today at 9:17 PM
Sure, but where's the jail time for executives. This may be a bit more than the usual slap on the wrist, but its hardly consequence that actually matters to the likes of Meta. This will keep happening until those at the top are held personally responsible for the crimes they sign off on.
today at 9:38 PM
> where's the jail time for executives
Our American obsession with jail is nuts. The violation at hand was “misleading state citizens about how it safeguards and collects user data.”
Lots of folks at Meta should be criminally investigated. But not for this, not unless someone willfully signed off on a lie.
> This will keep happening until those at the top are held personally responsible
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
today at 10:43 PM
> Our American obsession with jail is nuts.
If we were really obsessed with jail for executives, a lot more of them would be locked up right now. There might be an obsession, but it's only about jailing peons.
today at 10:04 PM
> But not for this, not unless someone willfully signed off on a lie.
From the judgement: “The extraordinary number of willful violations found by the jury, the duration and repetition of the conduct, the breadth of subjects on which violations occurred, the involvement of senior Facebook leadership, the size of New Mexico audiences reached, and the clear intentional and systematic nature of Facebook’s repeated misstatements established in the trial record support the highest level of penalty allowed by the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act […].”
Emphasis mine.
It isn’t criminal law, but maybe at that level it should be.
today at 10:40 PM
The problem with fines is that they don't actually disincentivize bad behavior by companies, as long as they are large enough to absorb the fine as a cost of doing business.
Time in the pokey is unpleasant for everyone.
today at 10:33 PM
If corporations are people, then they should face the exact same punishment as a person. If any individual perpetrated this level of fraud they might be spending the rest of their life in jail. See: bernie madhoff.
today at 10:14 PM
So our obsession with jail is nuts, because... you lean towards no one willfully signed off on a lie, in a company with a history like Meta/Facebook, in a $25B fine?
today at 10:42 PM
Full presidential pardons go for just a couple of million, a rounding error on that fine. Invoking social media and complaining about a democrat judge or deep state conspiracy and forking over the money using the right attorneys is all it takes. Nobody with that kind of resources will go to jail.
today at 10:26 PM
The CEO is the only one with decision power and is responsible for all crimes. The CEO is also the one making the most money off the crimes. If we don't actual jail them, crimes will keep increasing as we are witnessing. AI companies are now bragging about their crimes publicly.
Good is arresting a CEO and holding them in prison for a few decades. These fines do nothing. These fines are the enemy of good.
today at 10:38 PM
Hold them in jail pending trial. They are the definition of flight risk.
today at 10:30 PM
Besides, aren't C-levels usually the ones that justify their huge compensation by claiming that they deserve it because they take the big risks?
today at 10:36 PM
Big risk of being fired maybe while receiving humongous payoff. Ridiculous.
today at 10:39 PM
Golden parachutes mitigate those risks. The company may tank, but they get theirs.
today at 10:13 PM
Honestly it doesn’t matter what they get them on, half of the PMC in America needs to be indicted on RICO charges for white collar crimes against humanity
today at 9:24 PM
No one will bother making a move on the execs until the get-out-of-jail-free cards they bought from the current president are no longer valid.
today at 10:04 PM
> This will keep happening until those at the top are held personally responsible for the crimes they sign off on.
Cambridge Analytica was a decade ago and there hasn’t been a similar Meta scandal since, so it seems like the deterrent has worked.
today at 9:27 PM
If only software engineers were liable like real engineers are
today at 9:37 PM
"But my boss told me to increase engagement at all costs, including substantially increased rates of teen suicides, so shrug guess I have to since my visa will be revoked otherwise and I need this cash to send home to my family."
Even when you cannot get highly employable US engineers to agree to do unethical work, you can always import some indentured servants who are too vulnerable to feel like they can say no.
I know someone that took a job at meta short term to get cash for a family member with cancer.
Go after the people giving the orders, not the workers trying to survive a deeply fucked up system.
today at 9:41 PM
Why would you personally punish the chumps that execute the orders instead of leadership that gave the orders?
today at 10:21 PM
Im not a lawyer but i believe just following orders isnt considered a valid excuse. Now that machines participate in giving instructions it seems quite logical.
If the wires are hanging out of the wall and someone asks me to switch the power on it reminds me how my old boss almost died then chased the guy with a hammer but collapsed from his injuries before he could kill him. So i disassemble the switchboard. If there is someone like that walking around I don't care how long it takes. Sometimes they get angry I just ignore it. They may also report it to my boss.
RL is different like that but also quite similar.
today at 9:43 PM
Why punish the leadership? they were just following their "fiduciary duty to shareholders" to maximize value.
today at 9:54 PM
Punish everyone, you may be unjust but at least you'll be thorough.
today at 10:26 PM
It’s needs to be punishment all the way from the top to the bottom
today at 9:59 PM
"Real" engineers aren't responsible for their product being used in nefarious ways as long as the product was built according to the rules.
today at 9:58 PM
The judgement here was for violation of civil law, not criminal law. If New Mexico would have gone after the executives, the result would have been a much smaller fine, not jail. Or are you suggesting the executives should have been prosecuted for some criminal law violation? If so, what?
today at 10:29 PM
We imprison or fine to motivate others not to do the same. I doubt the current treatment is potent enough.
today at 10:13 PM
The literal point of incorporation is that you as a shareholder or proprietor of a business are legally separated from the corporation in the eyes of the law.
We need reforms on corporate governance. Right now Meta is basically Mark Zuckerberg and a bunch of bag holders. They can't vote him out because he has both a board seat and majority voting power all on his own. Dumping the stock is far from a safe thing for institutional investors to do if they want to avoid lawsuits or regulatory attention.
It needs to be illegal for you to both be the CEO of a publicly-traded company and the voting majority shareholder. Note I say majority, not major plurality.
today at 10:24 PM
There is no law or regulation which requires institutional investors to hold Meta stock. Sometimes people who don't actually understand the law make spurious claims that those investors are legally required as fiduciaries to put their funds into the highest yielding investments. But in reality there is no such requirement, and investment managers have significant flexibility unless there's something more specific in their own organizational bylaws. They can underweight Meta stock if they believe it's overvalued due to potential legal risks or corporate governance problems or whatever.
today at 10:33 PM
> Sometimes people who don't actually understand the law make spurious claims that those investors are legally required as fiduciaries to put their funds into the highest yielding investments. But in reality there is no such requirement
The requirement is what a lawyer can convince a dozen jurors the requirement should be. If there's a lawsuit against a fund manager at an institutional investor saying "you didn't fulfill your duty as a fiduciary because x", there's at least some risk that x becomes a real responsibility for fiduciaries through the outcome of that case. If the zeitgeist dictates that as a responsibility, it is a responsibility.
> They can underweight Meta stock if they believe it's overvalued due to potential legal risks or corporate governance problems or whatever.
The fact that they aren't doing so when the company is losing billions of dollars in legal judgments would suggest either
1) They can't do so because they would lose money doing so
or
2) Our system is in need of reform so that when executives direct a company in such a way that it is routinely facing legal exposure, shareholders remove those executives so that corporations act as better citizens and things are handled at the shareholder meeting level instead of the court system level.
today at 9:49 PM
Executives cant goto jail, they are already taking responsibilty.
today at 9:53 PM
I don’t understand your comment.
today at 9:58 PM
I assume it's the typical "accepting responsibility" of execs and politicians where nothing happens. Best case they throw some underling under the bus or have their institution pay a fine. But they themselves have no consequences
today at 9:09 PM
For those who haven't seen, the New Mexico Attorney General released tapes of the depositions for Zuckerberg [1] and Sandberg [2].
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7UC2ie0XIE
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1j4N-3ZkB4
today at 10:30 PM
today at 6:33 PM
All the states that participated in the class action settlement got $725 million combined.
New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion.
Great timing for the AG who’s up for reelection on November 3 (even though it was the previous AG who made the call).
today at 6:46 PM
>New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion.
No because that's still subject to appeal, unlike the settlement. "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush", etc.
today at 6:59 PM
That’s all framing. If they use the win for their reelection campaign…they just won’t mention the appeals process.
today at 7:29 PM
What are the grounds for the appeal? How does NM law look on that issue? It's a significantly reduced judgment too.
Like, yeah, you have a point in the abstract, but barring any actual supportive facts, it doesn't seem like a good point.
today at 7:52 PM
IANAL, but it's not hard to find answers with a trivial search, eg.
https://kieferandkiefer.com/understanding-how-jury-verdicts-...
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R331...
today at 9:04 PM
It's not a jury verdict, and I am a lawyer...
Also, a paper from RAND from 1987? Are you for real?
today at 8:05 PM
It's a very good point. The further upon appeal Meta goes, the more removed they get from a jury and they'll be more likely to get a favorable ruling due to the company's negative approval rating amongst the public
today at 9:05 PM
It's not a jury verdict. Crazy how much that needs to be repeated in this thread.
today at 9:50 PM
A jury is involved in the process. If the jury doesn't find violations, the judge can't assign penalties for those violations.
> The jury concluded that Meta had more than 43 million violations of the state’s unfair practices act, with each transgression carrying a civil penalty as high as $5,000.
Note that this is like, 20 violations per resident of New Mexico. And also ~50% of Facebook's total revenue (more than 100% of income) at the time of the CA scandal.
today at 9:30 PM
No one reads the article anymore. They're just vibe commenting.
today at 8:11 PM
Presumably it’s also easier to influence judges than random jurors.
today at 10:00 PM
"New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion."
I highly doubt that New Mexico will get 25. Although it would be nice since I live in New Mexico.
today at 9:46 PM
They got an outlandish $25B in their local kangaroo court. It'll be appealed and hopefully reduced.
today at 10:26 PM
What makes it outlandish?
today at 9:20 PM
Meta will surely appeal, and will likely get the fine reduced to like 10% of that. But for comparison, in the recent multistate settlement over social media addiction by 47 states for $17 billion, there was a provision in that settlement to get $459 million [1] in exchange for releasing Meta from any state claims related to Cambridge Analytica. So those 47 states got $459 million for what New Mexico will likely get a few billion for.
[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/the-459-million-cambridge-analy...
today at 8:51 PM
I remember long ago, you could fully hide your profile from ANY type of search. Now you cannot. I also remember long before they started scanning your face, they added an opt-out checkbox, I'm pretty sure this disappeared for a long time. You know that feature where they'd auto-suggest who to tag? Yea, you could bar them from using your face for that, now Facebook has taken a steaming pile of... on your privacy at levels I've never seen them pull before.
today at 9:36 PM
> I remember long ago, you could fully hide your profile from ANY type of search. Now you cannot.
Do you have any more details on that? Are you talking about searches within Facebook or outside of it?
I also remember long before they started scanning your face, they added an opt-out checkbox, I'm pretty sure this disappeared for a long time. You know that feature where they'd auto-suggest who to tag? Yea, you could bar them from using your face for that, now Facebook has taken a steaming pile of... on your privacy at levels I've never seen them pull before.
Do you have any more details on that?
today at 9:13 PM
Yes, I remember an article in the Guardian about this, around 2015-6
Facebook does this. People think 'privacy' as a complaint and perhaps think about advertising on FB but straight up, settings get reset (including posts suddenly becoming Public. or graph search.)
Why? Because Mark Zuckerberg does not believe in it. In 2010 he said privacy was no longer a social norm. Not only does he himself not believe in it, but he can't keep it to himself. He knows 'better than you'. So, he outright changes it himself or instructs his engineers to do it
It's like with Free Basics in India. You could, theoretically, support it. Many didn't, it was a form of digital colonialism. But let's say you happened to think it was a good idea. It didn't matter either way: Facebook sent emails on users' behalf to TRAI
That's who Zuckerberg is. A sociopath, a criminal, someone who knows nothing but how to steal
today at 8:55 PM
25B is not a small fine. Finally an amount that should make them think twice their harming decisions
today at 9:42 PM
You're being sarcastic, right? Right? It's a 1.5 trillion dollar company [1], how would this amount even be relevant compared to the profits they made from their behavior.
[1] https://youtu.be/C7UC2ie0XIE?t=49
today at 10:04 PM
Maybe the $25B isn't guaranteed and doesn't seriously harm them on its own, but if the legal landscape shifts enough to make fines of this scale more common than the usual dozens-to-hundreds of millions, then it starts to impact their bottom line.
today at 9:04 PM
They don't care.
Meta can take the hit by either selling stock, laying of more employees or both to cover that cost.
today at 9:06 PM
Or they can put thick mitts on Zuckerberg's hands for a couple of years so he can't sign any checks.
today at 9:23 PM
It’s hilarious that one of the outcomes of Meta cozying up with the current administration to escape scrutiny at the Federal level has been 50+ state attorneys general prosecuting them instead.
today at 8:57 PM
12% of annual revenue (~200B for 2025). Not a small amount.
today at 9:54 PM
~50% of 2018 revenue, which is when the CA scandal was happening.
today at 9:14 PM
You mean 200B?
today at 9:29 PM
meta makes $1.4B/week in net profit, so that's about 4 months of net profits
today at 9:58 PM
This is just for new mexico, a relatively small state in a single country facebook operates in. It's probably a solid decade worth of profit in that state. Because their privacy policy that no one reads wasn't clear enough.
today at 9:36 PM
And kids got fined 1/2M for downloading a few mp3s...
today at 9:37 PM
lol that was a fun typo. Fixed :)
today at 9:07 PM
Holy! This might be the first time I've seen a meta fine that actually feels substantial enough for them to change behaviours. That's impressive.
today at 8:43 PM
Stock seems to have shot up ~7% aftermarket so just cost of business.
today at 8:49 PM
They beat revenue expectations, and earnings per share was ok, and they guided for even higher revenue next quarter above estimates ofc.
Somehow Meta is making money despite starting to loose DAUs now. So honestly I don't quite understand what's what, also most of the big income is from Ads and biggest Ads spenders are startups and companies heavily dependent on VCs and AI... So it's definitely somewhat circular, and Ads is the most recession affected business so a down turn in markets will cycle through it.
But ngl if all the earnings are this ok then hyperscalers stock might not crash this quarter, well then again I didn't think they would but a person could dream.
I am quite bullish on AI, but would prefer the fluff to get out of the way asap, otherwise don't want it to happen at a bad time, and too many people get caught pants down.
today at 9:30 PM
Their users are ad execs and data brokers
today at 8:51 PM
Hell didn’t they stop even reporting DAU’s?
today at 9:33 PM
they now do something called, Meta Family daily active people, similar thing but aggregate of all Meta stuff. very sus imho.
today at 9:06 PM
Well Meta is reacting to all the costs by just starting to charge for things previously free, like sharing links.
I suspect they are now entering the Earthlink/AOL phase where they squeeze every last dime out of the confused and abandoned senior citizens left on the platform until they die off.
today at 9:17 PM
Meta also owns the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 14th largest social media platforms behind facebook.
3.6 billion people use a Meta app every day - 43% of the world's population.
today at 9:26 PM
True. But seeing them lose an arm would be proof the monster can be killed.
today at 9:30 PM
I'm saying I don't think we'll see that. Yes, many people I know have left facebook but I think that's an artifact of me being in a bubble rather than it being a global trend.
today at 9:46 PM
I am more optimistic. People are addicted to targeted content, but local LLMs are already great at this. I have an agent that manages my local playlists and operates my own local spotify from a consumer GPU.
And youtube, same thing. I have not actually used youtube in years. Local software downloads video files from their servers, strips all the ads and sponsored content, and shows me the ones most interesting to me.
Once that is easy for everyone to do with software and weights-on-silicon embedded in next gen phones, the entire value prop of these networks starts to fall apart.
Between that and endless fines and negative movies coming out, I think they can be killed, or at least not a thing kids are allowed near anymore.
today at 8:54 PM
[dead]
today at 9:04 PM
Escaping litigation with a fine is always a good outcome, no matter how large the penalty. Stock price will drop the day governments start regulating these companies or breaking them up.
today at 9:38 PM
I've always been fond of the idea of putting a corporation in "jail" where any presence they have is shuttered for the duration, bank accounts are frozen, and locations are to be uninhabited except by third party security.
They can hire lawyers to argue it out while they sit in limbo like the rest of us.
Imagine if Amazon ran afoul of the law and AWS was offline in corporate jail for a day? It'd be motication to never, ever risk that happening.
today at 9:50 PM
Other countries also have a concept of the corporate death penalty. But it has not happened in the US for something like a century.
today at 9:37 PM
Any reason why META surged after hours? is that related to this news?
today at 8:54 PM
People are not notifying this nearly enough, but Meta is still going up and at it in Brazil [1] during one of the most polarized elections I've ever seen during my time.
Things got so ridiculous that Meta's AI WhatsApp companion would let you generate one candidate's posters, but flat-out deny you the same prompt for the opposition. Of course the bias skewed heavily towards benefiting the alt-right, pro-MAGA party.
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/meta-employees-said-l...
today at 10:14 PM
The book Careless People paints a picture of Zuck & Co that should cause anyone to hesitate to touch any of their products. It's a shame so much of the world runs on WhatsApp. It's a bigger shame that they were ever allowed to acquire WhatsApp in the first place.
today at 9:02 PM
Thanks for continuing to talk about this. It's ridiculous how much the US meddles in the elections of others and acts all :surprised-pikachu: when Russia sorta kinda meddles a bit in ONE election of their own.
The Bolsanaro family is ofc a close ally of Trump
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/21/battle-meta-al...
We even have Meta employees calling the meddling out: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/10/16/meta-employees-...
today at 9:19 PM
I rarely cry but my eyes just got wet. It feels so good.
today at 8:56 PM
That's just New Mexico. I wonder when will the other states step up, and hit them with more fines?
today at 9:46 PM
Just waiting for the orange one to say New Mexico is socialist and change the name because we cant have a state named after illegals.
today at 7:06 PM
Not enough.
today at 7:35 PM
This seems to be a consequence of the Cambridge Analytica. Could it be that we'll see some consequences?
today at 9:05 PM
That penalty is almost 1/3 of a Metaverse. That's got to sting!
today at 8:41 PM
finally some proper penalty OOMs
today at 9:00 PM
Can they appeal it?
today at 9:56 PM
> Meta chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney criticized the penalty, saying in a statement that the company is “confident” that it will “prevail on appeal.”
today at 10:09 PM
They were originally sued for, what, half a trillion?
Pennies on the dollar.
today at 9:16 PM
Will Meta be able to apeal?
today at 7:19 PM
> While the full amount of the penalty against Meta, based on thousands of violations of state law, was calculated as $219bn, Judge Mathew reduced the penalty to the $25bn fine.
umm when a thief steals and gets caught, we don't just punish them. We also recover what was stolen.
They should also be made to delete all user data collected during the period, and pause similar data collection for x months/years even the ones that fall under their service terms. The price of wrong doing should be high, and for meta deleting historical user data is the highest form of punishment .
Otherwise it's just cost of business.
today at 9:32 PM
Are you proposing that as part of this settlement, Meta should have to delete the posts and likes and facebook accounts of users in New Mexico?
today at 8:10 PM
They will likely not even have to pay $25B bc they will continue to appeal till they get a more favorable ruling
today at 9:57 PM
> umm when a thief steals and gets caught, we don't just punish them. We also recover what was stolen. > > They should also be made to delete all user data collected during the period, and pause similar data collection for x months/years even the ones that fall under their service terms. The price of wrong doing should be high, and for meta deleting historical user data is the highest form of punishment .
How was the data stolen from users? Do the users no longer have access to their own data? Was it deleted from their devices?
today at 9:10 PM
Anything less than a jail cell is less than the top brass of Meta deserve.
today at 8:55 PM
New Mexico DOJ release: https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/the-new-mexico-department-of...
today at 9:48 PM
Another example why Third party Advertising needs to be banned and also put on the list of human rights by the UN.
The inbalance between good and bad consequences from third party advertising is just completely broken.
today at 6:48 PM
The Cambridge Analytica "scandal" is basically an advertising campaign for Meta itself. Their ad platform worked exactly as designed: it allowed creepy, microtargeted advertisements. Instead of dish soap, peptides, and dropshipped garbage, it sold a political candidate.
Much worse is how Meta enabled a genocide in Myanmar.
today at 7:14 PM
>Their ad platform worked exactly as designed: it allowed creepy, microtargeted advertisements. Instead of dish soap, peptides, and dropshipped garbage, it sold a political candidate.
No? The scandal was that random "apps" (eg. quizzes) were able to scrape user and their friends' profile data. The expansion of that into ad targeting as a whole is just a retcon you're doing.
> In the 2010s, personal data belonging to millions of Facebook users was collected by British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica for political advertising without informed consent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
today at 9:05 PM
Yes? They used Facebook APIs in conjunction with their own data points. This is basically all of "ad tech."
today at 7:01 PM
Ad campaign? We are lucky they didn’t make the settlement in “Meta Quest Cash” or “Ad Buy Credit”
today at 9:08 PM
They absolutely tried at one point or another.
today at 6:58 PM
> Much worse is how Meta enabled a genocide in Myanmar.
True, and considering the gravity of this situation, you'd think they're would've been more legal consequences for FB/Meta
I see similar dynamics happening on X, where it is just being used to spread hate and division.
Perhaps it's high time we had an international criminal justice system for social media companies.
today at 10:12 PM
There are much worse scandals internal to meta that get ignored because 8200.
Onavo is one that would really sink meta in a fair world. But I guess fealty to Mossad keeps that one out of the news (and the courts). The firehose into Palantir for about a decade is another. Scuba is another. I could go on for days, bit someone will probably bump me off.
today at 8:09 PM
Yeah it is kind of sad how not stopping posts which fueled a literal genocide is hardly glanced at but Cambridge Analytica is considered a disaster of the highest order. Who died from Cambridge Analytica?
today at 9:41 PM
It’s crazy how these criminals can get away with it just by paying money. Sure, $25B isn’t peanuts, but this money shouldn’t have belonged to companies like Meta to begin with.
today at 7:34 PM
How much is Cambridge Analytica going to have to pay? I'm all for ramming Meta, but I feel like they should be forced to pay the same amount.
today at 7:46 PM
$0. for better or worse, they have ceased operations and declared bankruptcy. I don't think NM would/could expect to get any money from a penalty. I may misunderstand how penalties and bankruptcy work, but I would expect it's been a better use of time to try to get $$$ from Meta than a defunct entity.
today at 7:30 PM
Diseconomies of scale.
today at 6:31 PM
The original fine was much higher. This is closer to Meta’s hopes than the peoples.
today at 6:30 PM
Previously when the EU has ordered US companies to pay penalties of a "few billion EUR" for trade abuse there has typically been a lot of jingoistic outrage here. This one will be interesting to watch.
today at 7:19 PM
America fines their companies left and right but won't allow other countries to do for the same wrongdoings.
Its very easy to understand the motives but other countries lack back bone to ban these companies
today at 8:14 PM
Other countries fine American companies all the time.
today at 8:50 PM
Pay to play
today at 8:48 PM
If they actually pay $25B, I'll eat my hat. Hell, I might even eat two of my hats
today at 6:46 PM
So apropos of nothing remember when Zuck bought a castle rather than spend that money on any sort of Facebook account support?
today at 9:25 PM
Honestly, this company is uninvestable if you have even a shred of morality.. but, even if you lack morality, you must see the writing on the wall re: their lingering risks.
Meta is the cigarette company of the modern era and if our historians are allowed to write a neutral take on this era, they will likely not be kind to meta.
25 bil is no where near enough for privacy damages, let alone what they'll have to deal with on the addiction damages down the road.
today at 10:04 PM
Philip Morris stock is up 100% over the last 5 years. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PM/
Not bad for tobacco company that everybody presumably shuns.
today at 7:01 PM
i hate that zuck has his ad empire funding all sort of stupid shit. Nothing can even touch him as long as ad dollars keep flowing.
why are ads so so sucessful on meta platform. i hate it so much.
today at 8:16 PM
Ads are successful everywhere. The size of facebook's userbase helped its ads reach a lot of people, but the number of facebook users has been declining while the old folks staying on the platform grow ever closer to death.
Facebook has done nothing but demonstrate that it's a company which doesn't care at all about its users and is willing to hurt them. Anyone still using facebook at this point is pretty much asking to be taken advantage of and abused. I rally can't feel bad for them anymore.
today at 8:41 PM
> the number of facebook users has been declining while the old folks staying on the platform grow ever closer to death
They don't mind; it's a targeted market fit. They have Instagram and WhatsApp for other demographics.
today at 9:18 PM
True, but while they're all suckers, some suckers are bigger rubes than others. The elderly are a very easy target for manipulation. I think roblox might be the only platform with less savvy prey.
today at 9:11 PM
I still find it wild that Instagram does not share ad revenue with creators. Post something there that goes viral? You'll get nothing by default. (Of course, you could set up ad deals etc etc etc, if canny could could make money from it ultimately, but from all that traffic and all those ad dollars Instagram gets from it, you'll not get a cent.)
today at 8:17 PM
> why are ads so so sucessful on meta platform
Because you look at them. Get off their platforms.
today at 8:48 PM
no i dont
today at 9:42 PM
[dead]
today at 10:14 PM
[flagged]
today at 10:24 PM
>When the Democrats can get away with literal murder in many cases...
>If Democrats in power are just going to break the law...
Citation? And do you think that one person breaking the law absolves someone else?
today at 7:15 PM
Jury based punitive damages are constantly overturned because they are not legal experts and don't understand anything.
Anyone who thinks Meta will actually pay this amount have no clue what they're talking about.
today at 7:25 PM
The article says this was a statutory $5k per infringement * 43M counts, then reduced by the court. This was not a jury award.
today at 7:31 PM
They are also not punitive damages, and Meta was also found to be willful.
today at 6:14 PM
We need tort reform in the US. These nuclear verdicts are causing insurance prices to go up. I forget the statistics, but I'm pretty sure every American citizen is paying a $500 to multi-thousand dollar tax because of giant lawsuits like this. Nowhere else in the world has this problem. Lawyers have too much power with politicians.
today at 6:29 PM
Yea, that's the problem here, not the (illegal) wanton abuse and manipulation of user data and privacy by Meta and other companies.
Original reward was 200+ billion, lawyered down to 25, on appeal I imagine much less. Cost of doing business for Meta and nothing changes. In cases like this, it should cost the company serious financial harm. Even $25 billion is nothing to Meta.
today at 6:32 PM
If Meta is able to insure themselves from the cost of their illegal business practices that, so they have no incentive not to do this, and end up costing everyone money on their insurance... yes that is a problem, not to say what meta is being punished for isn't a problem.
today at 7:35 PM
Surely you realise that no insurance company will continually indemnify a company which knowingly and repeatedly breaks the law, resulting in losses to the insurance company? Surely you understand that this isn't how insurance works?
today at 7:27 PM
The penalty was not damages, it was a statutory per-count penalty. This was not a tort case at all, and tort reform has nothing to do with it.
today at 6:27 PM
Or Meta could not break the law. It's just that easy.
today at 6:32 PM
I support the death penalty for corporations.
today at 7:39 PM
We need to hold shareholders responsible for the actions of the companies they own. I get why there is a certain level of immunity, especially historically. We wanted people to be able to invest money and not have to be experts on the politics and workings of the companies they were investing in. In the modern era of having detailed information about the board members, other major shareholders, executives, shareholder reports, etc all at your finger tips, you should have to weigh how ethical and responsible a company is before investing. It needs to be "priced-in". A $25 Billion dollar judgement against Meta might hurt profits a bit, but if that $25 Billion was paid in dividend claw backs or liens against stock...
Same goes for any business venture including private equity. No more corporate veil. Every dollar or stake in ownership needs to be attributable back to an individual that can be held financially responsible. Each individual can have some amount of assets protected from claw backs, liens, judgements, etc. Enough to cover a functional used vehicle, 3 bed two bath house in their zip code, 50k in cash, and their retirement account. This gives most normal people the freedom to invest with less worry. Still, if you want to make money, it will behoove you to not take on risk by investing in organizations that flout the law, cause environmental damage, or harm others.
today at 6:35 PM
I support the licensure of boards of directors and CEO types, and enforcement of laws against the people who control companies.
If the CFO commits a crime, they can't get a license anymore. Start getting the bad actors out of positions of power.
today at 7:17 PM
Licensing isn't the problem; simply prosecuting white collar crime is. No one wants to do it, especially the federal government, because they don't want to drive away companies to other countries.
today at 7:04 PM
'capitalist punishment'
today at 6:33 PM
But tort law makes it easy and profitable for them to do so.
Change the law, it just that easy.
today at 6:36 PM
today at 7:33 PM
Why would American taxpayers be paying more because of a settlement against a private company? Shouldn't this contribute to the tax take, causing taxpayers to pay LESS?
today at 6:27 PM
That's because 47% of the Senate are attorneys/former practicing attorneys. Need more ex-Scientists in office. :)
today at 7:32 PM
No one is stopping them. There's no requirement that you be a lawyer. And lol, what a crazy idea... a lawmaker studying lawyering?! What a scam!
today at 8:32 PM
Just pointing out that congress has a lot of attorneys, and the OP was complaining about all the pro-attorney legislation.
Don't know why you think there's not correlation.
today at 6:26 PM
today at 6:34 PM
Other countries don't have this problem because they enable and expect regulators to proactively enforce compliance. In the US this is largely considered anti-business, so we let companies do whatever they want and don't take action until after they do something wrong.
And breaking the law usually doesn't result in a hit to next quarter's earnings, so this is what we optimize for: kicking the can down the road until it becomes a bigger problem.
today at 6:56 PM
Other countries don't have this problem
Guess how we know you've never lived, worked, or read a newspaper in any other country.
today at 7:03 PM
Please note, those aren't my words but a response to the strongest plausible interpretation of the comment I'm responding to. (ie. it's hyperbole, meaning "the US relies heavily on torts to enforce consumer privacy compared to other countries")
Privacy law in the US is largely toothless and has vanishingly few proactive regulatory requirements. This case is a perfect example of this -- Facebook's blatant disregard for privacy wasn't what was found illegal here, it was only the fact they lied about it.
today at 8:56 PM
Who predicted it would be New Mexico defending the children of the US while seemingly every other state in the country is bought and paid for by pro surveillance capitalism lobbies?
Hopefully those corrupt politicians are paying attention to the NM model and realize they can get more money by beating all the cash out of Meta like a piñata and then regulate the entire industry like casinos and tobacco, with super high taxes and exclusive for really stupid consenting adults only.
today at 9:15 PM
I have no idea about judicial system in New Mexico, but it's a curious state - college is free effectively for everybody in the state, for example. Also school lunches are free. It's a rare combination of poor and blue.
today at 9:08 PM
That amount will likely be reduced upon appeal ...
Facebook IS a steaming pile of...
and Zuck is PUBLIC ENEMY #1
today at 9:37 PM
I think Facebook is fine? It's where most neighborhood/city groups seem to be, and it works as expected for this. Marketplace is also pretty good, with less scams than other similar platforms.
today at 9:22 PM
There is a whole gang of public enemies in Silicon Valley.
today at 9:27 PM
And I hope they are afraid, and having board meetings to try to self regulate a bit to try to avoid similar pain.
today at 9:00 PM
A good start, yet still far from enough - as long as the punishments are not equal to their revenues generating by these illegal methods , big corporations will never stop exploiting society because to them those fines are just 'the cost of doing business'.
today at 9:09 PM
> as long as the punishments are not equal to their revenues generating by these illegal methods
I would say this qualifies no?
They certainly didn't get 25 Billion in fees from Cambridge analĂtica. Unless they did any my conception of business is just way off.
today at 9:08 PM
We need every state doing this, until it literally kills them. Then the companies left will have true fear for the first time ever, and may be forced to reform or suffer the same fate.
Make an example of Meta for the ages.