Nice detailed write up. I love-hate Meta’s PR spin on this: “Meta's Agreement With Bipartisan Attorneys General: Calling on TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting Teens”
They learned good from the tobacco industry about how to manage this properly. Getting way out in front of things and pretending to regulate themselves.
Genuinely unhinged that companies can just lie this way to the public and it’s completely fine. Normal even.
You didn’t agree to shit, Meta. You’re scum, so much so that even in the incredibly hostile to industry regulation environment we find ourselves in, you managed to get fined.
These arguments are not very strong. It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way. It also makes the absolutely insane assumption that children are on there consuming meaningful content and not literal brain rotting slop or worse.
There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.
Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.
I can't stress this enough -- boycott all meta products.
Delete them off your phone. You don't need insta and whatsapp.
Starve the demon of your data.
Nice detailed write up. I love-hate Meta’s PR spin on this: “Meta's Agreement With Bipartisan Attorneys General: Calling on TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting Teens”
https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...
They learned good from the tobacco industry about how to manage this properly. Getting way out in front of things and pretending to regulate themselves.
What's going to be their analog to vapes?
Moltbook?
Genuinely unhinged that companies can just lie this way to the public and it’s completely fine. Normal even.
You didn’t agree to shit, Meta. You’re scum, so much so that even in the incredibly hostile to industry regulation environment we find ourselves in, you managed to get fined.
Tobacco industry lied and it was completely fine.
DuPont hid Teflon pollution for decades.
These arguments are not very strong. It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way. It also makes the absolutely insane assumption that children are on there consuming meaningful content and not literal brain rotting slop or worse.
There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.
Discussion:
Did Meta's Big Settlement Actually Help It?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49464678
Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819
Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
> A settlement only binds the relevant parties.
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.
No. It's as you say here, as well.
I think China got it right with TikTok. Educational content only! Done!