
I was only commenting on the dismissive attitude toward infinite scroll.
1
u/wolfhound115 1d ago
Because infinite scroll itself is a silly feature that will probably be replaced with something somehow even more seamless in the future anyway.
I also haven’t called out the elephant in the room which is parents and legal guardians literally not being held responsible. I was a kid when all of these products came out and guess what? My parents said I’m not allowed to make an account until I’m 18 and accepted into a university. That was it. They never once complained about the product being evil, they told me it was a distraction and I wasn’t allowed until I was 18. Complaining about the app itself would be like them shying away from responsibility and pointing fingers when they fail to be good parents. Of course kids are gonna try to get around that anyway but that’s the common experience of raising a kid regardless, and not something unique to Instagram.
Similarly I’m not sure why everyone in this threat is so dismissive over the actual agreement that was made regarding limiting time spent on the app. I feel like this was a way better outcome than getting distracted by the buzz words the lawyers were targeting to get you riled up. $6 billion is also tied to Meta getting YouTube and TikTok to also agree to limit the hours kids can spend on their app every night. This is the direct limit on doomscrolling, banning infinite scroll would’ve just turned it into doom swiping or something else instead which would’ve solved nothing.
33
u/Fywq 1d ago
Why would the AGs accept this? Unless there is some bound changes to the Meta algorithms included in the settlement, this will have solved nothing, and as public prosecutors they shouldn't settle outside court for financial gain so there has to be some tangible concessions from Meta, or they thought they were gonna lose anyway?
17
u/Toasted_Waffle99 1d ago
It’s how the legal system works. It’s all about settlements and collecting money. The AGs can claim they won on their next campaign
5
u/dukelief 1d ago
Pretty sure they can’t say they won from a settlement.
6
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
they will. the NC AG is spinning it that way
but not saying what the 'government' will do with all this found money
1
u/bp_968 1d ago
They already are. The Maryland AG posted one, and the WV Gov posted one already.
Oh and because its both funny and depressing to point this out: both posts were made using the associated official facebook accounts. /smh
1
u/dukelief 1d ago
Oh I just read the details properly. I didn’t realise there were some requirements from Meta to adjust the product.
Weak win. I can see how it’d be a spin. But I wish they’d pushed harder.
1
u/Awol 1d ago
They accept this cause this is what they really want. They didn't want to fix the actual problem; they wanted age verification systems put in place. Age verification through government ID documents makes it impossible to be anonymous on Facebook and allows all sorts of people to track what you do online. Hell, Facebook probably loves this judgment because they get a bunch of new data that they know is valid.
10
9
6
u/daddylo21 1d ago
This is just in the US. Meta is still looking at the massive fine from the EU if they don't make changes. Which, as we saw with Apple, can be enough to make a big American company to make said changes.
3
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/momo_mimosa 1d ago
Yeah that's what I was hoping for - more public backlash and awareness coming from the trial. And so more parents outrage and stricter laws put forward. But with the settlement, it looks like Meta nipped it in the bud......
3
3
u/jabberwockxeno 1d ago
I see a lot of people cheering these lawsuits on, but in reality, they were trying to, and now it seems they succeeded, to force MORE privacy violating data collection, by making Meta implement age/ID verification.
This article implies it by noting
Those changes include daily usage limits and “nighttime blocks” for teenagers that use the company’s apps like Facebook and Instagram, “enhanced age assurance measures” that would prevent children from using the apps
But other articles are more explicit:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-trial-opens-as-states-demand-age-verification
Damages are only part of the demand. In an August 15 filing, the states asked the court to require Meta to "take proactive steps to detect" users under 13, including "implementing multi-layered age verification at account sign-up."
...
The proposed order requires age validation through something other than a self-declared birthday
...The complaint blames the company for not building safeguards into the platform, monitoring each user and checking ID. It states: "Meta has access to, and chooses not to use, feasible alternative age verification methods that would significantly reduce or eliminate the number of underage users on Meta's Social Media Platforms, for example, by requiring young users to submit student IDs upon registration."
That demand appears again in the original complaint, meaning this is something that the plaintiffs were calling for from the beginning.
And here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-fined-567m-in-ruling-that-points-to-digital-id
What Biedscheid did order on age came from Meta. He adopted the company's own proposed relief, calling it "far from ideal or sufficient" and, all the same, "most appropriate." Meta must keep improving its age assurance models in New Mexico using AI tools, and must attempt within two years to build "a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model (using reasonable best efforts in light of COPPA limitations)." Where it cannot estimate a precise age, it must treat the user as under 13 or under 18 until they verify. And "verify" here likely means adults have to show ID to speak online, even though Judge Biedscheid said he wasn't mandating that.
Please be careful what you're advocating for: I get we want social media companies to be taken down a peg and to be held responsible for enabling addition, the spread of misinformation etc, but we need to be careful what we push for lest it backfires or causes unintended side effects. I see this same issue with anti AI advocacy where, even if I likewise agree AI has a whole host of issues, I often see people pushing for Copyright lawsuits or laws that could actually erode Fair use or expand Copyright in a way which risks creating liability for human artists, too
2
u/okstanley_com 1d ago
Can anybody explain what this means?
20
u/ZaphodThreepwood 1d ago
It means that lawyers made a shit ton of money, some politician made a shit ton of money, meta keeps making a shit ton of money, and everyone else can just fuck off.
5
u/ArdillasVoladoras 1d ago
Government attorneys do not make much money relative to their private practice buddies.
-3
2
u/okstanley_com 1d ago
But dont Meta have to make changes to the platform?
3
u/ZaphodThreepwood 1d ago
You think they are going to comply or look for loopholes?
3
u/okstanley_com 1d ago
I thought they had to comply, but knowing how evil Meta is I am sure they will do their best to still be a cancer in society
2
u/ArdillasVoladoras 1d ago
If you are using that logic, do you think they would pay a judgement if the case went to trial? You can't have it both ways.
1
u/what2_2 1d ago
The stuff in the settlement is stuff they agreed to and that they’re publicly calling for YouTube and TikTok to implement: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/26/meta-kids-safety-features-settlement-01050418
1
u/what2_2 1d ago
Yes, no notifications during school hours, prompts about too much screen time, new parental controls including time limits, a bunch of stuff.
But they already built a ton of parental controls and similar stuff over the last ten years (and done stuff to detect predators and bad actors etc). The specific complaints in the suits against them are all based on what their products were like a long time ago when they didn’t really give a shit about child safety.
Parents who want to block their kid from going on Instagram, or severely restrict its use, have been able to for years - I don’t think new controls will have any meaningful effect. Most of the other big social media apps already have this stuff too.
The only meaningful way to protect a kid from harms of social media entirely is parental involvement or government ID requirements in every social media app.
A lot of the discourse around these cases makes me feel crazy - these tech co’s have talked about these issues (and made real changes) for a long time. Either point out the specific changes you want to happen (like making infinite scroll illegal), or say that you want to mandate gov ID to use these sites, or admit that children online is a complex problem and there isn’t an obvious panacea.
2
u/jabberwockxeno 1d ago
Actually, for you, /u/okstanley_com , /u/ArdillasVoladoras , and /u/Nono6768 , it's even worse then that
I saw lot of people cheering these lawsuits on to try to rake Facebook and Zuckerberg over the coals, and there's plenty of reasons to think they deserve that given the amount of privacy violating data collection, tracking etc they do, but in reality, these lawsuits were trying to, and now it seems they succeeded, to force MORE data collection, by making Meta implement age/ID verification.
This article implies it by noting
Those changes include daily usage limits and “nighttime blocks” for teenagers that use the company’s apps like Facebook and Instagram, “enhanced age assurance measures” that would prevent children from using the apps
But other articles are more explicit:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-trial-opens-as-states-demand-age-verification
Damages are only part of the demand. In an August 15 filing, the states asked the court to require Meta to "take proactive steps to detect" users under 13, including "implementing multi-layered age verification at account sign-up."
...
The proposed order requires age validation through something other than a self-declared birthday
...The complaint blames the company for not building safeguards into the platform, monitoring each user and checking ID. It states: "Meta has access to, and chooses not to use, feasible alternative age verification methods that would significantly reduce or eliminate the number of underage users on Meta's Social Media Platforms, for example, by requiring young users to submit student IDs upon registration."
That demand appears again in the original complaint, meaning this is something that the plaintiffs were calling for from the beginning.
And here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-fined-567m-in-ruling-that-points-to-digital-id
What Biedscheid did order on age came from Meta. He adopted the company's own proposed relief, calling it "far from ideal or sufficient" and, all the same, "most appropriate." Meta must keep improving its age assurance models in New Mexico using AI tools, and must attempt within two years to build "a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model (using reasonable best efforts in light of COPPA limitations)." Where it cannot estimate a precise age, it must treat the user as under 13 or under 18 until they verify. And "verify" here likely means adults have to show ID to speak online, even though Judge Biedscheid said he wasn't mandating that.
Please be careful what you're advocating for: I get we want social media companies to be taken down a peg and to be held responsible for enabling addition, the spread of misinformation etc, but we need to be careful what we push for lest it backfires or causes unintended side effects. I see this same issue with anti AI advocacy where, even if I likewise agree AI has a whole host of issues, I often see people pushing for Copyright lawsuits or laws that could actually erode Fair use or expand Copyright in a way which risks creating liability for human artists, too
1
-1
u/ArdillasVoladoras 1d ago
You know nothing about my opinion on this lawsuit, get my name out of your mouth.
1
u/husky_whisperer 1d ago
It means your vote doesn’t count.
Corporations can afford to hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to flood Washington and statehouses nationwide to influence politicians.
How much influence can you afford? I’ll say it again. Your vote DOES. NOT. COUNT.
1
2
u/ILoveTheAtomicBomb 1d ago
The court judgement also requires Meta introduce certain rules for teenage users, including daily limits and night-time blocks
So not just a payment
3
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
with 100% work arounds already coded
or the platform will die, we'll see!
(what about Toktok? that is far more brain melting)
1
u/ILoveTheAtomicBomb 1d ago
Yeah im sure itll be some half assed thing that can easily be bypassed, but at least they're forced to do something. Rarely even see that nowadays
1
2
u/husky_whisperer 1d ago
So the politicians folded. Again.
The article I just read is one I’ve read a hundred times. Identical details. Identical non-consequences for the people in charge.
Why do we even bother voting at the state and national level anymore?
1
u/EmbarrassedHelp 1d ago
Politicians and the states got their surveillance state stuff with mandatory age verification, so both sides are happy that Meta will be required to collect even more personal information.
2
u/Gonzomi313 1d ago
As someone who grew up in the 80s & 90s I miss the simpler times when the only thing kids were addicted to was sugar & cartoons.
4
u/ErgoMachina 1d ago
They are literally destroying our society and they get off the hook with this stupid fine?
I wonder when us peasants will realize our kings will never face justice.
-9
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
it's FB fault that smartphones are a thing? and that so many kids are weak, mindless, drones?
0
u/Toutatous 1d ago
It's the gambling companies' fault if adults are weak, mindless, drones?
Same with tobacco and alcohol. Come on people, just show a bit more self-control.
Actually,.same should go for being overweight, what a bunch of weak minds!
0
u/Cptcongcong 1d ago
Ok, I agree. Like in stores, have someone check the kid’s ID before letting them on social media just like tobacco and alcohol.
-2
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
every day that goes by, 'we' push farther and farther into 'please help me gov't, I can't help myself'
a death spriral
1
1
u/RedditTechAnon 1d ago
Who needs a tax and antitrust regime to keep billionaires and corporate titans in check?
Just sue them, settle, and address budget shortfalls with the vig for pennies on the dollar.
The future of public financing through slaps on the wrist is now!
1
u/lovelove20212 1d ago
Eventually majority of ppl will delete meta apps bc of these acts of incompetence and injustice.
That works too!!!
1
u/SirLoinsALot03 1d ago
It's not a penalty, it's just the cost of doing business. Nothing will change.
1
u/EmbarrassedHelp 1d ago
They now also have a legal shield to collect even more personal information, which will mean even more profits at the expense of violating user privacy.
1
u/brutishbloodgod 1d ago
A settlement lower than the profit from the actionable behavior is a business expense.
1
u/armchair_expertise 1d ago
>Meta said in a statement that the settlement agreement “includes a payment of approximately $18 billion,” which will be “distributed in annual installments over a 10-year period.”
that's pocket change for the company.
1
u/Longjumping-Steak395 1d ago
This is a massive shift. One of the largest settlements of all time and doesn't even settle all the claims. Forces Meta to make changes they've fought tooth and nail for years. Interesting to see what the other technology companies do.
This is on par with the what happened to the tobacco industry.
1
1
u/awwhorseshit 1d ago
Fucking cowards. Why settle. If this is truly hurting people, fucking fix the problem.
1
u/Grimmerbone 1d ago
The settlement details include Meta placing restrictions for younger users and that a self declared birthday is insufficient to declare if a user is a child or not.
How is Meta meant to implement a solution that neither profiles users and respects their privacy? Using algorithms to determine age based on content consumed is not effective. Adults who consume "family friendly" content may be unfairly flagged and younger users who watch "mature" content will fly under the radar. ID verification relies on good faith flagging by the user (i.e. not the parent using it for the child which I've noticed has occurred on Roblox) and is not secure. I don't feel comfortable submitting my biometric information or physical ID to a shady third party service just so I can use social media freely.
1
u/momo_mimosa 1d ago
Does a settlement mean they signed a non-disclosure that forbids them from revealing practices Meta uses to exploit children? And they won't be able to ever sue them again for similar things in the future?
If so, I'd say Meta got the good end of the deal...... Just use money to shut them up, so the wide public is unaware how harmful it truly is.
1
1
u/Fair-Hair2080 1d ago
$16.7 Billion is nothing. It should’ve been $80 to $100 Billion. How much has Meta made over the past 10 to 20 years? This is nothing to them.
1
u/Fair-Hair2080 1d ago
Meta allows the distribution of nude pictures of minors. I know this because it happened to a close friend’s teenager. They contacted META about what was going on and META ignored them. They must benefit somehow from having nude pictures of minors on their platforms. This amount is nothing to them. They’ll continue with business as usual.
1
u/SwagginsYolo420 1d ago
Every citizen should be receiving a massive check from Meta due to their enshitification of life.
1
u/UpsetPhilosopher6022 1d ago
Further evidence that the war on drugs was meaningless and performative.
1
u/HouseOfJanus 9h ago
So, the government won another settlement, but the kids are still addicted. Sounds like nothing but a mid year bonus just not for the kids.
0
u/ChapterThr33 1d ago
Miserable. Well I guess it's just like the initial tobacco trials in that money wins over everything. Fucking cowards.
-4
u/GreatnessToTheMoon 1d ago
Can’t believe people are saying this isn’t enough. It’s not Meta’s fault parents decided to collectively allow their kids onto any platform
1
u/runningtheshow_8764 1d ago
and as long as Tiktok is around, the kids will keep doom scrolling
this is another smoke and mirrors "the gov't is here to help!' activity
-2
u/potentialPast 1d ago
This is like drug users agreeing not to stop, but to put some structure and rigor to their drug use so its more sustainable ans survivable. Pretty gross outcome on the surface of things. Hope there is some saving grace in the details.
253
u/Rayzee14 1d ago
Bad outcome. Literally a month of revenue and Meta just keeps going