The use of an algorithm that manipulates what users see, and which they cannot adjust, control, or turn off, upends the concept of "free speech". There is no free speech on platforms that decide for you what you get to see, which is where most of Meta's platforms are at right now.
Here's a case where size and greed were no protection. We mistakenly gave these businesses our trust. They carried on in high handed manner, yet eventually came to the end of their ropes, which the courts and public are now pulling on. The people have clearly had enough, and little wonder.
Another example of how corporate lobbying (bribery) prevented elected government officials from regulating the internet. The WWW may have started out free and innocuous but because of the predator class, there are now paywalls for most content while insidiously feeding pornography to children and adults worldwide. I don't understand how people missed that Zuckerberg is a misogynist. "Zuckerberg created a website called Facemash in 2003, which was used to rate the "hotness" of Harvard female students by hacking into university directories. While often linked to Facebook's origin, Zuckerberg testified that Facemash was an immature, separate "prank" site he launched before developing Facebook. The site went viral in hours but was quickly shut down by Harvard for breaching security, violating privacy, and using photos without consent"(copied from Google AI)". Fast forward 20 years and his companies are finally being held accountable for profiting from child sexual exploitation.
The most encouraging part of this story are the employees who believed that not harming children is more important than greed. They are morally superior to Zuckerberg and the other tech predators. Too many people still don't realize that to social media oligarchs, they are not the customers, advertisers are. Social media users are the product (their views, likes and subscriptions) sold to advertisers.
Taxing the rich would go a very long way in preventing the rich from taking over common and personal property, such as attention and intellect. In addition to so many other benefits!
These guys wouldn't have to pay experts to endlessly fiddle with their product, so that it made more money for them, if it weren't obvious that it is a complex issue that needed massive amounts of study to get into the minds of consumers in just the right way...to make more money.
I’m so glad the jury ruled the way they did. Zuckerberg doesn’t give a damn who he harms as long as he’s pulling in the big ones. Meta et al definitely deserved what they got.
We fell for that line that they were making the world a better place. It’s not better. It’s much worse. They were only making themselves rich. I hope they get fined out of business.
Yaël, I'm assuming other states will follow up with their own lawsuits. But will facebook/meta and youtube/google/alphabet hand over the money? And what does all of this mean for lawsuits about other social media websites? Would you talk about this with Preet? Thanks.
As a first step, the companies should be regulated to ferret out and suspend any bots. They’ve been allowed to spread disinformation with impunity especially by Musk himself, in particular.
It goes without saying that Zuckerberg is a despicable human being. And I understand why saying you are designing your programs to protect against addictive use is a deceptive trade practice if you are actually designing them to enhance addictive use. What I don’t understand is why Meta is not entitled under the Constitution to design its programs to maximize addictive use as long as they cease claiming that they are doing otherwise. ISTM that any purveyor of content (advertiser, print publication, etc.) has a right to try to maximize the amount of time consumers spend engaging with their output. Why does that change just because internet platforms can do it more effectively than, e.g., cliffhangers at the end of TV episodes or magazine designers of special interest editions? Don’t all media “decide for you what you get to see” while you are using them?
It depends on what you mean by purveyor of content. Meta et al have always contended they are are nothing but a conduit for the expression of ideas and therefore have no responsibility for the effects. So they have resisted every attempt to require them to act as moderators over the content. It seems a pretty good 1st Amendment argument until we find out that they are very actively involved for their own benefit in curating what is presented to you, the consumer. That is, they have claimed they are not at all "media" entities.
Okay, so the argument is that if you do anything to maximize the frequency and/or duration of people’s use of your conduit, that means you’re not just a conduit anymore? I dunno if that necessarily follows, but maybe. At least I can understand the thought. Thanks.
The use of an algorithm that manipulates what users see, and which they cannot adjust, control, or turn off, upends the concept of "free speech". There is no free speech on platforms that decide for you what you get to see, which is where most of Meta's platforms are at right now.
Here's a case where size and greed were no protection. We mistakenly gave these businesses our trust. They carried on in high handed manner, yet eventually came to the end of their ropes, which the courts and public are now pulling on. The people have clearly had enough, and little wonder.
Nice work, Yaël. Thanks for what you’ve done and will keep doing.
Another example of how corporate lobbying (bribery) prevented elected government officials from regulating the internet. The WWW may have started out free and innocuous but because of the predator class, there are now paywalls for most content while insidiously feeding pornography to children and adults worldwide. I don't understand how people missed that Zuckerberg is a misogynist. "Zuckerberg created a website called Facemash in 2003, which was used to rate the "hotness" of Harvard female students by hacking into university directories. While often linked to Facebook's origin, Zuckerberg testified that Facemash was an immature, separate "prank" site he launched before developing Facebook. The site went viral in hours but was quickly shut down by Harvard for breaching security, violating privacy, and using photos without consent"(copied from Google AI)". Fast forward 20 years and his companies are finally being held accountable for profiting from child sexual exploitation.
The most encouraging part of this story are the employees who believed that not harming children is more important than greed. They are morally superior to Zuckerberg and the other tech predators. Too many people still don't realize that to social media oligarchs, they are not the customers, advertisers are. Social media users are the product (their views, likes and subscriptions) sold to advertisers.
Taxing the rich would go a very long way in preventing the rich from taking over common and personal property, such as attention and intellect. In addition to so many other benefits!
Finally we have a start to accountability by social media platforms.
They got what they deserve.
These guys wouldn't have to pay experts to endlessly fiddle with their product, so that it made more money for them, if it weren't obvious that it is a complex issue that needed massive amounts of study to get into the minds of consumers in just the right way...to make more money.
I am so glad to see these verdicts. Looking forward to the changes needed and the proper enforcement of those changes.
"Some will argue that if these verdicts stand, it will destroy the internet as we know it."
Yeah, so? & this is problem for the public because...??
I’m so glad the jury ruled the way they did. Zuckerberg doesn’t give a damn who he harms as long as he’s pulling in the big ones. Meta et al definitely deserved what they got.
Zuckerberg doesn't care what damage he does. All he cares about is further increasing his obscene wealth.
We fell for that line that they were making the world a better place. It’s not better. It’s much worse. They were only making themselves rich. I hope they get fined out of business.
Yaël, I'm assuming other states will follow up with their own lawsuits. But will facebook/meta and youtube/google/alphabet hand over the money? And what does all of this mean for lawsuits about other social media websites? Would you talk about this with Preet? Thanks.
If Preet would have me on to discuss, absolutely!
As a first step, the companies should be regulated to ferret out and suspend any bots. They’ve been allowed to spread disinformation with impunity especially by Musk himself, in particular.
Great job and thank you.
It goes without saying that Zuckerberg is a despicable human being. And I understand why saying you are designing your programs to protect against addictive use is a deceptive trade practice if you are actually designing them to enhance addictive use. What I don’t understand is why Meta is not entitled under the Constitution to design its programs to maximize addictive use as long as they cease claiming that they are doing otherwise. ISTM that any purveyor of content (advertiser, print publication, etc.) has a right to try to maximize the amount of time consumers spend engaging with their output. Why does that change just because internet platforms can do it more effectively than, e.g., cliffhangers at the end of TV episodes or magazine designers of special interest editions? Don’t all media “decide for you what you get to see” while you are using them?
It depends on what you mean by purveyor of content. Meta et al have always contended they are are nothing but a conduit for the expression of ideas and therefore have no responsibility for the effects. So they have resisted every attempt to require them to act as moderators over the content. It seems a pretty good 1st Amendment argument until we find out that they are very actively involved for their own benefit in curating what is presented to you, the consumer. That is, they have claimed they are not at all "media" entities.
Okay, so the argument is that if you do anything to maximize the frequency and/or duration of people’s use of your conduit, that means you’re not just a conduit anymore? I dunno if that necessarily follows, but maybe. At least I can understand the thought. Thanks.