A lot of people on this story are making the usual snarky remarks that, oh, this is just a slap on the wrist—some trivial proportion of Meta’s global revenue. And that is true, but unlike the EU, for example, New Mexico is a tiny jurisdiction. It only has a little bit more than 2 million people.
So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenue from the U.S. and Canada and assign it proportionally by population, you find that Meta only earned about $1.5 billion to $2 billion total from New Mexico over the past five years. The exact figure depends on whether you allocate purely by population or account for purchasing power, which makes the estimate a little lower because New Mexico is a poorer state than the U.S. average.
Given that, the judgment is a half to two-thirds of what Meta could have obtained from New Mexico. So it is actually a serious deterrent, assuming Meta thinks New Mexico would continue to impose fines of that size.
I also think that there’s a good chance this judgment gets overturned or significantly reduced on appeal, but even if the fine drops to half its current level, it would be proportionately larger than almost any fine against any company, let alone tech, that I’ve heard of.
tristanj 2 hours ago [-]
This analysis actually understates how massive and outsized the penalties are. The court ruling only applies to children in New Mexico under age 18.
New Mexico has ~450,000 people under age 18, of which roughly 140,000 are between ages 13-17 (Meta officially requires age 13+ to use their platforms). Recent Pew surveys of U.S. teens ages 13–17 show ~70% of teenagers use Instagram and ~30% use Facebook.
In New Mexico, Instagram and Facebook would have ~100,000 users in the 13-17 group. That's not everyone, some underage users may lie about their age, so add in ~30,000 unauthorized users under age 13. Overall, around 130,000 people in the affected class.
The judge assessed $942 million in total penalties, and dividing that $942 million across 130,000 users equals approximately $7,250 in fines per user.
If this fine remains, and Meta pays out to the affected parties, these kids could end up rewarded with thousands of dollars for just for having a Facebook or Instagram account. Which creates some bizarre incentives, minors get rewarded for signing up for the platforms that are harming them in the first place.
brookst 19 minutes ago [-]
IDK, even if you take your analysis to the extreme and say only 1% of those children suffered actual harm, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the cost would be > $725k each, measured in impact to lifetime earnings plus the costs to their parents and community.
There’s a good argument for using the funds to support mental health programs, but as far as paying for damage done, Meta is getting off very light here. Classic privatize profits, socialize costs.
LunaSea 2 hours ago [-]
Shouldn't you take into account all young adults that were in this age range in the last 10 or 15 years?
tristanj 60 minutes ago [-]
Maybe, but in the official verdict they didn't take into account all affected children either; they only used an estimated 37,500 affected teen users to calculate the fine.
Meta was fined for:
- 37,500 instances of deceptive-practice violations @ $5,000 per
- 37,500 instances of unconscionable-practice violations @ $5,000 per
- 75,000 total violations x $5,000 = $375 million
The rationale for only using 37,500 users (instead of the actual user count), and choosing $5,000 per instance (the maximum amount allowed by law) is unclear to me.
The second case is even more confusing, New Mexico requested $953 million from Meta to pay for its "equitable share" of a $3.7 billion public-nuisance abatement program state experts created. A judge reduced this amount to only $567 million, determining that:
1) other platforms also share responsibility, and
2) some proposed expenses were too broad (ex: the judge denied the request for the construction of entire new hospitals and clinics as part of the program).
brazukadev 1 hours ago [-]
> Which creates some bizarre incentives, minors get rewarded for signing up for the platforms that are harming them in the first place.
how is this bad? that's a great incentive for the platforms to not signup minors anymore.
tgv 2 hours ago [-]
> If this fine remains, and Meta pays out to the affected parties
Did you even read the first line of the article? "A New Mexico court has ordered Meta ... to pay $567m into a fund aimed at redressing adverse mental health impacts". It does NOT go to the children's purses. There's also a fine, which --as fines do-- goes to the state. Not to the individual children.
> outsized
Are you arguing it should be less?
nekusar 2 hours ago [-]
What really sucks about all these types of judgements:
Who's wronged here? The children.
How much do they get for being wronged? Absolutely nothing.
It all just goes to the governments coffers to be wasted away on a few PSAs directed at children.
exe34 2 hours ago [-]
It's restitution to society, for the cost of the damage done.
shevy-java 2 hours ago [-]
It is more money for the courts. Not really restitution to society.
Will Facebook change its policies? No.
ForHackernews 1 hours ago [-]
> Will Facebook change its policies? No.
Going to need bigger fines. This is how they curbed the tobacco industry.
exe34 1 hours ago [-]
> Will Facebook change its policies? No.
That's why fines need to be escalating.
harimau777 2 hours ago [-]
How can it be restitution if it doesn't help the victims?
exe34 1 hours ago [-]
Society pays the cost of mental health in reduced productivity, healthcare, accidents, homicides, etc.
As a result, Rhode Island has some great followup and public health programs. It wasn't that much money to DuPont, but it did real good in Rhode Island, and I believe DuPont changed their legal tactics afterwards.
deepsun 5 hours ago [-]
I'm pretty sure Meta will drag the case in appeals for many years until the order becomes irrelevant. Cheaper than paying $942m.
nujabe 4 hours ago [-]
Why would dragging it on make the order irrelevant?
autoexec 1 hours ago [-]
While they wait decades for the court cases to resolve they can take the amount of money they were fined and invest it. They have so much money they wont even notice it and they'll have made a profit on the whole thing by the end of it.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Keep dragging it until there isn't a Facebook any more for unrelated reasons
j_maffe 1 hours ago [-]
You think they'll shutdown FB?
inigyou 1 hours ago [-]
Zuck has a finite lifespan.
bix6 25 minutes ago [-]
Actually, it’s infinite because he’s really good at fighting now (and wears a cool chain). Kachow!
Joel_Mckay 4 hours ago [-]
A corporation will shift the capital loss to a tax write off like any other firm.
The taxpayer just takes a dollar out of their pocket, and pays a dollar in tax revenue short fall. This fine changes nothing, punishes tax payers, and Meta will just lobby more politicians. =3
jasode 2 hours ago [-]
>A corporation will shift the capital loss to a tax write off like any other firm.
pssst, we don't hate corporations and billionaires. We hate organizations and people that knowingly harm children for profit.
drc500free 3 hours ago [-]
Corporations don’t ignore expenses just because they reduce taxable income.
Epa095 4 hours ago [-]
You have the right idea, but remember that tax rate is not 100%. So if a company gets a fine on X dollar, that reduces their surplus by X, and they pay e.g X*20% less in tax (if the tax rate is 20%).
Joel_Mckay 4 hours ago [-]
I am sure they will figure something out in whatever jurisdictions they find advantageous. =3
keybored 3 hours ago [-]
Sometimes I wonder if these comments are about lamenting the state of big corporations, about defending big corporations, [1] or about lamenting how fungible value exchange were even the Rule of Law can be reduced to an expense makes everyone except for conentrated wealth into losers.
[1] “They won this battle and the last one. But the other side has millions of soldiers. They will just replace them.”
oblio 3 hours ago [-]
LOL. Yes, let's do absolutely nothing, that always works well.
This fine also sets a precedent that some will follow. When New Mexico does it, ok, avoidable. If NY, California, etc start doing it, at some point there is no place left to run to.
Also, what's the "=3" supposed to mean?
dgellow 2 hours ago [-]
It’s a cat face emoticon
whatarewegonnad 2 hours ago [-]
wah!
iwontberude 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
rrgok 4 hours ago [-]
I don't understand the logic. If I got 1000 from a mentally challenged adult by manipulating them, do I get 200 in fine or should all 1000 get confiscated from me?
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
How much money did Meta get from mentally challenged adults in New Mexico?
iwontberude 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
thibaut_barrere 4 hours ago [-]
Some people tend to forget that you got to start somewhere, and a lot of huge undertakings started this way. Such as Linux ;-
whywhywhywhy 3 hours ago [-]
Must have missed the part of the linux story where a company was extorted for millions of dollars by a government.
amelius 2 hours ago [-]
I'm hoping the wrist-slapping works in an exponential way versus number of violations.
shevy-java 2 hours ago [-]
No, the fine is still small and thus irrelevant.
It is just the courts milking money here.
IF they want to fix the behaviour of mega-corporation,
there must be mandatory jail sentence. When Suckerberg
goes into prison for the next 10 years, no way to weasel
out, only then will we see a change in the real behaviour
of these guys. So your claim that this is more than a
slap of a wrist, is really not accurate here.
Der_Einzige 4 hours ago [-]
Show me evidence that the fine would go down by half instead of by a factor of 10 or more.
bryanrasmussen 2 hours ago [-]
there is no evidence available on that, perhaps people should go ahead and built it, but in cases such as this if NW thinks it would get a decrease or reversal on appeal it might settle for a lesser amount. I think a 90% decrease seems way too much for anyone to agree to. Frankly if I was NM and I won that much I don't think I would agree to a 50% decrease either, 25% decrease would seem to be a reasonable offer that Meta would have to be crazy not to accept. My opinion, not a lawyer and I have been told I am too aggressive in negotiations too.
on edit: part of reason why there is no evidence of that is in cases like this settlements might be secret, although with a state involved I guess it can't be, but being able to track how much fines actually decreased on appeal etc. and a typology of cases etc. would be nice to have, but also probably impossible to have.
tristanj 11 hours ago [-]
Per the court ruling [0], the specific law that Meta violated was New Mexico’s public-nuisance law, NMSA 1978 § 30-8-1. The relevant section that was violated is [1]:
A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either:
- A. injurious to public health, safety, morals or welfare; or
- B. interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property.
Whoever commits a public nuisance for which the act or penalty is not otherwise prescribed by law is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
The judge found that Meta’s operation of Facebook and Instagram created a public nuisance which injured public health, safety, and welfare; and burdened public schools, hospitals, and law enforcement. The judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund to abate the harm done.
The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Meta isn't a public nuisance any more than Philip Morris. Both are regulated already, both produce addictive products, both are optional.
bormaj 10 hours ago [-]
The level of regulation applied to Meta is very different from Philip Morris.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Yes, it's much lower
pessimizer 10 hours ago [-]
This dumb lawfare is a safety valve to allow them to continue not to regulate. Just like the under-18 bans are also an excuse not to regulate (and to root everyone's computer.) Somehow the evil algorithms become fine the day people turn 18, so all they have to do to comply is check. It's individuals' responsibility to make it easy for them.
cucumber3732842 2 hours ago [-]
>The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal.
Exactly. Meta will agree to pay a reduced settlement. Meta will agree to give the state a cut going forward (they won't make it that obvious, it'll be like a recurring fund contribution to services that are related to online harassment or something). Biggest win for FB would be being forced to have some stupid license going forward.
CPLX 2 hours ago [-]
> Meta isn't a public nuisance
The premise of the article is that they are, as determined by an actual judge, as well as a jury after a full trial where evidence was presented.
Replying “no they aren’t” is utterly free of substance.
mcmcmc 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
qwe----3 11 hours ago [-]
These rulings are stupid and if generalized would make doing business impossible. Parents should parent their kids. That law is so board - "public morals"? Should every porn site be taken down?
tw04 11 hours ago [-]
The world would almost assuredly be a better place if 14 year olds were looking at playboy magazines instead of having easy access to every fetish under the sun. It has distorted many a young man’s ideas of intimacy and sexual relations.
safety1st 8 hours ago [-]
One third of porn consumers are women. They are hardly immune.
dqh 2 hours ago [-]
But they are less violent.
vasco 1 hours ago [-]
Every person must have some natural violence pre disposition but that needs to be weighed by their ability to inflict it. I could be a super violent guy on a desert island and so never inflict violence. How physically strong you are must come into that which means opportunities for violence go down with physical size. Even if I want to be violent if I'm somewhat rational and don't want to get beat up.
It's not clear to me if women are less predisposed to violence or have on average less opportunity due to average smaller physical size specially compared to men. Though from experience I would say women also seem less pre disposed to violence in the first place.
autoexec 59 minutes ago [-]
Size doesn't matter all that much in the modern world. Even toddlers can murder people with a gun. Tiny people can kill very effectively with knives, poisons, cars, etc. The smaller you are the easier it can be to get away with it too.
cucumber3732842 2 hours ago [-]
The long tail of women's erotic novels is way worse because there's a lot less laws regulating what you can put in text vs film.
watwut 2 hours ago [-]
And yet, women dont create whole networks of sexual abuse and overall are less sexually violent.
And they are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements that rationalize and defend all that abuse.
autoexec 56 minutes ago [-]
> And yet, women dont create whole networks of sexual abuse
That explains why women like Ghislaine Maxwell or Kat Torres don't exist I guess.
inigyou 2 hours ago [-]
[citation needed] - lesbian relationships have the most domestic violence, and gay male relationships the least.
neonnoodle 2 hours ago [-]
This is not true. IIRC this factoid comes from the results of surveys asking people whether they had ever been the victims of domestic violence (not necessarily in their current relationships), and it should come as no surprise that relationships comprised of two women have the highest reporting rates of having been subjected to violence over their lifetimes, and relationships of two men the lowest rates. Within-relationship rates of domestic violence for lesbian couples are not higher than for heterosexual couples!
mm351206 1 hours ago [-]
Wow, that's really torturing the data to fit your worldview.
Theodores 2 hours ago [-]
Erotica != porn...
What is the difference between erotica and porn?
I am no expert, however, the former requires and stimulates the imagination, whereas the latter doesn't do that, everything is shown and nothing is left to the imagination.
From my experience of the 'stumbleupon' (a link-sharing site from many years ago), I would describe the saucy pictures women collected/liked as erotica rather than porn. Clearly porn would not make it to Stumbleupon, however, erotica tended to be collected by women rather than men.
This is just anecdotal observation from a few years ago.
Fundamentally, Western culture objectifies women (for profit) whereas other cultures don't necessarily do that, to consider porn as degenerate.
There is also local culture. Compare the boy that has strong women in their life and attends a mixed school with the boy that has older brothers but no sisters, goes to all-boys schools and is exposed to 'DJT locker room talk' (that would not never wash at the mixed school). The former is going to find porn to be cringeful and boring, whereas the latter gets hooked, particularly if they have a weak father figure that is into porn.
In the USA there is an incredible amount of sex and violence in the media. Just because it is all around, American women are going to be 'ambient' consumers of porn, with partners that think that watching porn with their partners is okay. I am not disputing your 'third of consumers' statistic, however, there are parts of the world where women have some 'immunity' to it.
As an aside, we all have our price and I did do some work for Playboy many aeons ago. I thought this would be a career limiting move, however, the Playboy people behind the camera were all women, extremely intelligent and a joy to work with. We didn't have full nudity, with the women in front of the camera being down to earth, friendly and not what I had 'feared'.
Playboy also had the articles, some of which would not be touched by the mainstream media, enabling Playboy to be a platform for whistleblowers, whilst giving some 'plausible deniability' for readers.
somenameforme 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hackable_sand 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sublinear 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
7 hours ago [-]
Sha1rholder 7 hours ago [-]
In what aspect is Playboy magazines superior?
throw1234567891 3 hours ago [-]
There’s a single naked woman in it. No hard bum, oral, every cavity sex. Have you ever held a Playboy magazine in your hand?
autoexec 51 minutes ago [-]
I guess "superior" is subjective
Barrin92 6 hours ago [-]
it contained significantly less extreme content. There's studies on kids as young as 12 routinely being exposed to sexual violence, practices such as choking or degrading activity in porn and viewing it as so normal that young women report being expected to take part in it. Fetishes and kinks that were reserved for adults are now normalized among teens.
"In an essay published in The Free Press in August, 16-year-old Isabel Hogben described how, by the time she was in 4th grade, she had seen internet porn featuring “simulated incest, bestiality, extreme bondage, sex with unconscious women, gangbangs, sadomasochism and unthinkable physical violence.” This is not an isolated case: A French government task force on equality recently reported that as much as 90% of online pornography features “verbal, physical and sexual violence toward women.”
Playboy wasn't necessarily a beacon of feminism (although sometimes surprisingly it was) but what young people are exposed to is in an entirely different category.
"Is it like the old Playboy magazine? You have essays there by the modern-day equivalent of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr.?"
krapp 10 hours ago [-]
"Playboy magazines" are part of the problem.
Fetishes aren't what has distorted mens' ideas of intimacy and sexual relations. Fetishes can be a perfectly healthy and consensual form of sexual expression. The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy, and they learn to see their own self worth as a function of their sexual prowess, and women as sexual currency.
Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender kids, and any site about womens' health issues, because "public morals" tends to consider all of it obscene, inherently pornographic or just "icky."
dash2 10 hours ago [-]
> The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy
The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US?
> Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender kids,
There is no reason this has to be true.
mlrtime 59 minutes ago [-]
IMO you are too caught up on the religious part of the teaching [ maybe rightfully so ] and less on the actual message.
The reason why this is so important is because of the preservation of the family. It is undeniable that a two parent healthy relationship is best for children regardless of religion. However religion is the proxy that is used to get there.
krapp 9 hours ago [-]
>The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US?
I don't know, probably.
>There is no reason this has to be true.
The incessant need of moralists and God-botherers to purge society of anything they deem immoral is the reason. You give these people an inch and and a legal pretext and they take a mile.
thin_carapace 7 hours ago [-]
i consider the negative impact of child exposure to hardcore pornography as outweighing the positives of online sex education and would prefer them both deleted rather than having the former involved
the_other 5 hours ago [-]
If you ban the latter, the former will proliferate in secret until it becomes the dominant culture.
thin_carapace 4 hours ago [-]
it already is the dominant culture. just look at the birth rate, as well reported damage from hardcore sex eg anal fissure rates, as well the existence of the western term gooning.
ben_w 29 minutes ago [-]
> it already is the dominant culture. just look at the birth rate, as well reported damage from hardcore sex eg anal fissure rates, as well the existence of the western term gooning.
When I was about 10, playground rumour was that alllllll men who have sex with men end up in hospital for torn anuses ("my mum says so and she's a nurse!"; I did not believe this at the time, but I was 10 and this was 1993, what was I going to say to that?)
If you think the mere "existence of the western term gooning" says much of anything about changes due specifically to internet culture, you've not seen the ancient erotic collections in museums. The internet makes it more difficult to be ignorant of the diversity of the human condition; in the past it was still diverse, but easier to ignore those differences.
What does seem to have actually changed (though even here it is difficult to be certain) is that our exposure to presentations of "perfection" has resulted in reality being dissatisfying: people still want relationships with other people, but reject potential partners who are in real life anything less than 9/10 on a scale of "how hard did you go on an Instagram filter after also going hard on makeup and even then this is scored on a curve from the best that the algorithm decided to show me?"
4 hours ago [-]
somenameforme 8 hours ago [-]
Sex education is, outside of some places in Europe, very rare. You'll certainly find such things far and few between in Asia. So not only is it absent in non-Christian nations, but the places where it is present, like Scandiland for ex, tend to be Christian.
Porn, let alone fetish porn, has a big problem because all the actors, including "amateur", are not only 'heavily used' and completely desensitized, but also the sort of people willing to publicly share video of themselves having sex. And so anybody taking any sort of que from there, whatsoever, has no clue what normal sex or normal relations look like.
socalgal2 7 hours ago [-]
It doesn't require porn. Most movies, tv shows, rom-coms or dramas, have "unrealistic" depictions of "normal" relationships.
worik 4 hours ago [-]
How long is it we had private bedrooms?
Not that long ago we would all have been very used to watching people have sex.
krapp 7 hours ago [-]
>Porn, let alone fetish porn, has a big problem because all the actors, including "amateur", are not only 'heavily used' and completely desensitized, but also the sort of people willing to publicly share video of themselves having sex.
Maybe, but none of that is germane to the subject at hand.
It's the responsibility of parents and other adults to keep children away from porn, and to teach them about sex and normal relations. Removing porn doesn't solve that problem because again the problem isn't the porn, it's the fact that porn is serving a role in educating people that society refuses to.
mlrtime 56 minutes ago [-]
>It's the responsibility of parents and other adults to keep children away from porn
The only way to do that [currently] is legislation. It is impossible otherwise.
donkey_brains 8 hours ago [-]
“ we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy, and they learn to see their own self worth as a function of their sexual prowess, and women as sexual currency.”
Holy…what the actual…get out of my head. Where can I read more about this idea/how to recover from this type of upbringing? Please?
sapphicsnail 4 hours ago [-]
I think it's important to make a distinction between actual porn sites and sites that just have people talking about LGBTQ stuff. I'm trans and me and my spouse don't want our kids to watch porn.
cm2012 8 hours ago [-]
Lol I have never met someone in my adult life in the usa who was strictly for abstinence before marriage. You are extremely overstating the taboo of it here.
knodi123 4 hours ago [-]
I know dozens. I'm sure I've met thousands. I used to be active in a lutheran (LCMS) church. If that's where you form your social network, you're likely to be _primarily_ around people who believe in abstinence before marriage. And if you're non-religious, you'll have a different social network.
America maybe a melting pot, but if you'll let me abuse the metaphor a bit- there's not a lot of stirring going on. There are conservative churches in every city in the US, and this is still a fairly religious country.
mlrtime 53 minutes ago [-]
LCMS is more conservative as you know, There is a lot of disagreement between ELCA.
I know of many lutheran [cool] pastors who had earrings, pony tails, never preached a single word about strict abstinence. There are many gay members of the Lutheran church and are welcomed.
sapphicsnail 4 hours ago [-]
Do you know many religious people? It's pretty common in the evangelical Christian community I grew up in.
tstrimple 4 hours ago [-]
Sounds like you're extremely limited in your experiences in the US. Maybe you should sit this one out? Your ignorance is not as good as someone else's lived experience.
“Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender “*kids*”
What?
krapp 7 hours ago [-]
Read all the words. I know it's Hacker News and that's asking for a lot of emotional maturity in a thread like this but I believe in you.
iammrpayments 4 hours ago [-]
You have to be mentally insane to think porn websites provide health education or that they are the only source in a conservative society for adults, and then you mention kids in the same comment. I’m not sure if you’re being edgy or just trolling.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
I think they're saying that religious extremists classify sex education (especially gay or transgender related) as porn and try to use porn laws to get it banned.
gghackernewsgg 3 hours ago [-]
I think what they are saying is that porn is often the only way for kids to learn what sex looks like.
PixyMisa 8 hours ago [-]
Why are sites about women's health issues posting porn, exactly?
krapp 7 hours ago [-]
They aren't, I never said they were.
yieldcrv 10 hours ago [-]
Huge blind spot to think that content only affects men’s view of intimacy and sexual relations
Explain that one for the class
Its a common conception but today is your lucky day to articulate it
tw04 10 hours ago [-]
To be clear, you want me to articulate a point that you fabricated and then attributed to me? I think I’m going to pass, but feel free to continue the discussion with yourself about things I didn’t say.
what 8 hours ago [-]
Psst, he didn’t reply to you. He replied to the person that replied to you.
yieldcrv 7 hours ago [-]
Good catch, I also wouldn’t have posted if I noticed that
yieldcrv 9 hours ago [-]
to clarify, you're suggesting I introduced a strawman argument because your focus on men wasn't mean to exclude anyone else?
that's... interesting. can you instead tell us why you prioritize men's sexuality over others then? or if that's somehow a distortion of what you said too, can you tell us why the focus on men at all?
spoonjim 7 hours ago [-]
The first two videos listed on PornHub.com are "FUCK THE CONDOM! Skinny Blonde Girl Opens HER LITTLE ASSHOLE FOR MY BIG COCK" and "2 Friends Want to Try an African Dick in the Ass for the First Time While They're Pissed On and Humiliated."
The First Amendment makes this kind of stuff borderline impossible to regulate in the US, but it's pretty obvious that this stuff is harmful to people's brains and that society would be better off it was not available to people (especially minors).
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
The first two videos listed on YouTube.com are "FUCK THE SCAMMER! Indian Scammer Opens HIS LITTLE WALLET FOR MY BIG COMPUTER HACK" and "2 Friends Want To Try Benadryl Challenge for the First Time While They're Pissed On Drugs"
mapontosevenths 7 hours ago [-]
> The world would almost assuredly be a better place if 14 year olds were looking at playboy magazines instead of having easy access to every fetish under the sun.
That was the world I grew up in. It was not better, it was just less open.
drivebyhooting 7 hours ago [-]
How can I parent my kids when every child in the school is a social media addict?
If heroin were commonplace and available in every kid’s pockets would parents be to blame then too?
dotancohen 5 hours ago [-]
Yes, actually.
I regularly discuss with my son what he watches and views online. I also share with him what I view. I'm sure that he hides some things from me, but we have a very open channel and he most certainly know what his father approves of and does not approve of.
Furthermore, I fully expect him to cross boundaries and view content that he knows I would not approve of. That's perfectly natural. But while doing so he knows very well that he is overstepping boundaries. That is a critical nuance.
TonyStr 4 hours ago [-]
Following this logic in context of GP's hypothetical, your son would end up taking heroin with his classmates covertly because he knows his father doesn't approve of it...
The point that (I think) GP was making is that it's impossible to raise kids in a different world than their peers. If their peers all have phones, your kid gets left out if he doesn't have a phone. If society bans smart-phones for kids under 15, there's nothing to be left out of since none of them have it.
abc123abc123 3 hours ago [-]
Easy. In school, it is the schools responsibility. If they don't act, sue them to pieces.
The schools will learn, and responsibly take care of their students. Once out of school, you are responsible.
Grow a spine, and rip that smartphone out of the hands of your child, and all will be well.
aucisson_masque 7 hours ago [-]
That's why phone are banned in school in France.
And you can still regulate what your kid does when he's not at school.
rcMgD2BwE72F 4 hours ago [-]
Are you helicoptering your children 24/7 when their out of school?
aucisson_masque 3 hours ago [-]
Don't need to. There is parental control and much more interesting things to do. The problem with school is that it's boring and it doesn't tire them enough.
tstrimple 4 hours ago [-]
By being an actual fucking parent and not a push over who thinks that because your kids friends are doing heroin it's fine for them to do too. I know it's difficult for you to say no to your children. But it's critical for their well-being. And no you cannot wait until the rest of society decides to criminalize the things you want criminalized before you decide to try to be a parent. The dividing line is the limits you personally set versus those society deems acceptable. I mean how fucking pathetic is this question? Do you just bow to every popular demand? Are you literally the kid who would jump off of a bridge just because your friends did it?
program_whiz 2 hours ago [-]
This is the human equivalent of "simply write code with no bugs". If you can't figure out how to write code without bugs, you think you can cause a human being in a complex environment to do exactly what you want against all influences?
How effective are you at controlling anyone in your life, including yourself? If we're really honest, we have a moderate amount of control of ourselves within strict limits (sleep, food, water, temperature, hormones, organ function, etc.). We have little to no actual control of others, we can only try to create incentives / structures to coax behavior we desire.
Posted study in comment below, but actually harsher parenting tends to result in more rebellious behavior.
Maybe a counter point: would you work better for a boss that was up your ass constantly and forcing you to work on stuff you didn't want? I've found I'm more effective when incentives are aligned and my boss is supportive and collaborative. Same works for parenting.
lordnacho 4 hours ago [-]
Apologies in advance, but this reads like someone who hasn't actually had kids. Keep in mind that people who have kids still only have a small number, and there is luck involved.
You can't decide that they will eat their vegetables.
You can't decide that they are going to be diligent in doing their homework.
And you can't decide whether they take an interest in what society shows them.
Yes, you can open your mouth, spilling out your years of experience, and you can make incentives like offering dessert when they eat their meals.
But that's all you can really do. If there are posters everywhere telling kids to jump off bridges, what are you to do? Stop your kids from looking at them? Just try to talk to them, explaining how big bridge is just there to get your money?
Anyone who has kids knows that they can't control them. You are very dependent on the rest of society behaving.
abc123abc123 3 hours ago [-]
Rubbish. Yes, you can decide that the child will eat vegetable and do their homework.
Did you grow up in a hippie commune?
It is as easy as deciding that the child will not leave the table until the vegetables are eaten, and will not leave his room before homework is done.
Grow a spine, set rules, and enforce them. That is how responsible adults are made. If not, your children will still be children when they grow up, and you will be responsible for it.
program_whiz 2 hours ago [-]
Interesting, so this was effective when you were a child and you only listened and never did anything your parents told you not to? Sounds like if that was effective it might be your personality, but most people aren't like that.
The vast majority of kids will require borderline abuse to force them to do things on a regular they don't want to. If they are forced, it tends to breed rebellion behind their parents back (there's a reason that the stereotype of the naughty "preachers kid" exists).
"""
Similar to findings regarding smoking and alcohol use, harsh parenting is considered to be one of the most important predictors of adolescent involvement in risky sexual behaviors
"""
lordnacho 2 hours ago [-]
> Yes, you can decide that the child will eat vegetable and do their homework.
You literally cannot.
When I was 5, I was told I couldn't go out and play until I'd eaten my lunch.
I didn't go out and play.
But I also didn't eat my lunch.
> Grow a spine, set rules, and enforce them. That is how responsible adults are made. If not, your children will still be children when they grow up, and you will be responsible for it.
Despite your best efforts, your kids will not turn out the way you wanted.
program_whiz 2 hours ago [-]
Well said, it also reads like someone who greatly overestimates their own control in what they think and "decide" to do. We are products of society unless we are truly living completely alone in the wilderness. Someone above said it better, if most students in class had easy access to heroine and were using heroine talking about how great it is, its up to luck whether your kid listens to you or friends, ads, influencers, etc. The numbers are in, and parents aren't winning.
Did people do exactly what their parents said? If so it sounds like they would just jump off a bridge if their parents told them to. Oh wait, you didn't listen to your parents? Ok, so you just did what you wanted, so your parents didn't have control of you? In that case, we can't really say "parents just control your kids" can we? I'd also be curious how well these same proponents would think "abstinance only" works (e.g. tell your kids just don't have sex). The same types usually say "you can't stop it, so we need to have robust education and safety measures".
A 5-16 year old has an undeveloped brain, and they badly want to fit in and have fun, and they have no concept of what long term even means. They are facing a deluge of influences that are spending billions with the brightest minds to influence them. They are surrounded by peers with full uncensored internet access for ~8 hours a day. Like all children they are curious and a bit rebellious against their parents at times. Its just realistic to say "just tell your kids not to do it".
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
Do your children have phones?
gms 6 hours ago [-]
I know many parents who manage this fine, I don't see why you can't:
1. You control whether your child has a phone and how much they are allowed to use it (Apple provides all sorts of controls for parents).
2. Every child in the school is not an addict. This is (for lack of a better term) a boomer view of the world.
intended 6 hours ago [-]
Sure you can argue the nuances, however this is missing the forest for the trees.
Children don’t grow up in a vacuum. They see how their peers operate, what they talk about, what they are playing with.
Not being able to do that marks you as an outsider.
And when the “toys” we are talking about are phones, video games, and social media, it isn’t just a question of a one off argument or rule.
I have seen a 1 year old, whose parents keep him away from screens and tech, get hypnotized by swiping the screen of an Apple Watch on his aunt’s hand.
SV and Tech had the most money, most people, and the ability to test and scale every idea to figure out what would enrapture adult human brains.
This is not any sort of fair fight. A competition where the old approaches to family and child rearing win against the Tech that has been created.
gms 4 hours ago [-]
I agree about being outsiders. Social media (if this is even a well-defined term) is just how people communicate these days. No need for hysteria and banning (I was on Slashdot in the 90s. Was that not social media?).
I think it’s as ignorant to want to ban kids from social media today as it was ignorant to want to ban my generation from video games 30 years ago. The kids at the time thought the adults were clueless people who did not understand technology. Kids today correctly think the same way about adults who are hysterical about social media.
Each parent can decide the time and age boundaries for their kids. But to think a 14 year old is going to accept being excluded from communication with their friends is just laughable.
TonyStr 4 hours ago [-]
All popular social media platforms today (snapchat, instagram, facebook) have endless streams of unfiltered short-form media which is designed to addict. I think few people are actually criticizing online communication for kids (though there are concerns about what communities and people they may interact with). The major problem is addicting media which promotes asocial behavior and sucks away the joy and creativity of going through life.
intended 3 hours ago [-]
A parallel between attitudes about new technologies, does not work when the parallel between the two technologies itself is broken.
I too was on slashdot, back in the early days of 5 digit/6 digit IDs. I’ve since worked in trust and safety, and contributed to research on it, and have played video games enough that it’s the “sport” I prefer.
The evidence and research shows that social media is entirely different than the benign games we grew up with. Zelda, Mario, Golden Eye, Ultima - are not the same as the behavioral skinner boxes that showed up with the advent of FarmVille.
And thats just games - the Skinner box and addictive design philosophy has resulted in direct quotes from people at meta warning their executives that this is going to make life worse for children and teens.
The comparison isn’t between panic about video games. The comparison is about panic about giving kids cigarettes and vapes.
bandrami 6 hours ago [-]
Meta (née Facebook) hired addiction medicine specialists to work on their platform engagement. It wasn't to make teens use their platforms less.
aprilthird2021 6 hours ago [-]
But, to be fair, many companies hire organizational psychologists and other such people to make their products addictive and to understand exactly how to make the most money on you and get the most time from you. Even the rewards program at the grocery store near you is tailored in such a way to maximally please you and keep you shopping there
intended 6 hours ago [-]
Many companies got regulated to hell and back, as a result.
There are no meth companies, the cigarette industry is regulated as far as we can take it, opiates and medication is regulated with punitive damages levied (once evidence passes a threshold). Gambling is highly regulated (and prediction markets will be as well, eventually)
I don’t remember off the top of my head, but I believe even reward programs will have regulations surrounding them.
Above all else: What we did with social media, lootboxes and phones, was unprecedented.
The safety people brought up the issues in the firms, and the final decision that had to be taken was to ensure shareholder returns.
inigyou 4 hours ago [-]
By the way there USED to be meth companies, it wasn't even prescription medicine, it was over-the-counter.
tbrownaw 1 hours ago [-]
> That law is so board - "public morals"? Should every porn site be taken down?
The age-gate / anti-anonymity laws popping up everywhere are because there are enough people who would answer "yes" to that.
usernametaken29 9 hours ago [-]
This assumes parents aren’t doing their job. As a young kid you don’t have a choice. Social pressure to participate in social media is intense. Either you’re constantly online or you’re out.
Though luck being a parent policing this, you’ll only make things worse for your kid and your own. Only a mandated curfew can help.
bothers 9 hours ago [-]
Every porn site that makes money off harm to minors? Yes, and sometimes they are taken down.
fivetenpen 11 hours ago [-]
Yes they should, but guess what they’re doing instead?
Scrolling.
Engagement algorithm needs to be made illegal.
crowcroft 10 hours ago [-]
I think this is a general misunderstanding of how common law legal systems work.
The extent to which these are or are not generalized is decided by judges based on the merits of individual cases, and while a written law might sound broad the way it's interpreted is up to the accepted precedence.
I suspect a porn site would be ok because it's clearly labelled, and isn't trying to entice kids to engage with it. However if you're social platform deliberately trying to increase engagement with under 18s, and then promoting sexual content to them...
gmerc 6 hours ago [-]
Maybe this business should be impossible. Why should it be possible?
cromka 10 hours ago [-]
Ah yes, the good old "cigarettes and alcohol should be freely available to kids" lobby logic, like it's the 60s and 70s again.
consensus1 9 hours ago [-]
Cigarettes and alcohol are freely available to kids
ndsipa_pomu 42 minutes ago [-]
They're usually covered by age limit laws and also not "free" as they cost money to purchase. In what sense are they available freely to kids?
consensus1 27 minutes ago [-]
"Freely available" doesn't mean they are free of charge, but that they can be obtained at any time with minimal effort.
mlrtime 37 minutes ago [-]
No, they're not. Not in most of the US and not compared to social media/porn. This is disingenuous.
The average 13 year old in the US cannot easily get a cigarette or a beer. Not impossible of course, but not as easy as porn/instagram.
bluefirebrand 9 hours ago [-]
Not really
Some number of people might make these available to kids, but it's certainly nowhere near "freely"
techblueberry 11 hours ago [-]
> Should every porn site be taken down?
I mean, I like porn as much as the next guy, but probably yes?
sneak 10 hours ago [-]
I’m curious the moral basis for which you have appointed yourself more qualified than the adult viewers themselves about what adults should be able to view in their web browser.
techblueberry 10 hours ago [-]
I find it amusing that you think that anyone trying to declare themselves an authority does so on a moral basis.
camillomiller 3 hours ago [-]
This comment is stupid and it’s because of people like you that evil organizations like Meta can get away with whatever the fuck they want.
Shame on you
homeonthemtn 11 hours ago [-]
Yes. It's ok to say no to porn and gore. I'm tired of acting like we need it to survive otherwise some dystopian genie will be unleashed. Get rid of that shit.
musicjerm 9 hours ago [-]
I think a lot of us probably would agree that pornographic content is generally bad for society. I think the hard part here is actually getting rid of it. I think what will end up happening is it moves to a darker part of the web and is completely unregulated. Just look at what happened in the US with illegal drugs. They didn’t just go away, and now we have less safe drugs pretty much freely available laced with fentanyl and other harmful or deadly substances. I know this isn’t exactly the same situation but we should consider what might happen when making something “illegal”.
esseph 9 hours ago [-]
> I think a lot of us probably would agree that pornographic content is generally bad for society.
Speak for yourself. The science of it seems to be a mixed bag with definite pros and cons.
You're talking about something that is also intrinsic to humanity. It takes no resources. Good luck with that.
homeonthemtn 14 minutes ago [-]
Neither porn nor gore is intrinsic to society
cindyllm 6 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Scaled 4 hours ago [-]
If you don't like free speech, feel free to move to Russia, China, North Korea, etc. But don't drag the rest of free society down with you.
lesostep 4 hours ago [-]
That wouldn't solve his issue, though: all of those countries have gore and porn
Maybe Utah or UAE would be a better fit for this.
sneak 10 hours ago [-]
You are of course free to not view it. Why do you think that you should decide for others what they should view? How do you know better than they do, what they should or should not be viewing?
JKCalhoun 10 hours ago [-]
As I got older I began to recognize that some things are just bad for society at large.
My refraining from a thing doesn't fix the societal ill the thing causes.
arjie 6 hours ago [-]
I suspect this view is actually the majority. Chat Control, the Great Firewall, Indian VoIP control, the Spanish Cloudflare ban and so on point to many societies finding that many things are just bad for society at large. We’re all just fighting over what things are just bad for society at large.
In the US, the first amendment exists but in Germany simply displaying the flag of the Nazi party is illegal. The latter have determined that it’s just bad for society at large. In El Salvador, tattoos on a man are just bad for society at large.
It’s true that refraining does not actually solve the problem. Others must be constrained. Sometimes for their own good and other times for the sake of society.
Personally, I like the way the US is setup but what is truly adaptive isn’t clear to me. Perhaps indeed it is good that one is bone sawed because the things one is saying are just bad for society at large and I should support that whether or not I have said those things.
Only time will tell. I just hope I have some place to live that has something like the First Amendment and that has some of the freewheeling life of the US. Maybe I will only have that if I defend it and if I fail to then by its defeat it will have proven its maladaptive nature.
Scaled 5 hours ago [-]
To use a tired cliche, 'freedom isn't free.' I used to roll my eyes at that, but I have recently become convinced that the only thing holding us back from a total backwards slide on civil rights is a small number of citizens fighting and speaking up.
Even in this thread, you can see any number of people gleefully encouraging censorship and the stripping of our first amendment rights. I don't mind if they end up living in a totalitarian hellhole, but I certainly won't be going quietly with them.
techblueberry 10 hours ago [-]
> Why do you think that you should decide for others what they should view?
Why not? Some people decide for others on abortion, some driving, some alcohol and drugs. Some people decide how much the government is allowed to steal from us.
Why wouldn’t I think I should decide for others?
qotgalaxy 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
cindyllm 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
popalchemist 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
skeledrew 10 hours ago [-]
However you put it, the parent (if around) is the closest and most frequent point of contact for any child. A parent doing an OK job would be a reliable resource whom the child can approach with any questions arising from weird "discoveries" online or even in the community. A parent doing a splendid job would proactively educate their child about the world and it's messiness so said child is equipped to confidently handle much of what pops up. A child should be able to recognize and avoid predation when they encounter it.
dijksterhuis 9 hours ago [-]
you know, i feel like the "it's the parents' responsibility" comments that turn up on submissions like this often tend towards phrasing like "the parents" rather than "with my children i ..."
cromka 8 hours ago [-]
Agreed. It's the same "where were the parents!" shouting, just phrased differently.
shimman 10 hours ago [-]
No, society is allowed to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Acting like trillion dollar corporations do not have a massive influence on American society is borderline mush for brains here.
You basically don't want to punish American corporations, which is just frankly odd. American corporations are some of the most destructive and anti-human organizations on the planet. Being pro-corporation means you have anti-human sentiments, and frankly what are yours? That you think people with poor constitutions or mental acuity deserve to feel mental anguish? Like what is it, just say it and save us time.
Anyone that fights back against a corporation is always seen as a hero for good reason.
judge2020 11 hours ago [-]
Is there also a sort-of injunction to stop doing x y z? Or is just existing as a social media company a public nuisance?
tristanj 11 hours ago [-]
From the article:
The company must also enact certain safety features such as limiting the amount of time underage users in the state spend on Facebook and Instagram, hiding by default the number of “likes” on photos for such people and disclosing to users there the risks of its platforms.
For users under 18, Meta will eliminate push notifications during night time (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) on all days; and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on school days during the academic year. They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month.
TBH, these restrictions will just push kids to use Snapchat.
ElProlactin 11 hours ago [-]
> They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month.
When you consider that the average person is awake for somewhere between 450 and 500 hours per month, 90 hours still represents ~20% of waking time.
For comparison, a K-12 student spends 110-140 hours per month at school. So this is still a ridiculous amount of time for anyone to be spending on social media, teen or adult.
judge2020 10 hours ago [-]
The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app? Hardly social media if most of your usage is just using it to DM friends/family, a la texting.
Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach, but it's hard, and the government can't mandate parents take the correct approach when it's so high-friction.
ElProlactin 7 hours ago [-]
> Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach...
In theory, this sounds reasonable. The problem is that these platforms are inherently toxic. They have been intentionally designed to be addictive and there are so many examples proving that they have operated with no duty of care to protect children.
We wouldn't put free crack vending machines in school cafeterias and tell parents "talk to your kids about their crack use", would we?
We also should acknowledge how insidious the harm of these platforms is. You could keep your kid off of them and he or she could still be the victim of social media bullying.
All efforts to make social media use "safe" will fail unless and until we accept that these platforms are irredeemably flawed and detrimental to human health, mental and physical. They're no different than cigarettes, and probably worse.
skeledrew 10 hours ago [-]
Lots of messaging apps out there. No need to use one that's connected to a toxic platform.
troupo 8 hours ago [-]
> The problem is, what if one of these apps is being used as a messaging app?
How is this a problem? We've had messaging apps 24/7 for 15 years. For many millenia we didn't have them, and it was hardly ever a problem.
judge2020 7 hours ago [-]
Because we removed the physical distance barrier to relationships, no reason to artificially close it now.
troupo 6 hours ago [-]
And this has been shown time and again to be quite detrimental. Yes, you have to disconnect. No, disconnecting for a few hours is not a problem just because "these are messaging apps".
aprilthird2021 6 hours ago [-]
Can any lawyer chime in for us laymen? This seems like such a broad law that can be interpreted to allow any punishment against basically anything especially since "public morals" are such a subjective thing.
dodobirdlord 5 hours ago [-]
Laws tend to be written pretty broadly, with the understanding that when you encounter a law that seems like it could be construed in a ridiculous way, it’s the ridiculous construal that is silly and not the law. Judges and juries exist to ensure that silly stuff doesn’t happen, rather than trying to write laws so that they hold up to the most adversarial possible reading.
Is writing a book about being a bank robber going to pass muster as a threat to public morals? Probably no. Is setting up a free cigarette dispenser outside of an elementary school? Probably yes.
morning_poster 2 hours ago [-]
This ruling is absurd. The "harm" alleged could be produced not only by any social media, but by any mass media. But this ruling is really not about that-- it is a shot across the bow of Facebook and the rest of Big Tech warning them to get in line with the official propaganda or the US government will make their lives very difficult. Notice how this wasn't happening to Facebook when they were banning anyone that posted the wrong opinion about the Ukraine War or Covid shots.
jLaForest 41 minutes ago [-]
Meta purposely targeted preteens with a corporate strategy to get them addicted to social media
brazukadev 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sajithdilshan 3 hours ago [-]
Instagram (reels) and tiktok are truly online version of Heroine equivalent. I remember during pandemic time downloading tiktok just to see what's all the hype was about and next thing, I was wasting hours mindlessly scrolling through it. Later on same happened with reels as well. I would open the app thinking maybe just check for 15mins and time just goes by so fast and I would end-up wasting hours on it.
Also, the comment sections are the worst. Total brainrot repetitive comments by people just seeking for more likes. Last year I finally deleted tiktok and few weeks ago I've deactivated my instagram account. Since then, I have actually been sleeping much better and also less negativity and stress in my life.
tentacleuno 3 hours ago [-]
That's awful, I'm glad I've never actually used either platform. These companies obviously seem to be employing psychologists et. al. to figure out how to make the platforms more addictive; I can't see how they'd get it so damn right otherwise.
I keep hearing people talk about it but have never seen the appeal -- it seems like a lot of dopamine-inducing content with little substance. I'll take a longer educational video on YouTube any day.
sajithdilshan 1 hours ago [-]
They absolutely use some sort of psychological hacks when designing the algorithm. Somehow it finds the correct types of videos to keep you addictive pretty fast
fergie 2 hours ago [-]
To be fair- one of the interesting things about TikTok is how it rewards good commenting. It seems to bury negative commentary and reward positive commentary with the result that the comment field is generally some combination of genuinely insightful and hilarious.
sajithdilshan 1 hours ago [-]
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any good comment on TikTok. The most liked top comments are always one liner brainrot. Might be funny on the first time, but after seeing the same types of comments over and over get pretty exhausting
TZubiri 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe I misread, but this is not about addictive products like reels at all, it's about child trafficking being advertised through Instagram with public but non explicit photos, and Meta's failure to remove that content.
stingraycharles 2 hours ago [-]
You’re right, but it seems like the punishments are not really about that, but just a general “protect the children” and age verification system.
> Instead, the court ordered Meta to continue to improve its age-assurance tools in New Mexico, which include using artificial intelligence to determine people’s age based on signals such as who their friends are and what types of content they post and consume. Meta must also attempt to develop a dedicated “under-13-years-of-age prediction model” in the next two years.
I’m sure the results of this will be stellar, being ordered to attempt to develop an AI prediction model… if they try and it doesn’t work they still complied with the order.
TZubiri 2 hours ago [-]
> if they try and it doesn’t work they still complied with the order.
Probably, but they would be still liable for the additional compensatory and punitive damages of the issues they have set precendent for being liable to.
majorchord 12 hours ago [-]
I wonder how many billions it would take every year for this to not just be considered "cost of doing business"?
cadamsdotcom 12 hours ago [-]
This is the "slap on the wrist, don't do it again".
A future judge will not be so kind if they keep doing it.
Being punitive the first time is unwise because it invites abuse by others seeking an advantage.
nvme0n1p1 11 hours ago [-]
> Being punitive the first time is unwise
I'm not so sure this is the first time. 100th, maybe.
Hmm, idk why the downvotes. Maybe from people who don't know how to use google? Took me 5 seconds to find several more from this year alone.
Both of those links are literally about the exact same lawsuit in the submitted article. You just Googled the topic and pasted two sources from other media outlets thinking they were different cases.
Very ironic insulting everyone’s Googling abilities when you didn’t even read your own links...
nvme0n1p1 8 hours ago [-]
You got me there. I assumed they were different because the damages were different in all 3 links.
it's around 250$ per inhabitant. I think that's equivalent to a whole year of revenue or even more, not at all insignificant
tmp10423288442 6 hours ago [-]
This is a lot of money for just New Mexico - they only have a population a little more than 2 million.
ryandrake 8 hours ago [-]
This amounts to about 2 days of revenue. I'm sure they are going to learn their lesson with that kind of a penalty!
northernsausage 1 hours ago [-]
Nothing like a business being held accountable* for all the US free-trade & deep state nutcases to appear on here.
drivebyhooting 11 hours ago [-]
What benefit do kids draw from instagram and facebook?
gms 6 hours ago [-]
Socialising. Same benefit I drew from playing video games with my friends when I was in school.
(Though, to be a bit pedantic about it, kids don't use Facebook.)
alkonaut 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah they use snapchat and TikTok, with a sprinkle of instagram.
The problem with these are: they offer two features 1) a social feature. You can send DM:s or comment your friends picture of an ice cream 2) Brain-rot algorithmic short-form video feeds where even the most aware adult can easily get lost for hours.
I think this is calculated. If the social vs feed thing were two different apps, parents could easily just allow one and block the other. But now in order to stop the brainrot, I also need to block them from the social bit.
I wonder if there is any way to set up a firewall so you block the instagram shorts feeds, tiktok video, snapchat random vids ,etc but still allow snapchat messaging?
sajithdilshan 3 hours ago [-]
If someone can create an extension or some other way to block shorts from youtube, reels from instagram I can imagine people would even pay for it
pmontra 4 hours ago [-]
I did my socializing in real life but I guess that if kids are not allowed to get out anymore, they must do it with screens.
SkipperCat 11 hours ago [-]
There's a lot of benefit, but its all to META shareholders...
inigyou 3 hours ago [-]
Same benefit you get from HN. And I mean the benefit, not the rationalisation.
wraptile 6 hours ago [-]
It's sad we view social media so negatively these days when it should be incredible tool for both personal and social growth. I grew up with irc and reddit, and it was incredibly useful for me not only find like-minded people but to learn that there's more to life than my small town, there are a variety of different people, ideas and careers out there.
Sadly the new generation of networks grew in a different direction but all of this still exists, and it's incredibly disingenuous to say that "there are no benefits for kids". There's still a community for any subject on both Facebook and Instagram except it's all buried under spam and bad intentions.
TZubiri 2 hours ago [-]
communicating with peers would be the main one.
sneak 10 hours ago [-]
Well, Instagram DMs have entirely replaced sms and phone number exchange for an entire generation. This is like saying “what benefit do teenagers draw from having a phone line?”
ozozozd 6 hours ago [-]
Weird defense, do they not need a phone line for Instagram DMs to work?
drivebyhooting 10 hours ago [-]
That’s really sad. Locked in a walled garden of vampiric carnivorous plants. And for what? A modicum of convenience?
shaewest 9 hours ago [-]
Is it really that different from being locked into SMS or Email or Teamspeak or Skype?
I hate using SMS, but I'm forced to due to people I know using it, and it's 'openness' changes nothing for me as the end user.
drivebyhooting 9 hours ago [-]
Well for one thing SMS isn’t bundled with addictive apps that constantly try to lure you into traps against your better judgement.
shaewest 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah but SMS is also a paid product in most places, same with phone calls, and data too, but given most places (Schools, your home, work, libraries) pay for wifi, platform provided messaging is free.
Not that the addictive apps are great, but if we're talking locking, it's deciding between 'paying for' and 'receiving for free' with lock in being constant
lobofta 6 hours ago [-]
So Signal then. It's donation based and works fine.
mrbluecoat 12 hours ago [-]
Nice to read about, but will be appealed to eternity.
TZubiri 2 hours ago [-]
I understand that they may have legal standing to do so, and that it may be a profitable legal move.
But big picture strategy wise, I think they'll just focus on actually fixing the problem and avoiding such future suits, the reputational damage is as significant or even more than the fine. The amount of the penalties are very high per capita, but not necessarily high globally, so it's payable.
Even if you assume no altruism, it's not always in the best interests of a firm to be a maximal asshole.
They are going to end up paying much lesser. And that amount would be a loose change compared to what money they bring in.
grokcodec 9 hours ago [-]
just the cost of doing business for these reprobates
1vuio0pswjnm7 7 hours ago [-]
"Meta raised an affirmative defense that it is immune from the States public nuisance claim pursuant to Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA. Defendants Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses at 65, 17, State ex rel. Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., D-101-CV-2023-02838 (1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Aug. 2, 2024). This Court concludes that Meta is not immune from the public nuisance claim."
Those fines do not really work. You need mandatory jail sentence for the CEO etc...
gigatexal 5 hours ago [-]
They left off a zero from that fine.
nc55g3g 4 hours ago [-]
I’ll believe it when I see it. Meta will appeal this into the ground and drag it out for years. The AI age-prediction thing sounds nice but we all know how well their AI handles content moderation. They'll half-ass it, pay some fines as cost of doing business, and nothing will change.
dan_q 5 hours ago [-]
Lock them up.
techteach00 5 hours ago [-]
It's all just ambulance chasing.
carabiner 6 hours ago [-]
Harm to the world. I seriously believe screen addiction is worse than obesity and opiates but it's so normalized, no one can imagine a world without it.
93po 7 hours ago [-]
prison time please
system2 7 hours ago [-]
Meta's market cap is 1,600 times more than the fine.
Their full-year gross income in 2025 was $200.97 billion.
lol8675309 11 hours ago [-]
sure. can't wait for the checks.
abstractspoon 9 hours ago [-]
But not actually to modify their algorithms ?
lorreyfum 9 hours ago [-]
Now how about the adults?
vithlani 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Ozzie-D 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
animanoir 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
superze 3 hours ago [-]
Will those harmed receive the money? No, some fat child abusing politician will get it.
hax0ron3 4 hours ago [-]
What next, FedEx will be ordered to pay a billion dollars to address harm caused by the fact that some people mail child porn using FedEx?
Movie studios will be ordered to pay a billion dollars each to address harm that movies caused kids by teaching them unrealistic ideas about how hand-to-hand combat works?
xnorswap 4 hours ago [-]
> a jury found that the company knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms
tshaddox 4 hours ago [-]
In this case Meta was found guilty by a jury of knowingly harming children’s mental health and deliberately lying to users about the safety measure they take against sexual exploitation of children.
If a movie studio or shipping company does that, then I do hope that “what’s next” is the same (or harsher) judgement and sentencing.
dizlexic 3 hours ago [-]
Parent your kids.
There are countless services to block content you don't want.
There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want.
Quit thinking that government regulation & registration are the only ways to prevent children from accessing objectionable content.
Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good. Just because the people you agree with are driving the boat right now, there is no guarantee they will be in charge for long.
Edit: once again the government nanny staters get upset when someone brings up personal responsibilities. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you have to have a government (under the threat of violence) make it easier for you. Has everyone forgotten that social media isn't a right or a requirement for existence? You and your family can just not engage with it.
sajithdilshan 1 hours ago [-]
I agree that parents have the primary responsibility, but at the same time laws should be created to punish that harm children’s physical and mental health.
There’s a reason that laws exists to prohibit selling cigarettes and alcohol to children. But teenagers would still find a way to consume those, however now there’s an incentive for people to not sell those to underage because the consequences would be not worth it.
Same should happen with social media that harms children and their mental health.
Balinares 3 hours ago [-]
This assumes a world where one parent can afford to not work and mind the kids full time instead. This also assumes a world where having a parent over their shoulder full time doesn't severely mess up kids.
And meanwhile, punishing companies that knowingly cause harm for profit is broadly beneficial and should be a no-brainer. It also doesn't have anything to do with hypocritical age verification laws, which companies like Facebook are actively pushing to shift the responsibility away from themselves. I'd rather we supported the beneficial approach over the anonymity-destroying one, if it's all the same to you.
> There are countless services to block content you don't want.
How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them?
> There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want.
Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ).
> Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good.
Most likely, and the true legal solution is to turn social media into actual media. It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts unless they can prove they have active protection measures. I don't care how they do it, but they should do it. Yes, this will probably kill all social media. Burn it all down and let's build something better.
dizlexic 3 hours ago [-]
> How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them?
Not very easily if they're implemented across their networks and devices.
> Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ).
For ISP you can use your own firewall, install the millions of filters etc.
> It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts
You're absolutely of base, every media source I'm aware of leverages social media to continue driving traffic to their own sites. Do you have any idea how insane this is when you're dealing with a world of jurisdictions and different definitions of "truth"? You'd rather regulate the platform then the people who abuse it because... i'm assuming you just hate the platform is successful and doesn't behave how you think they should.
Is your argument the entire world should make your parenting easier or they should be punished?
IshKebab 3 hours ago [-]
I agree, but also in fairness it has taken this whole mess for Google to finally get off its arse and add proper age gating to Android (the Play Age Signals API).
cineticdaffodil 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 12:06:32 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenue from the U.S. and Canada and assign it proportionally by population, you find that Meta only earned about $1.5 billion to $2 billion total from New Mexico over the past five years. The exact figure depends on whether you allocate purely by population or account for purchasing power, which makes the estimate a little lower because New Mexico is a poorer state than the U.S. average.
Given that, the judgment is a half to two-thirds of what Meta could have obtained from New Mexico. So it is actually a serious deterrent, assuming Meta thinks New Mexico would continue to impose fines of that size.
I also think that there’s a good chance this judgment gets overturned or significantly reduced on appeal, but even if the fine drops to half its current level, it would be proportionately larger than almost any fine against any company, let alone tech, that I’ve heard of.
New Mexico has ~450,000 people under age 18, of which roughly 140,000 are between ages 13-17 (Meta officially requires age 13+ to use their platforms). Recent Pew surveys of U.S. teens ages 13–17 show ~70% of teenagers use Instagram and ~30% use Facebook.
In New Mexico, Instagram and Facebook would have ~100,000 users in the 13-17 group. That's not everyone, some underage users may lie about their age, so add in ~30,000 unauthorized users under age 13. Overall, around 130,000 people in the affected class.
The judge assessed $942 million in total penalties, and dividing that $942 million across 130,000 users equals approximately $7,250 in fines per user.
If this fine remains, and Meta pays out to the affected parties, these kids could end up rewarded with thousands of dollars for just for having a Facebook or Instagram account. Which creates some bizarre incentives, minors get rewarded for signing up for the platforms that are harming them in the first place.
There’s a good argument for using the funds to support mental health programs, but as far as paying for damage done, Meta is getting off very light here. Classic privatize profits, socialize costs.
Meta was fined for:
- 37,500 instances of deceptive-practice violations @ $5,000 per
- 37,500 instances of unconscionable-practice violations @ $5,000 per
- 75,000 total violations x $5,000 = $375 million
The rationale for only using 37,500 users (instead of the actual user count), and choosing $5,000 per instance (the maximum amount allowed by law) is unclear to me.
The second case is even more confusing, New Mexico requested $953 million from Meta to pay for its "equitable share" of a $3.7 billion public-nuisance abatement program state experts created. A judge reduced this amount to only $567 million, determining that:
1) other platforms also share responsibility, and
2) some proposed expenses were too broad (ex: the judge denied the request for the construction of entire new hospitals and clinics as part of the program).
how is this bad? that's a great incentive for the platforms to not signup minors anymore.
Did you even read the first line of the article? "A New Mexico court has ordered Meta ... to pay $567m into a fund aimed at redressing adverse mental health impacts". It does NOT go to the children's purses. There's also a fine, which --as fines do-- goes to the state. Not to the individual children.
> outsized
Are you arguing it should be less?
Who's wronged here? The children.
How much do they get for being wronged? Absolutely nothing.
It all just goes to the governments coffers to be wasted away on a few PSAs directed at children.
Will Facebook change its policies? No.
Going to need bigger fines. This is how they curbed the tobacco industry.
That's why fines need to be escalating.
As a result, Rhode Island has some great followup and public health programs. It wasn't that much money to DuPont, but it did real good in Rhode Island, and I believe DuPont changed their legal tactics afterwards.
The taxpayer just takes a dollar out of their pocket, and pays a dollar in tax revenue short fall. This fine changes nothing, punishes tax payers, and Meta will just lobby more politicians. =3
The payment of fines for penalties from breaking civil or criminal laws is not deductible according to IRS tax rules : https://www.irs.gov/publications/p529#en_US_202012_publink10...
[1] “They won this battle and the last one. But the other side has millions of soldiers. They will just replace them.”
This fine also sets a precedent that some will follow. When New Mexico does it, ok, avoidable. If NY, California, etc start doing it, at some point there is no place left to run to.
Also, what's the "=3" supposed to mean?
It is just the courts milking money here.
IF they want to fix the behaviour of mega-corporation, there must be mandatory jail sentence. When Suckerberg goes into prison for the next 10 years, no way to weasel out, only then will we see a change in the real behaviour of these guys. So your claim that this is more than a slap of a wrist, is really not accurate here.
on edit: part of reason why there is no evidence of that is in cases like this settlements might be secret, although with a state involved I guess it can't be, but being able to track how much fines actually decreased on appeal etc. and a typology of cases etc. would be nice to have, but also probably impossible to have.
A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either:
- A. injurious to public health, safety, morals or welfare; or
- B. interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property.
Whoever commits a public nuisance for which the act or penalty is not otherwise prescribed by law is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
The judge found that Meta’s operation of Facebook and Instagram created a public nuisance which injured public health, safety, and welfare; and burdened public schools, hospitals, and law enforcement. The judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund to abate the harm done.
[0] https://www.kob.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/D-101-CV-2023...
[1] https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-8...
Exactly. Meta will agree to pay a reduced settlement. Meta will agree to give the state a cut going forward (they won't make it that obvious, it'll be like a recurring fund contribution to services that are related to online harassment or something). Biggest win for FB would be being forced to have some stupid license going forward.
The premise of the article is that they are, as determined by an actual judge, as well as a jury after a full trial where evidence was presented.
Replying “no they aren’t” is utterly free of substance.
It's not clear to me if women are less predisposed to violence or have on average less opportunity due to average smaller physical size specially compared to men. Though from experience I would say women also seem less pre disposed to violence in the first place.
And they are less likely to create whole ideologies, political parties and movements that rationalize and defend all that abuse.
That explains why women like Ghislaine Maxwell or Kat Torres don't exist I guess.
What is the difference between erotica and porn?
I am no expert, however, the former requires and stimulates the imagination, whereas the latter doesn't do that, everything is shown and nothing is left to the imagination.
From my experience of the 'stumbleupon' (a link-sharing site from many years ago), I would describe the saucy pictures women collected/liked as erotica rather than porn. Clearly porn would not make it to Stumbleupon, however, erotica tended to be collected by women rather than men.
This is just anecdotal observation from a few years ago.
Fundamentally, Western culture objectifies women (for profit) whereas other cultures don't necessarily do that, to consider porn as degenerate.
There is also local culture. Compare the boy that has strong women in their life and attends a mixed school with the boy that has older brothers but no sisters, goes to all-boys schools and is exposed to 'DJT locker room talk' (that would not never wash at the mixed school). The former is going to find porn to be cringeful and boring, whereas the latter gets hooked, particularly if they have a weak father figure that is into porn.
In the USA there is an incredible amount of sex and violence in the media. Just because it is all around, American women are going to be 'ambient' consumers of porn, with partners that think that watching porn with their partners is okay. I am not disputing your 'third of consumers' statistic, however, there are parts of the world where women have some 'immunity' to it.
As an aside, we all have our price and I did do some work for Playboy many aeons ago. I thought this would be a career limiting move, however, the Playboy people behind the camera were all women, extremely intelligent and a joy to work with. We didn't have full nudity, with the women in front of the camera being down to earth, friendly and not what I had 'feared'.
Playboy also had the articles, some of which would not be touched by the mainstream media, enabling Playboy to be a platform for whistleblowers, whilst giving some 'plausible deniability' for readers.
"In an essay published in The Free Press in August, 16-year-old Isabel Hogben described how, by the time she was in 4th grade, she had seen internet porn featuring “simulated incest, bestiality, extreme bondage, sex with unconscious women, gangbangs, sadomasochism and unthinkable physical violence.” This is not an isolated case: A French government task force on equality recently reported that as much as 90% of online pornography features “verbal, physical and sexual violence toward women.”
Playboy wasn't necessarily a beacon of feminism (although sometimes surprisingly it was) but what young people are exposed to is in an entirely different category.
https://archive.ph/CPeNz
"Is it like the old Playboy magazine? You have essays there by the modern-day equivalent of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr.?"
Fetishes aren't what has distorted mens' ideas of intimacy and sexual relations. Fetishes can be a perfectly healthy and consensual form of sexual expression. The problem is the lack of proper sexual education in schools and open dialogue in society because we're limited by Christian taboos to only ever mentioning abstinence until marriage, so porn becomes the only way men learn about sex and intimacy, and they learn to see their own self worth as a function of their sexual prowess, and women as sexual currency.
Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender kids, and any site about womens' health issues, because "public morals" tends to consider all of it obscene, inherently pornographic or just "icky."
The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US?
> Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender kids,
There is no reason this has to be true.
The reason why this is so important is because of the preservation of the family. It is undeniable that a two parent healthy relationship is best for children regardless of religion. However religion is the proxy that is used to get there.
I don't know, probably.
>There is no reason this has to be true.
The incessant need of moralists and God-botherers to purge society of anything they deem immoral is the reason. You give these people an inch and and a legal pretext and they take a mile.
When I was about 10, playground rumour was that alllllll men who have sex with men end up in hospital for torn anuses ("my mum says so and she's a nurse!"; I did not believe this at the time, but I was 10 and this was 1993, what was I going to say to that?)
If you think the mere "existence of the western term gooning" says much of anything about changes due specifically to internet culture, you've not seen the ancient erotic collections in museums. The internet makes it more difficult to be ignorant of the diversity of the human condition; in the past it was still diverse, but easier to ignore those differences.
What does seem to have actually changed (though even here it is difficult to be certain) is that our exposure to presentations of "perfection" has resulted in reality being dissatisfying: people still want relationships with other people, but reject potential partners who are in real life anything less than 9/10 on a scale of "how hard did you go on an Instagram filter after also going hard on makeup and even then this is scored on a curve from the best that the algorithm decided to show me?"
Porn, let alone fetish porn, has a big problem because all the actors, including "amateur", are not only 'heavily used' and completely desensitized, but also the sort of people willing to publicly share video of themselves having sex. And so anybody taking any sort of que from there, whatsoever, has no clue what normal sex or normal relations look like.
Not that long ago we would all have been very used to watching people have sex.
Maybe, but none of that is germane to the subject at hand.
It's the responsibility of parents and other adults to keep children away from porn, and to teach them about sex and normal relations. Removing porn doesn't solve that problem because again the problem isn't the porn, it's the fact that porn is serving a role in educating people that society refuses to.
The only way to do that [currently] is legislation. It is impossible otherwise.
Holy…what the actual…get out of my head. Where can I read more about this idea/how to recover from this type of upbringing? Please?
America maybe a melting pot, but if you'll let me abuse the metaphor a bit- there's not a lot of stirring going on. There are conservative churches in every city in the US, and this is still a fairly religious country.
I know of many lutheran [cool] pastors who had earrings, pony tails, never preached a single word about strict abstinence. There are many gay members of the Lutheran church and are welcomed.
https://ncac.org/resource/timeline-of-abstinence-only-educat...
What?
Explain that one for the class
Its a common conception but today is your lucky day to articulate it
that's... interesting. can you instead tell us why you prioritize men's sexuality over others then? or if that's somehow a distortion of what you said too, can you tell us why the focus on men at all?
The First Amendment makes this kind of stuff borderline impossible to regulate in the US, but it's pretty obvious that this stuff is harmful to people's brains and that society would be better off it was not available to people (especially minors).
That was the world I grew up in. It was not better, it was just less open.
If heroin were commonplace and available in every kid’s pockets would parents be to blame then too?
I regularly discuss with my son what he watches and views online. I also share with him what I view. I'm sure that he hides some things from me, but we have a very open channel and he most certainly know what his father approves of and does not approve of.
Furthermore, I fully expect him to cross boundaries and view content that he knows I would not approve of. That's perfectly natural. But while doing so he knows very well that he is overstepping boundaries. That is a critical nuance.
The point that (I think) GP was making is that it's impossible to raise kids in a different world than their peers. If their peers all have phones, your kid gets left out if he doesn't have a phone. If society bans smart-phones for kids under 15, there's nothing to be left out of since none of them have it.
The schools will learn, and responsibly take care of their students. Once out of school, you are responsible.
Grow a spine, and rip that smartphone out of the hands of your child, and all will be well.
And you can still regulate what your kid does when he's not at school.
How effective are you at controlling anyone in your life, including yourself? If we're really honest, we have a moderate amount of control of ourselves within strict limits (sleep, food, water, temperature, hormones, organ function, etc.). We have little to no actual control of others, we can only try to create incentives / structures to coax behavior we desire.
Posted study in comment below, but actually harsher parenting tends to result in more rebellious behavior.
Maybe a counter point: would you work better for a boss that was up your ass constantly and forcing you to work on stuff you didn't want? I've found I'm more effective when incentives are aligned and my boss is supportive and collaborative. Same works for parenting.
You can't decide that they will eat their vegetables.
You can't decide that they are going to be diligent in doing their homework.
And you can't decide whether they take an interest in what society shows them.
Yes, you can open your mouth, spilling out your years of experience, and you can make incentives like offering dessert when they eat their meals.
But that's all you can really do. If there are posters everywhere telling kids to jump off bridges, what are you to do? Stop your kids from looking at them? Just try to talk to them, explaining how big bridge is just there to get your money?
Anyone who has kids knows that they can't control them. You are very dependent on the rest of society behaving.
Did you grow up in a hippie commune?
It is as easy as deciding that the child will not leave the table until the vegetables are eaten, and will not leave his room before homework is done.
Grow a spine, set rules, and enforce them. That is how responsible adults are made. If not, your children will still be children when they grow up, and you will be responsible for it.
The vast majority of kids will require borderline abuse to force them to do things on a regular they don't want to. If they are forced, it tends to breed rebellion behind their parents back (there's a reason that the stereotype of the naughty "preachers kid" exists).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5193236/
""" Similar to findings regarding smoking and alcohol use, harsh parenting is considered to be one of the most important predictors of adolescent involvement in risky sexual behaviors """
You literally cannot.
When I was 5, I was told I couldn't go out and play until I'd eaten my lunch.
I didn't go out and play.
But I also didn't eat my lunch.
> Grow a spine, set rules, and enforce them. That is how responsible adults are made. If not, your children will still be children when they grow up, and you will be responsible for it.
Despite your best efforts, your kids will not turn out the way you wanted.
Did people do exactly what their parents said? If so it sounds like they would just jump off a bridge if their parents told them to. Oh wait, you didn't listen to your parents? Ok, so you just did what you wanted, so your parents didn't have control of you? In that case, we can't really say "parents just control your kids" can we? I'd also be curious how well these same proponents would think "abstinance only" works (e.g. tell your kids just don't have sex). The same types usually say "you can't stop it, so we need to have robust education and safety measures".
A 5-16 year old has an undeveloped brain, and they badly want to fit in and have fun, and they have no concept of what long term even means. They are facing a deluge of influences that are spending billions with the brightest minds to influence them. They are surrounded by peers with full uncensored internet access for ~8 hours a day. Like all children they are curious and a bit rebellious against their parents at times. Its just realistic to say "just tell your kids not to do it".
1. You control whether your child has a phone and how much they are allowed to use it (Apple provides all sorts of controls for parents).
2. Every child in the school is not an addict. This is (for lack of a better term) a boomer view of the world.
Children don’t grow up in a vacuum. They see how their peers operate, what they talk about, what they are playing with.
Not being able to do that marks you as an outsider.
And when the “toys” we are talking about are phones, video games, and social media, it isn’t just a question of a one off argument or rule.
I have seen a 1 year old, whose parents keep him away from screens and tech, get hypnotized by swiping the screen of an Apple Watch on his aunt’s hand.
SV and Tech had the most money, most people, and the ability to test and scale every idea to figure out what would enrapture adult human brains.
This is not any sort of fair fight. A competition where the old approaches to family and child rearing win against the Tech that has been created.
I think it’s as ignorant to want to ban kids from social media today as it was ignorant to want to ban my generation from video games 30 years ago. The kids at the time thought the adults were clueless people who did not understand technology. Kids today correctly think the same way about adults who are hysterical about social media.
Each parent can decide the time and age boundaries for their kids. But to think a 14 year old is going to accept being excluded from communication with their friends is just laughable.
I too was on slashdot, back in the early days of 5 digit/6 digit IDs. I’ve since worked in trust and safety, and contributed to research on it, and have played video games enough that it’s the “sport” I prefer.
The evidence and research shows that social media is entirely different than the benign games we grew up with. Zelda, Mario, Golden Eye, Ultima - are not the same as the behavioral skinner boxes that showed up with the advent of FarmVille.
And thats just games - the Skinner box and addictive design philosophy has resulted in direct quotes from people at meta warning their executives that this is going to make life worse for children and teens.
The comparison isn’t between panic about video games. The comparison is about panic about giving kids cigarettes and vapes.
There are no meth companies, the cigarette industry is regulated as far as we can take it, opiates and medication is regulated with punitive damages levied (once evidence passes a threshold). Gambling is highly regulated (and prediction markets will be as well, eventually)
I don’t remember off the top of my head, but I believe even reward programs will have regulations surrounding them.
Above all else: What we did with social media, lootboxes and phones, was unprecedented.
The safety people brought up the issues in the firms, and the final decision that had to be taken was to ensure shareholder returns.
The age-gate / anti-anonymity laws popping up everywhere are because there are enough people who would answer "yes" to that.
Engagement algorithm needs to be made illegal.
The extent to which these are or are not generalized is decided by judges based on the merits of individual cases, and while a written law might sound broad the way it's interpreted is up to the accepted precedence.
I suspect a porn site would be ok because it's clearly labelled, and isn't trying to entice kids to engage with it. However if you're social platform deliberately trying to increase engagement with under 18s, and then promoting sexual content to them...
The average 13 year old in the US cannot easily get a cigarette or a beer. Not impossible of course, but not as easy as porn/instagram.
Some number of people might make these available to kids, but it's certainly nowhere near "freely"
I mean, I like porn as much as the next guy, but probably yes?
Speak for yourself. The science of it seems to be a mixed bag with definite pros and cons.
You're talking about something that is also intrinsic to humanity. It takes no resources. Good luck with that.
Maybe Utah or UAE would be a better fit for this.
My refraining from a thing doesn't fix the societal ill the thing causes.
In the US, the first amendment exists but in Germany simply displaying the flag of the Nazi party is illegal. The latter have determined that it’s just bad for society at large. In El Salvador, tattoos on a man are just bad for society at large.
It’s true that refraining does not actually solve the problem. Others must be constrained. Sometimes for their own good and other times for the sake of society.
Personally, I like the way the US is setup but what is truly adaptive isn’t clear to me. Perhaps indeed it is good that one is bone sawed because the things one is saying are just bad for society at large and I should support that whether or not I have said those things.
Only time will tell. I just hope I have some place to live that has something like the First Amendment and that has some of the freewheeling life of the US. Maybe I will only have that if I defend it and if I fail to then by its defeat it will have proven its maladaptive nature.
Even in this thread, you can see any number of people gleefully encouraging censorship and the stripping of our first amendment rights. I don't mind if they end up living in a totalitarian hellhole, but I certainly won't be going quietly with them.
Why not? Some people decide for others on abortion, some driving, some alcohol and drugs. Some people decide how much the government is allowed to steal from us.
Why wouldn’t I think I should decide for others?
You basically don't want to punish American corporations, which is just frankly odd. American corporations are some of the most destructive and anti-human organizations on the planet. Being pro-corporation means you have anti-human sentiments, and frankly what are yours? That you think people with poor constitutions or mental acuity deserve to feel mental anguish? Like what is it, just say it and save us time.
Anyone that fights back against a corporation is always seen as a hero for good reason.
The company must also enact certain safety features such as limiting the amount of time underage users in the state spend on Facebook and Instagram, hiding by default the number of “likes” on photos for such people and disclosing to users there the risks of its platforms.
For users under 18, Meta will eliminate push notifications during night time (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) on all days; and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on school days during the academic year. They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month.
TBH, these restrictions will just push kids to use Snapchat.
When you consider that the average person is awake for somewhere between 450 and 500 hours per month, 90 hours still represents ~20% of waking time.
For comparison, a K-12 student spends 110-140 hours per month at school. So this is still a ridiculous amount of time for anyone to be spending on social media, teen or adult.
Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach, but it's hard, and the government can't mandate parents take the correct approach when it's so high-friction.
In theory, this sounds reasonable. The problem is that these platforms are inherently toxic. They have been intentionally designed to be addictive and there are so many examples proving that they have operated with no duty of care to protect children.
We wouldn't put free crack vending machines in school cafeterias and tell parents "talk to your kids about their crack use", would we?
We also should acknowledge how insidious the harm of these platforms is. You could keep your kid off of them and he or she could still be the victim of social media bullying.
All efforts to make social media use "safe" will fail unless and until we accept that these platforms are irredeemably flawed and detrimental to human health, mental and physical. They're no different than cigarettes, and probably worse.
How is this a problem? We've had messaging apps 24/7 for 15 years. For many millenia we didn't have them, and it was hardly ever a problem.
Is writing a book about being a bank robber going to pass muster as a threat to public morals? Probably no. Is setting up a free cigarette dispenser outside of an elementary school? Probably yes.
Also, the comment sections are the worst. Total brainrot repetitive comments by people just seeking for more likes. Last year I finally deleted tiktok and few weeks ago I've deactivated my instagram account. Since then, I have actually been sleeping much better and also less negativity and stress in my life.
I keep hearing people talk about it but have never seen the appeal -- it seems like a lot of dopamine-inducing content with little substance. I'll take a longer educational video on YouTube any day.
> Instead, the court ordered Meta to continue to improve its age-assurance tools in New Mexico, which include using artificial intelligence to determine people’s age based on signals such as who their friends are and what types of content they post and consume. Meta must also attempt to develop a dedicated “under-13-years-of-age prediction model” in the next two years.
I’m sure the results of this will be stellar, being ordered to attempt to develop an AI prediction model… if they try and it doesn’t work they still complied with the order.
Probably, but they would be still liable for the additional compensatory and punitive damages of the issues they have set precendent for being liable to.
A future judge will not be so kind if they keep doing it.
Being punitive the first time is unwise because it invites abuse by others seeking an advantage.
I'm not so sure this is the first time. 100th, maybe.
Hmm, idk why the downvotes. Maybe from people who don't know how to use google? Took me 5 seconds to find several more from this year alone.
2026: https://apnews.com/article/meta-court-ruling-mental-health-o...
2026: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/24/meta-new-...
How many more "first times" shall we give them?
Very ironic insulting everyone’s Googling abilities when you didn’t even read your own links...
In my defense though, they didn't pay, so the court upped the amount. It's still not their "first time". Here, I found this using Google too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platfo...
(Though, to be a bit pedantic about it, kids don't use Facebook.)
The problem with these are: they offer two features 1) a social feature. You can send DM:s or comment your friends picture of an ice cream 2) Brain-rot algorithmic short-form video feeds where even the most aware adult can easily get lost for hours.
I think this is calculated. If the social vs feed thing were two different apps, parents could easily just allow one and block the other. But now in order to stop the brainrot, I also need to block them from the social bit.
I wonder if there is any way to set up a firewall so you block the instagram shorts feeds, tiktok video, snapchat random vids ,etc but still allow snapchat messaging?
Sadly the new generation of networks grew in a different direction but all of this still exists, and it's incredibly disingenuous to say that "there are no benefits for kids". There's still a community for any subject on both Facebook and Instagram except it's all buried under spam and bad intentions.
I hate using SMS, but I'm forced to due to people I know using it, and it's 'openness' changes nothing for me as the end user.
Not that the addictive apps are great, but if we're talking locking, it's deciding between 'paying for' and 'receiving for free' with lock in being constant
But big picture strategy wise, I think they'll just focus on actually fixing the problem and avoiding such future suits, the reputational damage is as significant or even more than the fine. The amount of the penalties are very high per capita, but not necessarily high globally, so it's payable.
Even if you assume no altruism, it's not always in the best interests of a firm to be a maximal asshole.
49204500 | New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567M over harms to children's mental health | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/06/new-mexic... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204500
49204501 | Meta fined $567M in largest child safety ruling against social media giant | https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7lz3wr2rlo | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204501
49205817 | Meta ordered to pay $567M in New Mexico for teen mental health fund | https://www.reuters.com/world/new-mexico-court-orders-meta-p... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49205817
https://www.debevoise.com/-/media/files/insights/publication...
https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announc...
https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2...
https://uclawreview.org/2026/04/03/is-social-media-the-next-...
Their full-year gross income in 2025 was $200.97 billion.
Movie studios will be ordered to pay a billion dollars each to address harm that movies caused kids by teaching them unrealistic ideas about how hand-to-hand combat works?
If a movie studio or shipping company does that, then I do hope that “what’s next” is the same (or harsher) judgement and sentencing.
There are countless services to block content you don't want.
There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want.
Quit thinking that government regulation & registration are the only ways to prevent children from accessing objectionable content.
Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good. Just because the people you agree with are driving the boat right now, there is no guarantee they will be in charge for long.
Edit: once again the government nanny staters get upset when someone brings up personal responsibilities. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you have to have a government (under the threat of violence) make it easier for you. Has everyone forgotten that social media isn't a right or a requirement for existence? You and your family can just not engage with it.
There’s a reason that laws exists to prohibit selling cigarettes and alcohol to children. But teenagers would still find a way to consume those, however now there’s an incentive for people to not sell those to underage because the consequences would be not worth it.
Same should happen with social media that harms children and their mental health.
And meanwhile, punishing companies that knowingly cause harm for profit is broadly beneficial and should be a no-brainer. It also doesn't have anything to do with hypocritical age verification laws, which companies like Facebook are actively pushing to shift the responsibility away from themselves. I'd rather we supported the beneficial approach over the anonymity-destroying one, if it's all the same to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No
Ok...
> There are countless services to block content you don't want.
How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them?
> There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want.
Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ).
> Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good.
Most likely, and the true legal solution is to turn social media into actual media. It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts unless they can prove they have active protection measures. I don't care how they do it, but they should do it. Yes, this will probably kill all social media. Burn it all down and let's build something better.
Not very easily if they're implemented across their networks and devices.
> Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ).
For ISP you can use your own firewall, install the millions of filters etc.
> It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts
You're absolutely of base, every media source I'm aware of leverages social media to continue driving traffic to their own sites. Do you have any idea how insane this is when you're dealing with a world of jurisdictions and different definitions of "truth"? You'd rather regulate the platform then the people who abuse it because... i'm assuming you just hate the platform is successful and doesn't behave how you think they should.
Is your argument the entire world should make your parenting easier or they should be punished?