top 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 73 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Stop just fining these fuckers! They can afford any amount you fine them with. Shut down the service and charge them with crimes or gtfo.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 month ago* (9 children)

    Normally I'd agree, but if one of the more populated states fined meta at this rate it'd be a corporate death penalty

    For context - New Mexico has a population of 2,124,222, making it the 36th most populated state in the country.

    That's under 1% of the country. California has 39,355,309... No company currently in existence could survive a 4 trillion dollar fine

    This is huge.. if it goes through

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    This is huge.. if it goes through

    Not really. This is a lawsuit about the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal back in 2016. While the penalties could technically be up to $200 Billion... they won't actually be anywhere near that high.

    Back in August, they settled another multi-state lawsuit for the same stuff... for $18 Billion. And that was for settling with 48 states. New Mexico and Florida were the only two states not included in that lawsuit. There's no way in hell the punishment will be anywhere near $200 Billion for the same actions in a single state.

    The only other state that could continue going after them for these actions is Florida since the other 48 states all settled.

    So this issue is effectively over, and it fizzled out with a slap on the wrist as everyone expected because we don't actually punish large companies in this country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    This is huge.. if it goes through

    Like I said, this is huge, if it goes through

    $200 billion isn't a slap on the wrist, it's a real punishment. Facebook can't just cut a check and continue on, they're going to have to make hard choices if they are made to pay up. Florida alone could still drain the company dry on this case, but more importantly it sets a precedent

    Since we don't have a functioning system of corporate punishment, it's all case law. I'm sure Facebook is going to fight it with everything they have, so it's not nearly over... But if this goes through anyways? That could change things

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    If 43 million violations of the law aren't enough to shut something down, what is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Fuck if I know. We can revoke a corporate charter through an act of Congress for any or no reason, we have trust busting laws that allow courts to split a company, individual states can decide to restrict or kick out a company...

    We have mechanisms to do these things, but we don't really have a system of corporate criminal punishment. It's one of those problems of using an early version of democracy... Courts can fine and impose sanctions, they can prosecute individuals for their part, but as time went on instead of legislating a system of corporate punishment it's just been left to case law

    Which doesn't work out well, because corporations have grown to the point they can dump more way money into legal defense than the courts can put into prosecution

    So the answer to your question is basically that it doesn't matter how much they violate the law, they're to big and too powerful for the courts to handle them with the tools available

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Thanks for the thoughtful answer, but that's all pretty depressing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yuuup. There's people overseas always demanding Americans take back control and stop the madness...

    It's like, my brother, you have no idea what you're asking. We have so much to fix. We don't even have the mechanisms to fix the foundational problems yet. We are working on it, all of it, while also fighting like hell to avoid letting tens of millions die for easily preventable reasons

    And the world's most powerful interests are fighting every single little step of the way

    So, sorry to depresses you, but I do appreciate the empathy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    As someone who's fight left them a long time ago, and it's not like I had much to begin with, I don't really blame people in America for not fighting more. Lord knows I probably wouldn't be.Those cruel fucks are just so organised, and have so much energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Huh, first time I've heard a reasonably sized fine

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I assume they will settle for 100mil and a promise to not do it again.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    The federal government has interceded and the new penalty is $1.9 million.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    please don’t settle

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago

    Seize their data centers in the state.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago*

    *could

    won't

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    Of which they will pay $10 in Chuck E Cheese tokens

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Today: Zuckerberg whispers in Trump's ear. Tomorrow: Trump announces trade tariffs on Mexico and Venezuela.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    This is New Mexico, a US state. Even so, Trump will prob still tariff them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    The could, and probably should, but they won't.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    People always upvote some form of this comment on every post that contains potential good news. Sometimes y'all need to keep your pessimism to your fucking self. It's exhausting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Sadly this is not pessimism but just realism. You are free to block me if that's too uncomfortable or annoying

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    No, commenting "it won't happen" on every single fucking post is pessimism. Sometimes good things happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    commenting "it won't happen" on every single fucking post

    But I don't do that, I can't be blamed for actions of others

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    If it's not you it's someone else, and it's still pessimism. And people still upvote it, because everything is bad, and all good news is actually bad news.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If you want to stick your head in the sand and hum happy tunes to yourself, give’r. We’ll be up here living in reality where, in fact, most news is bad news for the poor in America. Sorry?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    You're misrepresenting reality. This article is good news, period. A jury decided Meta was at fault, and this is good regardless of your negative framing or how much they end up having to pay.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Facebook denied the claims, arguing the company has adapted its policies since the state’s lawsuit was filed in 2021 and that it removes 99% of content that violates standards. In a deposition played for jurors, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company had robust systems to determine whether content should be taken down.

    Yes, standard violating content like ads for a play with content from Virginia Woolf. Feminism is for sure "standards violating content" in a fascist state.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    And they could even pay that off in 200 easy instalments!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Funny you mention that, oil companies at least typically pay the first payment or two on fines then stop paying and the feds let it slide. Or in shitholy states like ND they get the state courts to lower the fines to nothing after attention has died down.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Is there a cap?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    That's why all these tech guys are licking trump's cankle holders. Like calls to like.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    If the media mafia can argue like this, so can Mexico.

  • source
  • 16 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I hear meta's also funding a lot of the lobbying behind all the digital ID laws because all the LLM fakes are destroying its personal data revenue.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago

    They've been pushing it for ages, especially the "ID yourself for adult content" laws.

    It's partly to indeed combat the AI/machine noise of the internet, but also to improve their own dataset of people. What kind of porn you watch. What kind of "adult" products you buy (soon to include knives, kitchen and garden tools, etc., because "blade"), they want to know EVERYTHING.

    Not just so your ads can be targeted, but because these companies want to replace governments, and that data will be extremely useful to push people into specific roles.

    Oh, you're a rebellious anarchist? Well enjoy the shitty life or we tell people about your kinks - and I 100% guarantee there will be fabricated ones too. Everyone has secrets, and these companies want to learn them all to have absolute control over you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    There are many reasons for that.

    Meta wants to choose which regulations are applied to all social media platforms because they know which regulations they and their competition can/not easily comply with. They want to make themselves look trustworthy for regulating themselves, while mitigating AI scrapers and fake accounts throwing off their engagement metrics, while giving themselves very lax regulations, while also weaponizing our government to apply burdensome regulations to their competitors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago

    But they wont and our pedo government will just go "heh, nah"

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    I assume this will result in a slap on the wrist and maybe some lawyers will make a bunch of money but the people harmed will get like a dollar and Meta will view this as the 'cost of doing business' and just harder to not get caught next time. These types of things have to be company ending for them to keep people in line...

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Waiting for the day meta gets erased from existence.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    violations of state consumer protection law

    Then presidential pardon is not an option.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    And nothing will happen.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago
    [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    How are they going to wriggle out of it this time?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    At this junction in time that could be the worst possible solution. Giving instant access to the widest cross section of the planet via the information in WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram, and the entirety of Facebook right now is the con wet dream.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm certain they already have all that information on those sites. Every DM, deleted and disappearing message. The damage is done by poisoning those wells even further than they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    When I say nationalize I mean publish trade secrets, give people power over their own identities, use profits to fund social programs, etc. I am suggesting a drastic change, not just the govt now owns the same fucked up company and runs it as corruptly as it always has. The fact is, it was the government, that is our tax dollars, who funded and designed the first of the super data centers. Remember Ed Snowden? He revealed the NSA was already building these things, but in the USA conservatives actually want to privatize everything. Publicly held data centers dont make any money, they lose money. That means less money for campaign contributions, lavishly paid speaking engagements, or vise-like control over the economic production of rural territory.

    There is nothing stopping the feds from getting personal data from any privately held company, period. There is no difference in the government's ability to track us, regardless of who owns the servers. Companies have to comply with requests from the feds, not like Meta or Google ever reject any requests anyway.

    The difference is that a nationalized industry is hypothetically subject to political pressures. A private company is not nearly as much. The whole point of "dont let the feds get access to our personal data" is moot when they already have it, and they just allow companies to use it to exploit us rather than exploiting us directly. Nationalizing industry doesn't fix capitalist overreach, but it does harm the capitalist class, which is good for the working class.

    So I reassert my premise, N A T I O N A L I Z E - T H E S E - F U C K E R S

  • source
  • parent