Meta agrees to pay up to $18 billion to end trial over Instagram, Facebook child addiction claims

[LordVile95]

They are hidden 'by default' which means you have to toggle a checkbox to show them.

A parent would have the toggle the checkbox

 

[LordVile95]

Not only is the fine too small, but I can't believe they are allowing them a 10 year period to pay the states.

It’s not a fine it’s a settlement. But it’s also small due to cooperation. Like the EU fined Valve more than publishers in the geoblocking case because valve didn’t cooperate.

 

[pnntmp]

A parent would have the toggle the checkbox

Yeah, sure. How did I miss that.
The reason for this trial and for most of the problems around children and social media is parents not doing what they should be doing. Let's hope that will magically change.

 

[OortCloud]

They need to actually police the content. The stuff on there is disgusting. So much of it is just made up misinformation.

 

[amghwk]

Maybe try reading the actual article next time? This trial was about Meta targeting MINORS specifically to get them addicted to the platform. Do you see ads for cigarettes or tobacco companies targeting minors? No, they can't even buy cigarettes. Same thing with alcohol.

Oh come onnnn... You can't be so blind to see what we're talking about. But I anywayz we don't have time to waste with the likes of you.

 

[lonetac]

They need to actually police the content. The stuff on there is disgusting. So much of it is just made up misinformation.

This to me is the next big problem. Access is one thing but when you are forcing fake made up content on folks, what is the point?

I am not trying to make this political but I was having a discussion with one of my friends friends for example, and he was saying how AoC needed to be investigated because she went into congress poor and is now a millionaire. And that she should be investigated for marrying for her USA citiizenship.

Both are demonstrably false and very easy to prove but of course he dug his head in and doubled down. Then started citing fake AI articles found on facebook. He then proceeded to show a snippit of her campaign finance in the millions but he didnt know the difference between campaign finance and networth. AI has made these people so brain broken they have lost just basic reasoning. Like hate her because you dont like her policies but to sit there and profess completely false accusations is just maddening. And this guy didnt give an inch, he did his research he says.

All I see is just AI sensationalized crap and folks are eating it up like its the gold standard. They dont think anymore.

What good does limiting time do if the time spent is consuming garbage that has no source of truth?

 

[Y2JB47]

This to me is the next big problem. Access is one thing but when you are forcing fake made up content on folks, what is the point?

I am not trying to make this political but I was having a discussion with one of my friends friends for example, and he was saying how AoC needed to be investigated because she went into congress poor and is now a millionaire. And that she should be investigated for marrying for her USA citiizenship.

Both are demonstrably false and very easy to prove but of course he dug his head in and doubled down. Then started citing fake AI articles found on facebook. He then proceeded to show a snippit of her campaign finance in the millions but he didnt know the difference between campaign finance and networth. AI has made these people so brain broken they have lost just basic reasoning. Like hate her because you dont like her policies but to sit there and profess completely false accusations is just maddening. And this guy didnt give an inch, he did his research he says.

All I see is just AI sensationalized crap and folks are eating it up like its the gold standard. They dont think anymore.

What good does limiting time do if the time spent is consuming garbage that has no source of truth?

This is the biggest problem facing western society. Low IQ people (probably 60% of the population) are being force fed lies and misinformation via social media and they just don’t have the equipment upstairs to deal with it. Then they are voting based on this. Hence Trump and the rise of populist politics across the west.


It will be the end of us all if not policed. Social media needs to be forced to remove lies and misinformation, lying politicians need to be held to account and we should also look at restricting the right to vote using a basic iq/reasoning test.

 

[OortCloud]

This to me is the next big problem. Access is one thing but when you are forcing fake made up content on folks, what is the point?

I am not trying to make this political but I was having a discussion with one of my friends friends for example, and he was saying how AoC needed to be investigated because she went into congress poor and is now a millionaire. And that she should be investigated for marrying for her USA citiizenship.

Both are demonstrably false and very easy to prove but of course he dug his head in and doubled down. Then started citing fake AI articles found on facebook. He then proceeded to show a snippit of her campaign finance in the millions but he didnt know the difference between campaign finance and networth. AI has made these people so brain broken they have lost just basic reasoning. Like hate her because you dont like her policies but to sit there and profess completely false accusations is just maddening. And this guy didnt give an inch, he did his research he says.

All I see is just AI sensationalized crap and folks are eating it up like its the gold standard. They dont think anymore.

What good does limiting time do if the time spent is consuming garbage that has no source of truth?

There's a weird article going around in the UK saying a BBC News reader Laura Kuenssberg had a fight with billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe. It is completely made up and has been discredited for weeks and repeatedly reported as a scam. But there are still always at least 10 adverts on Facebook still using this to make people go onto investment fraud sites. All they need to do to stop this is say 'if the text of the ad contains Kuenssberg and Ratcliffe don't allow it' but they can't even be bothered to do that.

 

[Vanderkaum037]

No, corporations are classified as people in the US and the only punishment that can be applied to them is fines. Unless the executives can be found of commiting some crime while managing the direction of the company, they can't face any charges other than simply being fired for failing in their fiduciary duty of acting in the best interest of stock holders. Oddly enough, following through with their fiduciary duty can mean commiting a crime and they can't be charged as they were acting in the best interest of the shareholders

Acting in the best interest of shareholders is a defense to a "breach of fiduciary duty" tort claim, but not a defense against any sort of criminal charge.
In addition to fines there is the "corporate death penalty." A judge can just shut a corporation down and force it to sell of its assets. As I recall several Enron executives did serve jail time for Enron's deceptive accounting practices. But it seems like that was owing to some very motivated district / state attorneys who had the gumption to pursue criminal charges.
There is a legal doctrine called "piercing the corporate veil," the application of which is notoriously random, but a judge can also say "your whole company is a sham designed to protect you so we're going to pretend it doesn't exist." But this is harder to do against larger established companies.
I just wish we had more mechanisms for actually enforcing the law rather than simply deterring people from breaking it.

 

[lonetac]

Social media needs to be forced to remove lies and misinformation, lying politicians need to be held to account

This is it right there. I am a big fan of if an elected official is exposed blatantly lying, they are replaced as incompetent.

The recent trend where folks with a microphone and position of power can just word salad and make things up on the fly is really concerning. Especially as folks are so divided and seem to just glaze over truth in defense of ensuring the other side is perceived as "evil", "radical" and a number of other flavored words that most dont even know the meaning of.

Once the controls are in place and action-ed, it will stop.

I make a joke when I see folks breaking a traffic law egregiously, I say, if they burned his house down for doing that, folks will stop. Its meant to be a joke but I think you get the point. Right now they can lie unchecked, even the media makes up excuses and refuses to challenge the lies.

Social media spreading them unchecked is a HUGE problem on the same topic of disinformation.

 

[HomeyBroDude]

The state AGs, for the 2nd time, had META on the ropes and let them go. Sigh....
FL is the only state to refuse the settlement.

This is the biggest problem facing western society. Low IQ people (probably 60% of the population) are being force fed lies and misinformation via social media and they just don’t have the equipment upstairs to deal with it. Then they are voting based on this. Hence Trump and the rise of populist politics across the west.


It will be the end of us all if not policed. Social media needs to be forced to remove lies and misinformation, lying politicians need to be held to account and we should also look at restricting the right to vote using a basic iq/reasoning test.

Bolshevik much?

 

[Axeia]

Social media needs to be forced to remove lies and misinformation, lying politicians need to be held to account and we should also look at restricting the right to vote using a basic iq/reasoning test.

Although I'm all for the latter.

The first bit, not so much.
Let the rotten apples expose themselves, adding a community note of "this is bs", sure.
Deleting posts is the opposite of holding people accountable. Just further encourages 'bubbles' anyway because what they consider lies differs per platform.

On X you have everyone shouting bs*.
On Truth social you have the right nutjobs.
On Bluesky you got the left nutjobs.
I'd take X over the other two if I spend time on any of them (I don't).

Censoring is rarely if ever the answer imo.

Yeah I know, leftists will claim X is run by Elon Musk and is thus right and they're getting suppressed. Think some of the points they're trying to make simply aren't as popular as they think they are.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Not only is the fine too small, but I can't believe they are allowing them a 10 year period to pay the states.

And the States aren't even the actual people who have experienced harm - the people get NOTHING from this. State treasuries don't help people. None of that money will be seen by any ACTUAL people, it'll just get stolen by State employees, as always.

That is literally why States and Nations exist - to steal money from everyone and siphon it back up to the banksters who own the legislators and governors. It has always been like this, since the Fertile Crescent. Only the currencies change.

 

[TooQik]

It’s not a fine it’s a settlement. But it’s also small due to cooperation. Like the EU fined Valve more than publishers in the geoblocking case because valve didn’t cooperate.

Fine, settlement, cost of doing business.....what ever they call it, the fact they are allowed ten years to pay this is ridiculous, as it wipes out any financial pressure to do the right thing.

 

[LordVile95]

Fine, settlement, cost of doing business.....what ever they call it, the fact they are allowed ten years to pay this is ridiculous, as it wipes out any financial pressure to do the right thing.

Point is if they don’t do it they’ll just be taken to court again for being in breach of the settlement

 

[TooQik]

Point is if they don’t do it they’ll just be taken to court again for being in breach of the settlement

And if they don't pay the full amount within the ten year period they've effectively bought themselves ten years to make as much money as possible, go to court again, rinse and repeat.

As it stands, the penalty, combined with the pay back period, does not constitute a deterrent to their current business practises.

 

[LordVile95]

And if they don't pay the full amount within the ten year period they've effectively bought themselves ten years to make as much money as possible, go to court again, rinse and repeat.

As it stands, the penalty, combined with the pay back period, does not constitute a deterrent to their current business practises.

Depends on how they change the practices. They’re also in court still with other states

 

[Y2JB47]

And if they don't pay the full amount within the ten year period they've effectively bought themselves ten years to make as much money as possible, go to court again, rinse and repeat.

As it stands, the penalty, combined with the pay back period, does not constitute a deterrent to their current business practises.

They could also set aside the money in an investment fund for ten years and essentially negate the entire fine completely using the interest.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Wait…so Meta can put the $18 billion into an investment fund, simultaneously withdraw billions from that same pile to make the settlement payments over ten years, and somehow earn enough interest on the steadily disappearing principal to “negate the entire fine completely”?

Gentlemen, stop arguing. We’ve discovered perpetual motion, only for money.

Someone get Jerome Powell on the phone before this gets out.

 

[Y2JB47]

Wait…so Meta can put the $18 billion into an investment fund, simultaneously withdraw billions from that same pile to make the settlement payments over ten years, and somehow earn enough interest on the steadily disappearing principal to “negate the entire fine completely”?

Gentlemen, stop arguing. We’ve discovered perpetual motion, only for money.

Someone get Jerome Powell on the phone before this gets out.

Well if they can earn 7-10% per year then yes they can. Certainly they can take the sting out of it.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Well if they can earn 7-10% per year then yes they can. Certainly they can take the sting out of it.

You're forgetting taxes.

Even if we give Meta a magical, perfectly consistent 10% return on the entire $18 billion, that's $1.8 billion in investment income....not $1.8 billion they simply pocket tax free.

At the 21% federal corporate rate alone, that leaves roughly $1.42 billion after federal tax. If the payment is $1.8 billion, they're already about $378 million short and dipping into principal every year, and every year that invested amount gets smaller negating enough to cover the payments.

To net $1.8 billion after a 21% tax, they'd need roughly a 13% annual return on the entire $18 billion...consistently, year after year...before considering taxes, market losses, payment timing or the fact that the principal starts shrinking once returns don't cover the payment.

So yes, investing the money could soften the blow.....Soften.

But we've now gone from “7-10% will completely negate it” to needing Berkshire Hathaway performance on demand for a decade. Possible?, Yes, with some hefty luck, likely...no, not close.

However, Meta is investing most of their liquid assets, not just 18B...so what does this actually costs them? No one knows. It damn sure is not going to hurt them. That I will agree.

 

[Mark Fuller]

The thing is that Americans have this idea that their precious tech companies are above the law if they do shading things OUTSIDE of America. How dare anyone try to hold them responsible! But when it happens at home, suddenly everyone is cheering how it's the right thing to do to hold them accountable.

Meta, you mess with kids in America? HOW DARE YOU!

Meta, you mess with kids outside of America? So what? Nobody cares.

Maybe try reading the actual article next time? This trial was about Meta targeting MINORS specifically to get them addicted to the platform. Do you see ads for cigarettes or tobacco companies targeting minors? No, they can't even buy cigarettes. Same thing with alcohol.

Maybe try reading the actual article next time? This trial was about Meta targeting MINORS specifically to get them addicted to the platform. Do you see ads for cigarettes or tobacco companies targeting minors? No, they can't even buy cigarettes. Same thing with alcohol.

I can see you have your point, but where does Hashish, Heroin and Cocaine come from? Are the the originators of these products not concerned about money as well and what happens to the money. BTW, how do the govenment leaders, royalty and upper classemen live where you come from as opposed to the people who live in your neighborhood? I can see that the poor whites where I come from are not much better off and have no more concern for their kids than the typical poor person in any other country on Earth. I think money makes concern.

 

[Y2JB47]

You're forgetting taxes.

Even if we give Meta a magical, perfectly consistent 10% return on the entire $18 billion, that's $1.8 billion in investment income....not $1.8 billion they simply pocket tax free.

At the 21% federal corporate rate alone, that leaves roughly $1.42 billion after federal tax. If the payment is $1.8 billion, they're already about $378 million short and dipping into principal every year, and every year that invested amount gets smaller negating enough to cover the payments.

To net $1.8 billion after a 21% tax, they'd need roughly a 13% annual return on the entire $18 billion...consistently, year after year...before considering taxes, market losses, payment timing or the fact that the principal starts shrinking once returns don't cover the payment.

So yes, investing the money could soften the blow.....Soften.

But we've now gone from “7-10% will completely negate it” to needing Berkshire Hathaway performance on demand for a decade. Possible?, Yes, with some hefty luck, likely...no, not close.

However, Meta is investing most of their liquid assets, not just 18B...so what does this actually costs them? No one knows. It damn sure is not going to hurt them. That I will agree.

Yes I am aware that taxes exist but congratulations on typing all that. However just over 7% compounds to a 100% return in 10 years so a 10% return would still get them there or certainly make the fine almost meaningless especially when you also factor in inflation.

My overall point is the ten year payment period is ludicrous and meta is probably laughing about how easy they got off.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Yes I am aware that taxes exist but congratulations on typing all that. However just over 7% compounds to a 100% return in 10 years so a 10% return would still get them there or certainly make the fine almost meaningless especially when you also factor in inflation.

My overall point is the ten year payment period is ludicrous and meta is probably laughing about how easy they got off.

Congratulations, you have now discovered why the word compounding requires the money to remain invested.

Yes, roughly 7% doubles money in about ten years if you leave the principal alone.

Meta would not be leaving the principal alone. If you start with $18 billion, earn 7%, and then remove $1.8 billion every year for ten years, you finish with about $10.5 billion, not $36 billion and certainly not your original $18 billion untouched.

At 10%, under the extremely generous assumption of a perfect 10% return every single year, equal annual payments, no taxes, no volatility and ideal payment timing, then yes...the return could theoretically cover the payments.

Which is quite a few asterisks for something that was originally presented as “just over 7% compounds to 100%, therefore they basically pay nothing.”

Inflation does reduce the real value of future payments.

But you’re mixing three separate things...untouched compound growth, an amortizing payment stream, and inflation, and treating them as though they are the same calculation.

They aren’t.

Your broader argument that ten years is an overly generous payment window is perfectly defensible. You really didn’t need to invent Meta’s Perpetual Money Machine to make it.

 

[Y2JB47]

Congratulations, you have now discovered why the word compounding requires the money to remain invested.

Yes, roughly 7% doubles money in about ten years if you leave the principal alone.

Meta would not be leaving the principal alone. If you start with $18 billion, earn 7%, and then remove $1.8 billion every year for ten years, you finish with about $10.5 billion, not $36 billion and certainly not your original $18 billion untouched.

At 10%, under the extremely generous assumption of a perfect 10% return every single year, equal annual payments, no taxes, no volatility and ideal payment timing, then yes...the return could theoretically cover the payments.

Which is quite a few asterisks for something that was originally presented as “just over 7% compounds to 100%, therefore they basically pay nothing.”

Inflation does reduce the real value of future payments.

But you’re mixing three separate things...untouched compound growth, an amortizing payment stream, and inflation, and treating them as though they are the same calculation.

They aren’t.

Your broader argument that ten years is an overly generous payment window is perfectly defensible. You really didn’t need to invent Meta’s Perpetual Money Machine to make it.

I don’t understand why you feel the need to be so belligerent. Everything you spent all that time typing is incredibly obvious. My (obvious) overall point was that investing the money over ten years would substantially reduce the penalty and it could remove it entirely in certain circumstances.