Nice detailed write up. I love-hate Meta’s PR spin on this: “Meta's Agreement With Bipartisan Attorneys General: Calling on TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting Teens”
Genuinely unhinged that companies can just lie this way to the public and it’s completely fine. Normal even.
You didn’t agree to shit, Meta. You’re scum, so much so that even in the incredibly hostile to industry regulation environment we find ourselves in, you managed to get fined.
They learned good from the tobacco industry about how to manage this properly. Getting way out in front of things and pretending to regulate themselves.
In Brazil, communications do run entirely on WhatsApp, but payments are entirely on Pix.
Also I rememeber when there was a Meta-wide outage, and people switched to Telegram within the day, so the stranglehold they have might not be that strong.
Is there a "crypto-shred" method for destroying access to your account? Like, change your email to one that expires/isn't reusable, then change the password to some totally random, lengthy string and then never record it?
These arguments are not very strong. It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way. It also makes the absolutely insane assumption that children are on there consuming meaningful content and not literal brain rotting slop or worse.
There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.
>It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way.
The platforms cannot stop someone from publishing information on a website outside of the platform.
Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.
A settlement only binds the relevant parties, but I don't think it's terribly conspiratorial to think the details of this settlement are an implicit threat to Meta's competitors. "Meta agrees to implement a one-hour limit, but only after Youtube and Tiktok do the same" sounds very much like Youtube and Tiktok had better fall in line if they don't want to get sued themselves.
Nice detailed write up. I love-hate Meta’s PR spin on this: “Meta's Agreement With Bipartisan Attorneys General: Calling on TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting Teens”
https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...
Genuinely unhinged that companies can just lie this way to the public and it’s completely fine. Normal even.
You didn’t agree to shit, Meta. You’re scum, so much so that even in the incredibly hostile to industry regulation environment we find ourselves in, you managed to get fined.
Tobacco industry lied and it was completely fine.
DuPont hid Teflon pollution for decades.
Scary what information these companies are sitting on which only comes to light once their hand is forced.
https://www.ewg.org/research/dupont-hid-teflon-pollution-dec...
not sure who is downvoting this comment. meta should not exist as a company.
They learned good from the tobacco industry about how to manage this properly. Getting way out in front of things and pretending to regulate themselves.
What's going to be their analog to vapes?
Moltbook?
So the vampire is now the manager of the blood bank?
I can't stress this enough -- boycott all meta products.
Delete them off your phone. You don't need insta and whatsapp.
Starve the demon of your data.
Some countries (India, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia) run entirely on WhatsApp including payments.
If you want to book a doctor's appointment you don't call and talk to an AI chat bot you message them on WhatsApp.
Signal was starting to gain traction until they dumped text message support and people were like, "well if I need two apps now I'll just drop Signal"
> If you want to book a doctor's appointment you don't call and talk to an AI chat bot you message them on WhatsApp.
It’s so rare to come across it in India, I can say - there’s no such thing.
>It's so rare to come across it in India, I can say - there’s no such thing.
WhatsApp payments are only offered [1] in four countries (including India) it can't be "no such thing"
[1]: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1293279751500598
In Brazil, communications do run entirely on WhatsApp, but payments are entirely on Pix.
Also I rememeber when there was a Meta-wide outage, and people switched to Telegram within the day, so the stranglehold they have might not be that strong.
Is there a "crypto-shred" method for destroying access to your account? Like, change your email to one that expires/isn't reusable, then change the password to some totally random, lengthy string and then never record it?
I would love to. Unfortunately, half of my friends are on Instagram and the other half on WhatsApp. We are screwed.
It's like asking people to stop buying iPhones or using Windows, it's too late now.
If you don't write the regulations yourself, then these companies are happy to come along and write them for you.
These arguments are not very strong. It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way. It also makes the absolutely insane assumption that children are on there consuming meaningful content and not literal brain rotting slop or worse.
There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.
>It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way.
The platforms cannot stop someone from publishing information on a website outside of the platform.
Where are the regulations for PornHub and similar harmful websites?
Discussion:
Did Meta's Big Settlement Actually Help It?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49464678
Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819
Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
No. It's as you say here, as well.
> A settlement only binds the relevant parties.
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.
A settlement only binds the relevant parties, but I don't think it's terribly conspiratorial to think the details of this settlement are an implicit threat to Meta's competitors. "Meta agrees to implement a one-hour limit, but only after Youtube and Tiktok do the same" sounds very much like Youtube and Tiktok had better fall in line if they don't want to get sued themselves.
I think China got it right with TikTok. Educational content only! Done!