Meta found liable in child exploitation case

I’m pretty sure that’s exactly not how the fediverse works, unless you mean the admins of specific instances

Seems like half the problem here is how Suckerberg has handled it, rather than what happened…or have I got that wrong?

Ellison doesn’t get enough hatred, thanks for reminding me 🫡

I don’t know, I’d sacrifice a few years if I knew I’d be released to my Trillion dollar fortune. I’d make that deal.

They love their money as much as their freedom, each is worthless without the other, so take both.

Do I have to remind everyone the ending of The Wolf of Wall Street?

fines don’t count anymore, only hard time

I mean, you’re assuming this survives one of the eight million appeals the Facebook legal team is going to throw at it.

But yes, by the time it works itself all the way up and down the appellate courts, I wouldn’t expect this $1.5T company to experience any legal penalties in excess of a few million dollars.

So the fine was basically paid by Lunchtime on January 1.

I’ma bet that they spend 10 million of that 79 billion on bribes to change the law so this never happens to them again.

Well in that case, they’re going to have a very bad day.

And improve parental controls for children’s accounts. I’m sure there’s nothing currently giving a “parent” account high level control over a “child” account, but I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

Parental controls already exist in every major OS, they suffice to restrict & monitor social media, and they go unused.

A better solution might be for laws to provide parents resources & incentives to parent children’s online activity (including training to use resources they already have) & to provide children education in online safety & literacy. Decades ago, federal courts citing commission findings & studies recommended these alternatives as superior in effectiveness, meeting government duties to minimize impact on civil liberties, allocation of law enforcement resources, etc. For the permanent injunction to COPA, the judge wrote

Moreover, defendant contends that: (1) filters currently exist and, thus, cannot be considered a less restrictive alternative to COPA; and that (2) the private use of filters cannot be deemed a less restrictive alternative to COPA because it is not an alternative which the government can implement. These contentions have been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in ruling upon the efficacy of the 1999 preliminary injunction by this court. The Supreme Court wrote:

Congress undoubtedly may act to encourage the use of filters. We have held that Congress can give strong incentives to schools and libraries to use them. It could also take steps to promote their development by industry, and their use by parents. It is incorrect, for that reason, to say that filters are part of the current regulatory status quo. The need for parental cooperation does not automatically disqualify a proposed less restrictive alternative. In enacting COPA, Congress said its goal was to prevent the “widespread availability of the Internet” from providing “opportunities for minors to access materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can frustrate parental supervision or control.” COPA presumes that parents lack the ability, not the will, to monitor what their children see. By enacting programs to promote use of filtering software, Congress could give parents that ability without subjecting protected speech to severe penalties.

I also agree and conclude that in conjunction with the private use of filters, the government may promote and support their use by, for example, providing further education and training programs to parents and caregivers, giving incentives or mandates to ISP’s to provide filters to their subscribers, directing the developers of computer operating systems to provide filters and parental controls as a part of their products (Microsoft’s new operating system, Vista, now provides such features, see Finding of Fact 91), subsidizing the purchase of filters for those who cannot afford them, and by performing further studies and recommendations regarding filters.

Adult supervision, child education on online safety & literacy, parental controls & filters are more effective at less expense to fundamental rights. Governments know this & conveniently forget it.

What actually might help: hold people who design these tools criminally liable. Everyone knows what they are doing but you can’t really say no to your employer because “don’t worry you’re not liable” so everyone continues on building the Torment Nexus.

Unfortunately can’t codify how platforms work soecifically into law.

But you could possibly explicitly make companies liable for promoting “detrimental” content. Then define “promoting” as something like “surfacing content to a user beyond the reach of the users immediate network. Ie algorithmic suggestions or advertising”

What might actually help: only show people content from groups and people that they follow, preferably in chronological order, rather than suggesting new groups and pages algorithmically all the time and thereby increasing the likelihood of children interacting with strangers on the Internet.

You would simply have big groups like “I ❤️ New Mexico” where people will comment on the same posts and interact. If you would limit all the content including comments and likes to users someone personally follows without the ability to discover other users you would turn facebook basically into WhatsApp. It would definitely solve the issue but it would also make the platform look empty and kill it. Which would not necessarily be bad but sadly killing facebook is too radical for anyone to support.

Do you leave out words on purpose? It’s one thing to misspell something but I just don’t understand how you managed to just not write one word in both of your sentences.
And just for clarity, those words are “is” and “we”.

Until throw these fucks in jail this shit will continue.

You think? Send Zuckerberg or any of these billioraires to jail.

1.They will use their lawyers army to be moved to a for-profit prison. 2.They will buy that prison. 3.They will make changes inside, turning them into a resort for them, but an absolute shithole for all other prisoners, guards, etc.

In the next phase of the legal proceedings, due to begin on 4 May, the attorney general’s office will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta’s platforms that “offer stronger protections for children”, said Torrez.

The design feature changes the state is seeking include “enacting effective age verification, removing predators from the platform, and protecting minors from encrypted communications that shield bad actors”.

Unclear how age verification would play out with their Digital Childhood Alliance efforts.

Until throw these fucks in jail this shit will continue.

Which is exactly why that won’t happen. Our president is a pedophile. There’s a whole network of wealthy pedophiles who no longer have an island. The pedophiles are in power.

Fine based on % income of the company.