[HN Gopher] Court filings allege Meta downplayed risks to childr...
___________________________________________________________________
Court filings allege Meta downplayed risks to children and misled
the public
Author : binning
Score : 286 points
Date : 2025-11-23 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (time.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (time.com)
| kryogen1c wrote:
| > a Meta spokesperson said in a statement to TIME. "The full
| record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to
| parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real
| changes to protect teens
|
| Omegalol. Cigarette maker introduces filter, cares about your
| health.
| mtillman wrote:
| Every cig exec lied under oath and only received monetary
| fines.
| kryogen1c wrote:
| The comparison was not accidental. I expect a similar,
| meaningless outcome for poisoning children.
| flag_fagger wrote:
| Cigarette makers were a dying cry of the old aristocracy.
| Silicon Valley is the rallying cry of the new aristocracy.
|
| While I don't quite believe they'll achieve their Feudal
| dreams in the near-medium future. I do expect the US to
| transition to a much more explicitly an oligarchic republic
| as a large, with the pretense of "Government of the people,
| by the people, for the people" is largely pushed to the side.
|
| Only solution seems to be to drop out of society to whatever
| degree possible.
| samdoesnothing wrote:
| The government and massive corporations being in bed with
| each other is nothing new. Different breed same species.
| Except tech execs think they're a lot smarter than they
| are.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Pretty much all execs throughout time have thought that.
| Loughla wrote:
| Cashless payments, always connected software and devices,
| and required app use for basic services like power, water,
| and heat as well as extreme data collection as it exists
| today makes dropping out of society more difficult than
| ever.
|
| While his crimes were atrocious, Ted Kaczynski might be
| right in some ways. The industrial and technological
| revolutios have improved life dramatically for n many
| humans and we live in a tube of astonishing abundance, but
| at what cost?
|
| aaaaannndd now I'm on a list somewhere.
| binarymax wrote:
| Look, most of us here know that meta is a terrible company that
| has done terrible things. But what is actually being done about
| it? So far just some token fines and petty wrist slaps. What's
| really the plan here? Because they're not going to stop.
| PessimalDecimal wrote:
| Are there any serious attempts to enact a "corporate death
| penalty" in the US? Is there even a viable route to getting
| something like that in the current regime?
| binarymax wrote:
| My opinion is that if corporate personhood is OK, then the
| corporation should face the same consequences as people do
| when they break the law. So facilitation of human trafficking
| should go to criminal court.
| benoau wrote:
| Exactly. And same for games for children that somehow don't
| detect pedophiles spending $100s and $1000s to lure
| children. And same for the platforms taking immense fees
| from Meta and such games that are _suspiciously unaware_ of
| what 's going on.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > So facilitation of human trafficking should go to
| criminal court.
|
| Be careful what you wish for.
|
| Who else should go to criminal court for facilitating human
| trafficking? The airlines because they sold flights to
| these people, statistically speaking? What if they used a
| messaging app you use, like Signal? Should the government
| shut that down or ban it too? I have a feeling these calls
| to regulate platforms don't extend to platforms actually
| used by commenters, they just want certain platforms they
| don't use shut down and don't care how much the law is bent
| to make it happen, as long as the law isn't stretched for
| things they do like.
| crtasm wrote:
| Knowing facilitation. Facebook knows about specific
| users, it's not a case of statistics.
| twen_ty wrote:
| This. I've reported scammers so many times in Facebook,
| it's so obvious but obviously it's not a priority for
| them.
| knuppar wrote:
| Nah I'd feel pretty okay with more regulation. In your
| two examples predictable crimes happened in these
| platforms. An airline should most definitely be liable to
| enable that, just like they are liable for letting people
| without visas boarding a flight. Signal should also be
| liable for enabling a crime, but realistically all they
| could do in an investigation is give e2e encryption logs
| with some timestamps.
| rfrey wrote:
| This is solved with humans. Mens Rea is usually required
| for successful prosecution. A taxi driver who takes a
| fare to a bank, who then robs the bank, is not
| prosecuted. A getaway driver is.
|
| To avoid nitpicking, op probably should have said
| _knowingly_ facilitates, but this is conversation not
| legislation and 99% of readers probably understood that.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Corporate crimes can and sometimes _do_ go to criminal
| court (PG &E, for instance, has convicted of 84 counts of
| involuntary manslaughter for the 2018 Camp Fire,
| obstruction and various criminal pipeline safety violations
| in the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion, and various other
| crimes at other times), but aside from fines most criminal
| punishments don't apply to corporations. You can't imprison
| a corporation as such, nor can you execute it except
| metaphorically. So, ultimately, that's largely just a
| higher standard of proof route to fines than civil court
| (though probation restrictions are also a thing.)
| vlovich123 wrote:
| You can prosecute and imprison officers and/or the board.
| A corporation isn't a magical immunity shield for them -
| for some reason prosecutors have shied away from piercing
| the corporate veil.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You can prosecute and imprison officers and/or the
| board.
|
| Right, that's just normal individual criminal
| prosecution; it doesn't require prosecuting the
| corporation.
|
| Of course, it's possible for the corporation to be guilty
| of a crime without any individual officer or board member
| being guilty.
|
| > A corporation isn't a magical immunity shield for them
| - for some reason prosecutors have shied away from
| piercing the corporate veil.
|
| Piercing the corporate veil is holding _shareholders_
| liable for certain debts (including criminal or civil
| judgements) of the corporation. It has nothing directly
| to do with criminal prosecution of corporate officers or
| board members for crimes committed in the context of the
| corporation (though there are certainly cases where both
| things are relevant to the same circumstances.)
| tpmoney wrote:
| I imagine that prosecutors don't pierce the corporate
| veil for public companies often because "DA charges 87
| year old grandmother with stake in Evil Corp in her
| pension fund with manslaughter, local union members brace
| for additional charges against members" doesn't make for
| good headlines or good justice either.
|
| The officers and board of the company aren't protected by
| the corporate veil concerning their actions. They retain
| some degree of protection from actions of others within
| the corporation provided they did not have (or did not
| have a reason to suspect) knowledge of those activities.
| But to my knowledge that's not special to officers, it
| applies to any employee which is why the rank and file
| Enron employees didn't get prosecuted.
| parineum wrote:
| The entire point of corporate personhood is to be able to
| hold corporations liable for their actions.
| llbbdd wrote:
| Only among the terminally unserious
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Charter revocation is, I think, technically on the books in
| every state, but its not used for variety of reasons, one of
| which is because while it destroys the corporate entity, it
| mostly punishes the people least responsible for any
| wrongdoing (it can sometimes be accompanied by real
| punishment for the responsible actors, but those are separate
| processes that doesn't require charter revocation, such as
| individual criminal prosecution or civil process that ends
| with fines, being barred from serving as a corporate officer,
| etc.)
| nalekberov wrote:
| For them these fines are just cost of doing business.
| Apparently politicians don't care too, for them imposing fines
| is all about bringing extra money from time to time.
| blactuary wrote:
| We have vote with our dollars/attention and stop using their
| products. Including pressuring our friends and family to stop
| using them.
| binarymax wrote:
| Has that ever really worked? And considering meta has
| billions of users on not just Facebook, but also WhatsApp and
| instagram, I'm skeptical. I know people who hate meta, but
| can't shake instagram.
| blactuary wrote:
| Then we are well and truly cooked, if we are so addicted to
| a specific photo-sharing platform that we will let this
| abuse continue
| armchairhacker wrote:
| It protects you and your friends+family from the negative
| effects of using Meta platforms.
| Fargren wrote:
| It does not. Social media platforms have had massive
| societal impact. From language, to social movements, to
| election results, social media has had effects, positive
| or negative, that impact the lives of even those who do
| not use them.
| tjpnz wrote:
| When my kids were born I told my family I wouldn't be posting
| their pictures on any Meta owned platform. That was all I
| needed to move the family group, photos etc. to another app.
| ares623 wrote:
| Which app did you move to?
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| Specifically when it comes to children, lots of jurisdictions
| are enacting actual non-bullshit age verification to ensure
| children aren't on social media. In my opinion this is real,
| substantive change.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > But what is actually being done about it?
|
| Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done? I mean
| real specifics, not just the angry mob pitchfork calls for
| corporate death penalty or throwing Mark Zuckerberg in jail.
| dkdcio wrote:
| ban digital advertisement at a federal level and 95% of the
| underlying problems are solved at the incentive level
| justapassenger wrote:
| We can also solve global warming problems by banning oil,
| coal and cows, and solve hunger by banning having kids.
| Aurornis wrote:
| "Just ban everything I don't like as long as it won't
| impact anything I do like" is a frequent take on HN these
| days.
|
| Then when states start doing things like adding ID
| requirements for websites it's shock and rage as the
| consequences of banning things (even for under 18s)
| encounter the realities of what happens when you "just
| ban" things.
| opan wrote:
| I think we can separate the banning of things which
| affect personal freedom from the rest. Like if oil were
| "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil,
| but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up
| and sell it anymore. A bit like fazing out asbestos. The
| ordinary people with asbestos tiles in their basement
| don't get into trouble, but new house builds can't/won't
| use that tile anymore.
|
| ID requirements seem like the main burden is being put on
| ordinary people instead of corporations, and by extension
| seems clearly bad.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not
| illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't
| be able to drill it up and sell it anymore.
|
| What does that have to do with anything?
|
| It doesn't matter where you ban it, if you turn off oil
| overnight a lot of people are left stranded from their
| jobs, sectors of the economy collapse, unemployment
| becomes out of control.
|
| Banning things like this is just fantasy talk that only
| makes sense to people who can't imagine consequences or
| think they don't care. I guarantee you would change your
| mind very quickly about banning oil overnight as soon as
| the consequence became obvious.
| squigz wrote:
| Who suggested "turning oil off overnight"? What does that
| even mean?
|
| GP (and I) have given you several examples of stuff
| society learned was harmful and then phased out with
| regulations/legislation. No, it didn't and does not
| happen overnight.
|
| Why are you acting in such bad faith, trying to disregard
| people you don't agree with as "not being able to imagine
| consequences"?
| fzeroracer wrote:
| I'm curious: Where do you put the line? For example,
| leaded gas improved car performance and arguably key to
| economic performance. But it was also incredibly
| neurotoxic and damaging to society. Do you believe
| banning it was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of
| people losing their jobs?
| terminalshort wrote:
| It really has turned into a bitter losers bitch fest in
| here.
| opan wrote:
| I was on board until the end. If we don't have kids,
| we're wiping ourselves out even faster than with climate
| change. I also wonder with oil if we'd need it for some
| things still, though maybe it's fine if it's made from
| something else. Gasoline has some obvious alternatives in
| most areas, but oil seems to be more than fuel. It's also
| a lubricant.
| vincnetas wrote:
| There is a substantial opposing force to that "US$790
| billion ad market for 2024"
| dkdcio wrote:
| yep! it'd be hard, but we're already at most people
| nodding their head when you say "social media is
| addictive, detrimental to individual mental health, and
| overall negative for society"
|
| you just got to get enough people to nod at "...and this
| is caused by the underlying incentives from digital
| advertisement" then to "and the most effective course of
| action is to ban digital advertisement"
|
| I truly don't believe it's a big leap, especially after a
| few more years of all this
| Aurornis wrote:
| > ban digital advertisement at a federal level
|
| This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This
| isn't a real idea, it's just rage venting.
|
| It's also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in
| pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad
| supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many
| problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do
| with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and
| the same social problems would exist. It's a silly
| suggestion.
| squigz wrote:
| Banning advertisement seemed to work for smoking.
|
| https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/t
| c-2...
|
| Why do you think it would be ineffective here?
|
| I'm also curious on how _you_ think we might tackle these
| issues.
| Aurornis wrote:
| The parent comment called for banning _all_ advertising,
| not for banning ads promoting social media platforms.
|
| They don't want anyone to be able to advertise anything.
| Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their
| businesses that you want to find, because that's
| advertising.
|
| The tobacco ad ban isn't relevant to what was claimed.
| squigz wrote:
| > The parent comment called for banning all advertising,
| not for banning ads promoting social media platforms.
|
| This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's
| what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you
| were interested in having a good faith discussion about
| solutions here, you might have responded to both
| interpretations.
|
| You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as
| an answer to your question, if you must.
| dkdcio wrote:
| literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea; quite simple,
| relatively easy to implement, and immediately effective.
| incentives from advertising is the underlying issue with
| the addictive nature of these platforms (and much more)
| Aurornis wrote:
| > literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea
|
| The mere fact that commenters think banning advertising
| is a simple and realistic idea, without any
| constitutional road blocks or practical objections, is
| what I mean when I say these comment sections are just
| angry bloviating with unrealistic expectations.
|
| If you think banning all advertising is "simple" then I
| don't know what to say, but there isn't a real
| conversation here.
| dkdcio wrote:
| so is it a pitchfork idea? I want Mark's head? or it's
| impractical? you've changed your apprehension to my idea
| twice in two comments
|
| constitutional roadblock...to banning digital
| advertisement? please do explain!
|
| I didn't claim it's easy to get it done in the real
| world, but it's not a reactive/vindictive pitchfork idea.
| it's really not _that_ hard, if people wanted it we've
| banned plenty of things at the federal level in this
| country over the years (the hard part is of course people
| realizing how detrimental digital advertising is)
|
| it's a simple solution that's very effective. obviously
| any large-scale change, to fix a large-scale problem, is
| not "simple" to implement, but it's also not fucking
| rocket science on this one mate
|
| you're clearly not having a conversation in good faith.
| you asked, I answered, I'm done with this
| Aurornis wrote:
| I've not changed anything, I was asking for realistic
| suggestions. You're throwing out unrealistic suggestions.
|
| Why stop there? Why not just shut down the whole
| internet? Simple and effective. Ban cell phones. Simple
| and effective.
|
| These are just silly ways of thinking about the world.
| dkdcio wrote:
| you're just doing ad hominems and strawmans. I'm not
| suggesting banning anything other than digital
| advertisement. you're not open to having a productive
| discussion about it, just misdirection and whataboutism
|
| please stop ascribing intent I do not have and words I
| did not say in your juvenile attempt to win an argument
|
| p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional
| argument against it! banning digital advertisement at the
| federal level is not unrealistic and if you've actually
| given it the thought you're pretending to and still reach
| that conclusion, I do have an ad hominem to throw back at
| you
| Aurornis wrote:
| > p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional
| argument against it!
|
| You don't need to hear my argument against it. The fact
| that advertising your services is free speech is well
| established. It's a major challenge for movements like
| those trying to tackle pharmaceutical advertising.
|
| Also, if you can't see how I've been addressing your
| arguments and you think it's all ad hominem then I don't
| think there's any real conversation to be had here.
| Between all the downvotes you're collecting and the weird
| attempts to ignore everything I say and pretend it's ad
| hominem as a defensive tactic, this is pure trolling at
| this point.
| dkdcio wrote:
| 2 points:
|
| 1) downvotes: you're the one insinuating HN commenters
| (and presumably voters) are idiots; I'm not sure that I
| should care if I'm downvoted while correct. and
| regardless, doesn't seem like I'm very downvoted (rather
| the opposite) so not sure what your point is. try making
| one next time!
|
| 2) freedom of speech: lol! I just want to point out I had
| no fucking clue that's what you were angling for before.
| rather than launch into attacks as you do, I actually try
| to understand things. this argument doesn't concern me at
| all, I was worried I wasn't aware of something in the
| constitution you'd brilliantly raise
|
| we are beyond having a conversation at this point, but if
| you actually raised your arguments against banning
| digital advertisement (freedom of speech and ??? solving
| real-world problems is hard?) I would have debated them
| on their merits, you troll
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Just FYI. For a _very_ long time, strong alcohol ads were
| banned on TV, and the same with tobacco.
|
| I don't watch regular TV, anymore, so I don't know if it
| still is in place.
|
| Mentioning "banning advertising" on HN is bound to draw
| downvotes. A _significant_ number of HN members make
| money directly, or indirectly, from digital advertising.
|
| It's like walking into a mosque, and demanding they allow
| drinking.
|
| Won't end well.
| fn-mote wrote:
| In this case, the suggestion of banning advertising is
| drawing downvotes from me because I see it as politically
| unrealistic.
|
| At least in my state, there isn't even a ban on
| advertising online gambling!! It is quite a stretch to
| think we could move from there to banning any kind of
| advertising.
|
| It has nothing to do with the fact that a bunch of HN
| readers make money from ads. I don't.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Somewhat meta question, do you believe that down voting
| opinions we don't like is a good way of engaging with one
| another on HN?
|
| I wish we could discuss the issue here, and instead would
| have liked to hear from you why you think it is a
| pitically unrealistic proposal, and what your criteria is
| for seeming something politically unrealistic.
| integralid wrote:
| There's a large difference between banning strong alcohol
| ads, and instantly collapsing a whole huge advertisement
| economy (that indirectly funds most of the free things
| people take for granted).
|
| Either I misunderstand something or I'm baffled how
| anyone can consider that easy.
| flag_fagger wrote:
| > The mere fact that commenters think banning advertising
| is a simple and realistic idea, without any
| constitutional road blocks
|
| Of course not, clearly you just need a captured congress
| and an EO. Can't be too hard to find a reason to turn
| Trump against Zuckerberg.
| wyre wrote:
| Larger fines, more robust methods for Meta to keep children
| off their platforms, more robust methods to stop the spread
| of propaganda and spam on their platforms, for Meta to start
| prioritizing connection between others instead of attention.
| loosescrews wrote:
| If you want a company to do something, you do need to
| ensure that the fine is bigger than the amount of money
| they made or will make by doing the thing you are trying to
| discourage. You need there to be a real downside. I don't
| think any of the fines that have been discussed are
| anywhere close to the levels that I am talking about.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Don't corporate fines often come with requirements that
| the company also discontinue certain activities, start
| certain other ones, and be able to prove this or that to
| a regulator?
| knuppar wrote:
| > angry mob pitchfork calls
|
| > corporate death penalty
|
| I don't know man these don't seem very specific. From your
| whole comment I do agree Mark should be in jail
| slg wrote:
| Amend Section 230 so that it does not apply to content that
| is served algorithmically. Social media companies can either
| allow us to select what content we want to see by giving us a
| chronological feed of the people/topics we follow or they can
| serve us content according to some algorithm designed to keep
| us on their platform longer. The former is neutral and
| deserves protection, but the latter is editorial. Once they
| take on that editorial role of deciding what content we see,
| they should become liable for the content they put in front
| of us.
| ares623 wrote:
| That's the first reasonable take I've seen on this. Thanks
| for explaining it, I will use it for offline discussions on
| the subject. It's been hard to explain.
| FloorEgg wrote:
| This would be a huge step in the right direction.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| So Hacker News should lose section 230 protection?
|
| Because the content served here isn't served in
| chronological order. The front page takes votes into
| account and displays hotter posts higher in the feed.
| sleight42 wrote:
| And there's also moderator control?
|
| Yup. Accountable.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| So to be clear, anything other than a 4chan-like
| unmoderated chronological feed results in loss of section
| 230 protection?
|
| Heck, even 4chan wouldn't qualify, because despite
| considerably looser content rules they still actually do
| perform moderation.
| slg wrote:
| Technically sorting by timestamp is an "algorithm" too,
| so I was just speaking informally rather than drafting
| the exact language of a piece of legislation. I would
| define the categories as something like algorithms
| determined by direct proactive user decisions (following,
| upvoting, etc) versus algorithms that are determined by
| other factors (views, watch time, behavior by similar
| users, etc). Basically it should always be clear why
| you're being served what you're being served, either
| because the user chose to see it or because everyone is
| seeing it. No more nebulous black box algorithms that
| give every user an experience individually designed to
| keep them on the platform.
|
| This will still impact HN because of stuff like the flame
| war downranker they use here. However, that doesn't
| automatically mean HN loses Section 230 protection. HN
| could respond by simplifying its ranking algorithm to
| maintain 230 protections.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| So a simple "most viewed in last month" page would
| trigger a loss of protection? Because that ranking is
| determined by number of views, rather than a proactive
| user decision like upvoting.
| slg wrote:
| >So a simple "most viewed in last month" page would
| trigger a loss of protection?
|
| The key word there is "page". I have no problem with
| news.ycombinator.com/active, but that is a page that a
| user must proactively seek out. It's not the default or
| even possible to make it the default. Every time a user
| visits it, it is because they decided to visit it. The
| page is also the same for everyone who visits it.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| To be clear, even the front page of Hacker News is not
| just a simple question of upvotes. Views, comments, time
| since posting, political content down ranking, etc. all
| at a factor in the ordering of posts.
| rafabulsing wrote:
| I think the best way to put it is, users with the same
| user picked settings should see the same things, in the
| same order.
|
| That's a given on HackerNews, as there's only one
| frontpage. On Reddit that would be, users subscribed to
| the same subreddits would always see the same things on
| their frontpages. Same as users on YouTube subscribed to
| the same channels, users on Facebook who liked the same
| pages, and so on.
|
| The real problem starts when the algorithm takes into
| account implicit user actions. E.g., two users are
| subscribed to the same channels, and both click on the
| same video. User A watches the whole video, user B leaves
| halfway through. If the algorithm takes that into
| account, now user A will see different suggestions than
| user B.
|
| That's what gets the ball rolling into hyper specialized
| endless feeds which tend to push you into extremes, as
| small signals will end up being amplified without the
| user ever taking an explicit action other than clicking
| or not suggestions in the feed.
|
| As long as every signal the algorithm takes into account
| is either a global state (user votes, total watch time,
| etc), or something the user explicitly and proactively
| has stated is their preference, I think that would be
| enough to curb most of the problems with algorithmic
| feeds.
|
| Users could still manually configure feeds that provide
| hyper personalized, hyper specific, and hyper addictive
| content. But I bet the vast majority of users would never
| go beyond picking 1 specific sport, 2 personal hobbies
| and 3 genres of music they're interested in and calling
| it a day. Really, most would probably never even go that
| far. That's the reason platforms all converged on using
| those implicit signals, after all: they work much better
| than the user's explicit signals (if your ultimate goal
| is maximizing user retention/addiction, and you don't
| care at all about the collateral damage resulting from
| that).
| slg wrote:
| Yes, you said it better than me. Fundamentally if you
| know a user's choices, you should be able to reproduce
| what that user sees.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| But Meta's content ranking would conform to this too: in
| theory a user that had the exact same friends, is a
| member of the exact same groups, had the exact same watch
| history, etc. would be served the same content. Although
| I'm pretty sure there's at least some degree of
| randomization, but putting that aside it remains unclear
| how you're constructing a set of criteria that does
| Hacker News, and plenty of other sites but not Meta.
| rafabulsing wrote:
| Even that, I don't think is entirely true. I'm pretty
| sure they use signals as implicit as how long you took to
| scroll past an autoplaying video, or if you even hovered
| your mouse pointer over the video but ultimately didn't
| click on it.
|
| Same with friends, even if you have the exact same
| friends, if you message friend A more than friend B, and
| this otherwise identical account does the opposite, than
| the recommendation engine will give you different friend-
| related suggestions.
|
| Then there's geolocation data, connection type/speeds, OS
| and browser type, account name (which, if they are real
| names such as on Facebook, can be used to infer age,
| race, etc), and many others, which can also be taken into
| account for further tailoring suggestions.
|
| You can say that, oh, but some automated system that sent
| the exact same signals on all these fronts would end up
| with the same recommendations, which I guess is probably
| true, but it's definitely not _reasonable_. No two
| (human) users would ever be able to achieve such state
| for any extended period of time.
|
| That's why we are arguing that only _explicit_ individual
| actions should be allowed into these systems. You can
| maybe argue what would count as an explicit action. You
| mention adding friends, I don 't think that should count
| as an explicit action for changing your content feed, but
| I can see that being debated.
|
| Maybe the ultimate solution could be legislation
| requiring that any action that influences recommendation
| engines to be explicitly labeled as such (similar to how
| advertising needs to be labeled), and maybe require at
| least a confirmation prompt, instead of working with a
| single click. Then platforms would be incentivized to ask
| as little as possible, as otherwise confirming every
| single action would become a bit vexing.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| > Even that, I don't think is entirely true. I'm pretty
| sure they use signals as implicit as how long you took to
| scroll past an autoplaying video,
|
| And? These are still user's choices. They choose how long
| to view videos or scroll past them.
| rafabulsing wrote:
| People also slow down to look at the flipped car on the
| side of the road. Doesn't mean you want to see more
| flipped cars down the road.
|
| Either way. Do you have any points other than that you
| think any and every action, no matter how small, is
| explicit, and therefore it's ok that for it to be fed
| into the recommendation engine? Cause that's an ok
| position to have, even if one I disagree with. But if
| that's all, I think that's as long as this conversation
| needs to go. But if there's any nuance I'm failing to
| get, or you have comments on other points I raised such
| as labeling of recommendation altering actions, I'm happy
| to hear it.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| I'm mostly interested in getting concrete answers as to
| what people are referring to when they talk about
| "algorithmically served" content. This kind of phrasing
| is thrown around a lot, and I'm still unsure by what
| people are referring to by this phrase and I've rarely
| found people proposing fleshed out ideas as to how to
| define "algorithmically served content".
|
| Some people take the stance that even using view counts
| as part of ranking should result in a company listing
| section 230 protections, e.g.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46027529
|
| You proposed an interesting framing around
| _reproducibility_ of content ranking, as in two users who
| have the exact same watch history, liked posts, group
| memberships, etc. should have the same content served to
| them. But in subsequent responses it sounds like
| reproducibility isn 't enough, certain actions shouldn't
| be used for recommendation even if it is entirely
| reproducible. My reading is that in your model, there are
| "small" actions that user take that shouldn't be used for
| recommendations, and presumably there are also "big"
| actions that are okay to use for recommendation. If
| that's the case, then what user actions would you permit
| to be used for recommendations and which ones would not
| be permitted to use? What are the delineation between
| "small" and "big" actions?
|
| Labeling is another idea but Meta does, in fact, disclaim
| which user actions are used for content recommendations:
| https://transparency.meta.com/features/ranking-and-
| content/
|
| Basically, I still don't have a clear picture of what
| does and doesn't qualify as "algorithmically served"
| content in your model.
| slg wrote:
| >had the exact same watch history
|
| Watching the content that is being served to you is a
| passive decision. It's totally different from clicking a
| button that says you want to see specific content in the
| future. You show me something that enrages me, I might
| watch it, but I'll never click a button saying "show me
| more stuff that enrages me". It's the platform taking
| advantage of human psychology and that is a huge part of
| what I want to stop.
|
| >it remains unclear how you're constructing a set of
| criteria that does Hacker News, and plenty of other sites
| but not Meta.
|
| I already said "This will still impact HN because of
| stuff like the flame war downranker...". I don't know
| this and your reply to my other comment seem to be
| implying that I think HN is perfect and untouchable. My
| proposal would force HN to make a choice on whether to
| change or lose 230 protections. I'm fine with that.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| It's still unclear _what_ choice Hacker News and other
| sites will have to make to retain section 230 protection
| in your proposed solution.
|
| Again, something like counting the number of views in a
| video is, in your framing, not an active choice on the
| part of user. So simply counting views and and floating
| popular content to the top of a page sounds like it'd
| trigger loss section 230 protections.
| slg wrote:
| You're making me repeat myself multiple times now. I
| don't know what else I can say. HN would need to rank
| posts by a combination of upvotes and chronology. That is
| how they "float popular content to the top". You don't
| need passive metrics like views to do that.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| Another possibility would be to somehow incorporate the
| possibility of publishing the algorithm and providing
| some kind of "under the hood" view that reveals to people
| what determined what they're seeing. Part of the issue
| currently is that everything is opaque. If Facebook could
| not change their algorithm without some of kind of public
| registration process, well, it might not make things
| better but it might make it get worse a bit slower.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This is an unpopular opinion here, but I think in general
| the whole "immunity for third-party content" thing in 230
| was a big mistake overall. If you're a web site that
| exercises editorial control over the content you publish
| (such as moderating, manually curating, algorithmically
| curating, demoting or promoting individual contents, and
| so on), then you have already shown that _you_ are the
| ones controlling the content that gets published, not end
| users. So you should take responsibility for what you
| publish. You shouldn 't be able to hide behind "But it
| was a third party end user who gave it to me!" You've
| shown (by your moderation practices) that _you_ are the
| final say in what gets posted, not your users. So _you_
| should stand behind the content _that you are
| specifically allowing_.
|
| If a web site makes a good faith effort to moderate
| things away that could get them in trouble, then they
| shouldn't get in trouble. And if they have a policy of
| not moderating or curating, then they should be treated
| like a dumb pipe, like an ISP. They shouldn't be able to
| have their cake (exercise editorial control) and eat it
| too (enjoy liability protection over what they publish).
| bostik wrote:
| The thing that's missing is the difference between a
| unsolicited external content (ie. pay-for-play stuff) and
| directly user-supplied content.
|
| If you're doing editorial decisions, you should be
| treated like a syndicator. Yep, that means vetting the
| ads you show, paid propaganda that you accept to publish,
| and generally having legal and financial liability for
| the outcomes.
|
| User-supplied content needs moderation too, but with them
| you have to apply different standards. Prefiltering what
| someone else can post on your platform makes you a
| censor. You have to do some to prevent your system from
| becoming a Nazi bar or an abuse demo reel, but beyond
| that the users themselves should be allowed to say what
| they want to see and in what order of preference. Section
| 230 needs to protect the latter.
|
| The thing _I_ would have liked to see long time ago is
| for the platforms / syndicators to have obligation to
| notify their users who have been subjected to any kind of
| influence operations. Whether that's political pestering,
| black propaganda or even out-and-out "classic"
| advertising campaign, should make no difference.
| erentz wrote:
| Can't you just limit scope for section 230 by revenue or
| users?
|
| E.g. it only applies to companies with revenue <$10m. Or
| services with <10,000 active users. This allows blogs and
| small forums to continue as is, but once you're making
| meaningful money or have a meaningful user base you
| become responsible for what you're publishing.
| armada651 wrote:
| I think the biggest problem is when we're all served a
| uniquely personalized feed. Everyone on Hacker News gets
| the same front page, but on Facebook users get one
| specifically tailored to them.
|
| If Hacker News filled their front page with hate speech
| and self-harm tutorials there would be public outcry. But
| Facebook can serve that to people on their timeline and
| no one bats an eye, because Facebook can algorithmically
| serve that content only to people who engage with it.
| worik wrote:
| They could use transparent adjustable algorithms
|
| I would like to tweak my own feed
| parineum wrote:
| Chronological is an algorithm
| techblueberry wrote:
| Yeah, I wonder if the rules should basically state
| something like everything must be topical and you must opt
| in to certain topics (adult, politics, etc)People can
| request recommendations but they must be requested; no
| accidental pro-Ana content. If you want to allow hate
| speech fine, but people have to opt in to every offensive
| category/slur explicitly. (We can call it "potentially
| divisive" for all the "one persons hate speech is another
| persons love rap" folks or whatever.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Other shareholders in jail also.
|
| If my dog bites somebody, I'm on the hook. It should be no
| different with companies.
|
| We have to create incentives to not invest in troublesome
| companies. Fines are inadequate, they incentivize buying
| shares in troublesome companies and then selling them before
| the harm comes to light.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Where will you find a jail big enough to simultaneously
| imprison everyone who invested in S&P 500?
| paulddraper wrote:
| Thanks, I have the same question.
| bdangubic wrote:
| just 500?
| flag_fagger wrote:
| Isn't this what we have RICO for?
|
| > she was shocked to learn that the company had a "17x"
| strike policy for accounts that reportedly engaged in the
| "trafficking of humans for sex."
|
| There's no way in hell this isn't just tacitly incentivized
| the facilitation of trafficking activities through the site.
| worik wrote:
| > Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done?
|
| Confiscate their wealth
| tehjoker wrote:
| Why not? Those are effective ideas, it's just impractical
| because our political system is so insulated from public
| input.
| GOD_Over_Djinn wrote:
| > throwing Mark Zuckerberg in jail.
|
| ...why not?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I think with the harm that these companies are doing, the
| angry pitchfork mobs are a serious suggestion and not just
| hyperbole anymore
|
| Keep in mind that not very long ago some random person
| assassinated an insurance CEO and many people's reaction was
| along the lines of "awesome, that fat cat got what he
| deserved"
|
| Don't underestimate how much of society absolutely loathes
| the upper class right now.
|
| I would bet that many people are one layoff away from calling
| for execs to get much worse than jail
| BrenBarn wrote:
| I don't really get why corporate death penalty and Zuck in
| jail is not a good idea. It might not be the best idea, but I
| think it would absolutely be better than what we have now.
| Even a random-chainsaw-esque destruction of Facebook, Google,
| Amazon, and Apple would be better than what we have now.
| Drupon wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Xi_Jinping_A.
| ..
| fakedang wrote:
| For one, I'd like the EU to use this as evidence to straight
| up ban Meta apps. If countries can ban TikTok, why not extend
| the same privilege to Meta?
|
| But then again, the EU are a bunch of vacuous chicken shits
| incapable of pulling their heads out of their arses, never
| mind safeguarding their own children.
| webdoodle wrote:
| They aren't going to stop because LifeLog was as Darpa project
| before they found a private stoog to build it for the military.
| Remember it's only dystopian to spy on every aspect of a
| persons life, if YOUR THE GOVERNMENT. Private entities in the
| U.S. basically can do anything they want, especially now when
| they can rent a President too pardon it away.
| kiba wrote:
| They're monopolies. Break them up, heavily regulate, or tax
| their economic rent privileges.
|
| Georgism gave a good lenses on these kind of issue. All the
| sudden, late stage capitalism starts looking like monopolies.
| nccn67 wrote:
| Its basically like the history of money before banks got
| regulated and central banks emerged to regulate money printing.
| In this case its all about Attention which is functioning
| exactly like currency.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Is it the same as this basically?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46019817
| macintux wrote:
| Yes. I've flagged this post, hopefully it'll be merged.
| mlmonkey wrote:
| Meta misled the public?!?!? You don't say!
|
| At this point nothing surprises me from Meta.
| concinds wrote:
| Check the front page before splitting an existing front-page
| discussion.
| blaufast wrote:
| So much of this audience already knows the job is to collect
| comprehensive analytics and never run the analyses on your
| product's externalities.
|
| to be obvious enough to downplay, it must be impossible to miss
| while looking the other way. To be impossible to miss, it must be
| inextricably linked to the profits.
| dalka wrote:
| It's even more egregious in this case because Meta's employees
| were turning a blind eye to child sexual exploitation that they
| knew fine well their work was enabling.
|
| Maybe those fat bonuses and generous stock options wiped away
| the feelings of guilt, if these Silicon Valley sociopaths even
| felt any in the first place.
| blaufast wrote:
| We're all just trying to get our nut.
| fn-mote wrote:
| > You could incur 16 violations for prostitution and sexual
| solicitation
|
| So although this is being spun as "trafficking", that doesn't
| seem accurate.
|
| This classification sounds like it includes selling "your own
| services".
| sidcool wrote:
| Another report. Sadly nothing will come out of it. 5 years down
| the line there will be another smoking gun, accusing Meta of
| selling DNA data to advertisers illegally. Nada. Nothing will
| happen.
| catigula wrote:
| Focusing on meta doing this is fine, but misses the mark.
|
| _Every_ tech company is harming the public for profits.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46019817
| pengaru wrote:
| Corporation prioritizes profits over social harm, news at 11.
|
| You won't want to miss this breaking story - water is wet.
| ta9000 wrote:
| I mean, duh. They're this generation's cigarettes. Employees of
| Meta should be ashamed of themselves.
|
| Edit: Meta employees, downvoting this comment won't absolve you
| of your involvement in the largest child abuse organization we've
| seen yet. Look what your own company said about what it's doing
| to teenage girls.
| rvz wrote:
| They don't care. Grifters need to grift.
| foofoo12 wrote:
| > 17x strike policy for accounts that reportedly engaged in the
| "trafficking of humans for sex."
|
| Yep. You can engage in sexually trafficking people 16 times with
| a warning. 17th is just too much dude.
|
| What sort of a deranged psychopath comes up with these rules?
| foofoo12 wrote:
| I can see from voting that this comment is highly
| controversial. It's actively being downvoted. Make of that what
| you like.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| Social media is going to be seen to future generations the way we
| currently see tobacco and alcohol. Look at what social media has
| done to the wellbeing of teen girls. There's been a dramatic
| decline in the mental health of teen girls. All those filters, OF
| fans, stars with eating disorders (just look at the Wicked cast),
| is literally killing teen girls with social anxiety.
| Aeroi wrote:
| The business model is misaligned with human's wellbeing.
| Everything can be traced back to this very problem.
| MattRix wrote:
| This is true but it's important to still blame the humans
| making specific harmful decisions as well.
| brrNoBhmt wrote:
| we'll milk teens like cows and we can't wait to stuff them into
| tiny little boxes, hooked up to and logged into our VR worlds
| where we serve all their needs while they serve ours. nothing
| sexual, there's places for that and we're not the types. we
| monitor our employees closely and can say that with certainty.
|
| the current phase of social media is basically the scraping of
| minds. we throw hundreds of thousands of narrowly defined
| contexts at them, in different states and in between them. our
| systems learn, assimilate, adapt.
|
| the world is going up in flames. we didn't do that. and we'd try
| to change it but we have a lot of data. it can't be done.
|
| we've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. and we don't drink
| cheap milk. the food of the cows we get our milk from costs more
| than the compounded wealth of all graduates of an average
| European university at the end of their 30s and the health of the
| cows we get our milk from is better monitored, too. all for one
| glass of milk.
|
| my first sentence was a provocation.
|
| your teens will be fine. worry about their environment, not us.
| we know we lie in court. and you know why. because they kindly
| ask us to. they have friends and friends of friends who have been
| up our asses from day one. you think we know a lot? your
| intelligence services know a lot more. your local administrations
| and teachers conspire against your teens more often than you
| would like to know. some guys in your police likely know, too. as
| do your journalists and TV channels. it's more or less on a need
| to know, serve to know basis.
|
| you think big tech is the threat? think again.
|
| A/N: mostly gibberish, since I have no idea what I'm talking
| about but you're all wielding advanced tools and you're
| networked. you get it. I could kindly ask you to stop babbling.
| but without leverage nobody benefits.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-23 23:00 UTC)