you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 60 points 7 months ago* (8 children)

In the next phase of the legal proceedings, due to begin on 4 May, the attorney general’s office will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta’s platforms that “offer stronger protections for children”, said Torrez.

The design feature changes the state is seeking include “enacting effective age verification, removing predators from the platform, and protecting minors from encrypted communications that shield bad actors”.

Unclear how age verification would play out with their Digital Childhood Alliance efforts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    And that shit is why I'm hesitant to endorse these big tech lawsuits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    Because you think they are conspiracies with goals to spy on you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    The victims of child exploitation? Or the lawyers representing them? Or..? I’m not asking about vague general “save the children” stuff. I’m talking about this lawsuit and similar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago*

    Not the person you were responding to, but IMO it's the defense attorneys / legal department working to ensure that the legal outcome is as beneficial to the corporations as possible, even if they "lose". In this case the fine is a cost of doing business, not nearly enough to actually discourage malfeasance and the legal/ PR pivot to blaming encryption rather than their algorithms is something they hope will tee them up to be able to do even more massive surveillance in the near future.

  • source
  • parent