Meta Paid $17B – Gets to Write Safety Rules for Other SocMedia Platform(www.techdirt.com)
136 pointsby ano-ther19 hours ago8 comments
  • jazzyjackson18 hours ago
    Nice detailed write up. I love-hate Meta’s PR spin on this: “Meta's Agreement With Bipartisan Attorneys General: Calling on TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting Teens”

    https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...

    • voidfunc17 hours ago
      They learned good from the tobacco industry about how to manage this properly. Getting way out in front of things and pretending to regulate themselves.
    • joshhart12 hours ago
      An impressive amount of gall. Meta will only pay the full settlement if their competitors ALSO pay a fine. From the article:

      The remaining 30% (approximately $5.3 billion) will be released only after two specific conditions are met.

      YouTube and TikTok implement a one-hour Daily Limit, Night Mode, and age assurance measures. YouTube and TikTok each pay an amount matching the 30% figure, with half of the remaining funds tied to YouTube's payment and half tied to TikTok's.

    • ToucanLoucan17 hours ago
      Genuinely unhinged that companies can just lie this way to the public and it’s completely fine. Normal even.

      You didn’t agree to shit, Meta. You’re scum, so much so that even in the incredibly hostile to industry regulation environment we find ourselves in, you managed to get fined.

      • deepsun17 hours ago
        Tobacco industry lied and it was completely fine.

        DuPont hid Teflon pollution for decades.

        • cube0016 hours ago
          Scary what information these companies are sitting on which only comes to light once their hand is forced.

          https://www.ewg.org/research/dupont-hid-teflon-pollution-dec...

          • Incipient14 hours ago
            This is why in a free/profit driven market you *absolutely* need strong regulation. A companies mandate isn't to make the world a better place. It's to make money. The government's job is there to make the world a better place (generalisation of keep balance, keep people safe, etc).

            Australia gets given grief for being a nanny state, but it's what's required.

      • prometheus199215 hours ago
        not sure who is downvoting this comment. meta should not exist as a company.
  • diego_moita16 hours ago
    So the vampire is now the manager of the blood bank?
  • JohnMakin18 hours ago
    These arguments are not very strong. It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way. It also makes the absolutely insane assumption that children are on there consuming meaningful content and not literal brain rotting slop or worse.

    There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.

    • lotsofpulp15 hours ago
      >It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way.

      The platforms cannot stop someone from publishing information on a website outside of the platform.

      • JohnMakin2 hours ago
        Does an honest reading of what I said seem to imply I'm saying they are stopping it? No, they can't, but they can dominate and incentivize the market to make those websites outside of the platform irrelevant or basically invisible. This is a well known thing. These sites, facebook/IG in particular, also can link outside of their site, and do frequently, and have a heavy say in what types of sites get linked and how heavily those are weighted.
  • ChrisArchitect19 hours ago
    Discussion:

    Did Meta's Big Settlement Actually Help It?

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49464678

    Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819

  • imperio5915 hours ago
    Where are the regulations for PornHub and similar harmful websites?
  • hkt18 hours ago
    Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
    • mrandish16 hours ago
      > A settlement only binds the relevant parties.

      True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.

      The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.

    • mh-18 hours ago
      No. It's as you say here, as well.
    • SpicyLemonZest15 hours ago
      A settlement only binds the relevant parties, but I don't think it's terribly conspiratorial to think the details of this settlement are an implicit threat to Meta's competitors. "Meta agrees to implement a one-hour limit, but only after Youtube and Tiktok do the same" sounds very much like Youtube and Tiktok had better fall in line if they don't want to get sued themselves.
  • game_the0ry16 hours ago
    I can't stress this enough -- boycott all meta products.

    Delete them off your phone. You don't need insta and whatsapp.

    Starve the demon of your data.

    • cube0016 hours ago
      Some countries (India, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia) run entirely on WhatsApp including payments.

      If you want to book a doctor's appointment you don't call and talk to an AI chat bot you message them on WhatsApp.

      Signal was starting to gain traction until they dumped text message support and people were like, "well if I need two apps now I'll just drop Signal"

      • lbebber15 hours ago
        In Brazil, communications do run entirely on WhatsApp, but payments are entirely on Pix.

        Also I rememeber when there was a Meta-wide outage, and people switched to Telegram within the day, so the stranglehold they have might not be that strong.

      • mandeepj16 hours ago
        > If you want to book a doctor's appointment you don't call and talk to an AI chat bot you message them on WhatsApp.

        It’s so rare to come across it in India, I can say - there’s no such thing.

        • cube0015 hours ago
          >It's so rare to come across it in India, I can say - there’s no such thing.

          WhatsApp payments are only offered [1] in four countries (including India) it can't be "no such thing"

          [1]: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1293279751500598

    • ray_v16 hours ago
      Is there a "crypto-shred" method for destroying access to your account? Like, change your email to one that expires/isn't reusable, then change the password to some totally random, lengthy string and then never record it?
    • bigyabai16 hours ago
      It's like asking people to stop buying iPhones or using Windows, it's too late now.

      If you don't write the regulations yourself, then these companies are happy to come along and write them for you.

    • amir734jj16 hours ago
      I would love to. Unfortunately, half of my friends are on Instagram and the other half on WhatsApp. We are screwed.
  • nullorempty17 hours ago
    I think China got it right with TikTok. Educational content only! Done!