Meta Sued by California, States Over Harmful Youth Marketing (bloomberg.com) 36
Meta Platforms was sued by California and a group of more than two dozen states over claims that its social-media platforms Instagram and Facebook exploit youths for profit and feed them harmful content. From a report: The suit, filed in federal court in California, adds to growing scrutiny of social media giants over how they serve their youngest users.
"harmful content"? (Score:2)
Are ideas so dangerous now that our youth must be shielded from them? And is it now possible to place a dollar value on the harm caused by dangerous ideas?
Odd, how the government is starting to sound much like the medieval church, but without any claim to moral authority at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there's shit on YouTube right now that is objectively horrifying on levels that absolutely did not exist a thousand years ago. There's far more ideas total floating around the internet right now than there ever were, and it goes along with that that a certain percentage of them are also way worse than anything that's ever been before. From the way you phrase your rhetorical question it's obvious you consider this opinion to be rational and educated, but you really only have to think about the answer fo
Re: (Score:2)
You will probably not find anyone who doesn't think that there is content that we should shield our kids from.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the pretend-nibbling of some tortured and flayed corpse. Yuck.
But I actually would expose my kids to religion. Of course after sufficient preparation that they know that it's just a useful tool to keep gullible fools under control.
Re: (Score:2)
after which you feast on dead animals.
Rubba dub dub, thanks for the grub. Amen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of surprised you were modded down for your comment. Slashdot didn't use to be controlled by right wing religious zealots. They're the only people who could possibly find anything wrong with what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
But FB is already renown for censoring that content. If anything, the only ideas they allow are liberal, which makes it odd that California would consider the promotion of Leftist ideals as "unsafe for children".
And they've gone overboard in crafting a platform in which any intelligent discourse suitable for adults is already considered "unsafe". To include art which doesn't include actual nudity, but suggests it. Including abstract forms which could be seen as figures.
Re: (Score:2)
What "leftist ideals" do you suggest are among the things the California wants removed from children's eyes?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I'm wondering, and why this whole thing sounds so surreal. It's almost as if government is exercising power for its own sake, rather than to achieve a social good.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you were the one proposing that FB only promotes "leftist ideas", so which are those leftist ideas that California now wants barred and banned.
Because I could think of quite a bit of bullshit that litters FB that I wouldn't exactly call "leftist", but apparently you're so far off the deep end that you consider even the right wing nonsense cluttering that cesspool of ideas "leftist".
Re:"harmful content"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fuck is it with goberment baaaad parrots in liberatarianism attracting morons? Plenty of people remember that Meta (then Facebook) previously admitted their social experiments resulted in political radicalisation. This would just be another chapter of "They trust me, dumb fucks."
Re: (Score:2)
The fuck is it with goberment baaaad parrots in liberatarianism attracting morons?
Extremist philosophy attracts the hard of thinking, News at 11.
Libertarianism is the idea that unrestrained capitalism will find an equilibrium. Much like Marxism assumes that owning the means of production will grant the workers power over their destinies. Both work on the honour system and never assume it will be abused. Of course it will, then we end up in a totalitarian state.
Libertarianism works in theory like communism works in theory. The idea that unrestrained capitalism will not immediately b
Re: (Score:2)
Are ideas so dangerous now that our youth must be shielded from them?
The harmful content isn't dangerous ideas: it's no ideas at all. Facebook makes people stupid.
And is it now possible to place a dollar value on the harm caused by dangerous ideas?
That's what lawsuits are for: damages are judge-decided amounts of money awarded to victims of just about anything, including death.
like the medieval church, but without any claim to moral authority
Since when has the church had any claim to moral authority other than the one it thinks it has? If the state of California thinks itself righteous, it's no different.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I think parents should decide what content their children see. This idea that we let the free market decide. Which is a short way of saying a panel of marketing experts that devise campaigns according to tactics more appropriate for psychological manipulation. What responsible parent wants their children educated by a sociopathic electronic device that triggers a dopamine hit with every click? It's on par with the developmental harm of letting toddlers smoke cigarettes.
California suing a company? (Score:2)
In other news, the sun came up today...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Meta was also sued by 30 other states. The only reason California is called out specifically is because the lawsuit was filed in a federal court that just so happens to be in California. (It has to be filed somewhere.)
And the 9th Circuit is batshit crazy (and the most commonly reversed by higher courts). It's where you file batshit crazy lawsuits, just like you file patent cases in whatever Circuit it is in Texas.
That they filed it in California suggests they know it's BS, and their real purpose is PR (and fundraising for the next election cycle).
Re: (Score:2)
If the OP wants to criticize filing in California (the where) due to the 9th Circuit, then the OP has to criticize all those states equally. So it's disingenuous to make it sound like it's only California responsible for the suing.
common myth is wrong wrong wrong (Score:1)
Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time. All exceeding the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate of 75.5 percent.
Content, or algo!? (Score:3, Interesting)
All Social Media is Toxic (Score:3)
If you believe that all Social Media is toxic, it should come with a warning label or some parental control.
That being said, it never stopped kids from smoking or breaking into their parent's stash of booze. It never stopped Johnny sneaking a peek at
Dad's copy of Screw magazine is the one he read for the articles. Or was that Playboy?
Think of the children! Oh, wait think of our deficit-ridden coffers!
Re: (Score:3)
not selling cigarettes to children and holding adults accountable for giving them to children had a meaningful impact on childhood smoking. The argument borders on a false dilemma of all or nothing. It is possible to improve a situation with a ban even without perfect compliance of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
considering second-hand smoke risk, I doubt that keeping kids away from cigarettes completely kept them from the effects since their parents usually smoked. It may be better to consider the effects of alcohol use and teenage drivers, which gave way to MADD and the raising of the legal drinking age to 21 in the US; it hasn't stopped underage drinking. [cdc.gov] Prohibition didn't stop alcoholism or drinking in the US either, so other than a money grab I doubt that going after Meta is going to do anything except pad a
Ugh (Score:2)
Is Facebook the Juul of Social Media (Score:3)
Juul, a technological device created to enhance the delivery of nicotine compared to traditional tobacco combustion, has been discovered to be highly addictive, detrimental, and even fatal.
Facebook, a technological device created to ensnare users into selling their attention to the highest bidder, who is likely to be the most driven as they anticipate the greatest return from that attention. It is widely acknowledged that Facebook is both addictive and detrimental to numerous individuals.
It is not the ideas, it is the delivery method that requires addiction for Facebook to make any significant $$$.
Twitter, now X, will be next given the direction it is currently heading.
What a time to be alive. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not allow aggressive marketing of nicotine, alcohol and other drugs to kids then? If kids get addicted it's because they have bad parents, so it should not really be restricted.profit is more important no matter the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
In case you want to be informed before commenting (Score:2)
I know that there's a grand tradition of posting responses on Slashdot without knowing what you're talking about, but just in case anyone here wants to know what the law suit actually says before commenting, you can find the court filing here [documentcloud.org].