- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
You must log in or # to comment.
I feel like this will become another polarized case, akin to the McDonalds coffee trial, you know, the one where the woman suffered third degree burns (and had to get skin grafts) and just wanted her medical covered.
The fact that e2ee bans and age verification are listed as remedies mean this isn’t the win people are saying it is
It’s a win, regardless, but the response is important.
The response should be:
- Make dark patterns illegal (highlighting options that prefer the platform over the user, making it harder to cancel, "opt inx not “opt out” to all non-core features, etc.)
- Require a clear “click through” step in account creation that underage use has been proven to be harmful, leading to anxiety and death (and then let parents make their own, informed, choices)
- Clear legal limits on data storage and retention to only include data necessary for the platform functions (i.e. mouse tracking and other invasive analytics are illegal)
- User options to delete all data, or all data older than a given rolling date window (i.e. only retain 1-year of data, up to and including deleting old posts/content)
- Clear legal limits on data analytics
- Open audits of algorithmic feeds to ensure they are reasonable and not encouraging “engagement” with harmful/controversial content at elevated levels
- No sharing of any user details with any external “partners” (advertisers), beyond very broad categories (age, location data at the 1M+ population region, gender)
- Data portability
- Require platform interoperability (i.e. alternative front ends through API or website loading through an intermediary client app)
Like, there’s nothing wrong with social media as a concept, it’s that profit seeking + network effects + regulatory capture have incentivized harmful social media.
Banning E2EE and age verification are mentioned as remedies, that isn’t good at all.
I definitely see the similarity, at least in public response. I mean, I read that and thought, “$6 million? That’s life-changing money!” And when I read about what the victim experienced, I thought: “Addiction, anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. That’s all like, pretty common for teens these days. And often because of social media, for sure, but why is she specifically being compensated that much?”
For the McDonald’s trial, the woman tried to settle and had to get lawyers to pursue damages. Even though public response was bad, that feels like less of a cash grab.
But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik. Did she just have lawyer money and decide to? And nothing here changes, social media will remain the way it is. It definitely comes off to me as someone looking for a way to get money, even though I am happy with the ruling.
I don’t get why it feels like doing it for money in the absence of a unique situation. Should they not sue because many others suffer the same way?
Even if they sue for money, before court it becomes neutral. The negative implication from your assumption seems unwarranted.
That’s a good point. Many people being victimized doesn’t inherently lessen the impact on each victim.
I think my feelings on it are more a reflection on my own situation than the victim’s, and are rooted in jealousy. I’m a young adult. I know I, and many other people, have also suffered because of decisions these companies made in managing their social media platforms. And in my case, I too was a teenager when I began using these services.
I’m incredibly jealous… Six million dollars is life-changing money to most people. That could put me in a very nice home, that could cover me going through college, that could cover the costs of starting a small business, and/or that could fund my retirement.
But I don’t have the resources to go hire a lawyer and pursue legal recourse. A payout like that would likely cover legal fees, sure, but a win isn’t guaranteed, and legal proceedings are expensive while ongoing.
I shared my view in that comment because I don’t think I’m alone. That’s why I think it could be controversial, like the McDonald’s case: especially hearing the headline, it seems like a huge amount awarded, and a lot of people are jealous.
One viewpoint I hadn’t considered, that was mentioned by another reply, is the precedent this sets for future trials. Tbh I think that’s maybe an even bigger reason why this is a big win! Especially as more trials come, these companies could face meaningful consequences for their actions.
It would take a lot of trials for it to not be pocket money for a megacorp tho… and their “solutions” for child safety we have been seeing in Congress are largely shifting the blame to others by implementing age checks… rather than making the platforms less evil for all users.
You’re right, nothing about this woman’s experience is particularly unique, which is what makes this a huge decision. The numbers of potential future plaintiffs (individual or class action) is enormous. The precedent opens the floodgates (and on the same day when New Mexico hit Meta with $345M for what Meta called “inevitable” child exploitation on their platform).
Social media is going to have their big tobacco moment one way or another.
But what caused this girl to sue? The article didn’t mention a big event afaik.
Based on the article, there are supposedly hundreds of these lawsuits. While I couldn’t say what caused her to sue, the outcome opens the floodgates. If anything, it’s accountability for some of the harms these platforms have profited on if it means they can now be sued for millions per person for it.
