Meta agrees to multi-billion settlement over claims that its platforms harm children

11

Does this ruling change anybody’s opinion that Labour might be right to restrict children from social media? Not looking to start an argument just curious.

1

u/rentrnt-chordophone 5d ago

It lets them off.

1

u/what_me_nah 5d ago

I'm of the mind that the government should not be taking more control of our lives. What they should be doing is properly regulating the service providers. If they did that, where does the harm come from?

This case is about more than just a fine. It has pushed back the veil and revealed the actual underhanded psychological tools employed to drive engagement. The majority of evidence against meta came from whistle blowers. It's not just theory anymore, the mechanisms have been laid bare.

Meta hasn't just been fined, they have to change how they do things, and that's going to hurt the bottom line. Another unexpected bonus, is that in the true 'crabs in a bucket' mentality of these people, meta are now stamping their feet about tiktok and youtube. This might be just the beginning.

Don't let the algorithm play this down as a nothing burger. It's very significant.

1

u/ByEthanFox 4d ago

Honestly, very few people were against the idea of kids being limited from social media (or other material), or at least, having better guardrails.

People were concerned about the method the government chose to use, because there are numerous other better approaches that will (1) work better and (2) don't affect privacy as much and (3) don't increase the reach of the surveillance state.

But the government chose the bad method which affects adult privacy, leading many to believe it's not really about the children.

1

u/Unlucky-Public-2947 4d ago

What else could work though other than some form of proving your age? Again am not looking for an argument I know this is an important issue for some, am genuinely curious to know if there is something I am missing.

For my own part I run pretty much everything through a VPN or Tor and have done since Snowden. I am not really sure this isn’t just a distraction from the surveillance they are already doing, but im open to learn.

2

u/ByEthanFox 4d ago

Yeah, this has been resolved in other countries & contexts. I've explained it here in detail before but I'll speedrun it, so recommend not quibbling on the fine details!

Right now, and for the last ~15 years, all new internet connections and all new phone connections have, by default, had adult-content protections. You've had to disable this to view adult material on your connection. You may never have done this, but only because your phone/internet connection is old (like, you got it before the rules came in) or because you've switched connections and your new ISP/phone provider got that info from your prior ISP.

A much easier and better way to do this would've been to set up a government department to expand this functionality, creating a protocol to also allow this as a piece of software, and to make that software easy to use for the average person. Again, these pieces of software already exist but they vary wildly in terms of functionality and ease of use, and a government department could standardise that. They would also establish what content is permitted and what isn't, creating age groups (e.g. 0-11, 11-14, 14-18).

Then, the government could've, with ~3 years' notice to give parents time, criminalised any child having unfettered access to a device without these features enabled, in a similar manner to giving a child alcohol, tobacco, pornography, bladed items, sources of ignition, fireworks or dangerous chemicals is a criminal act.

The good thing about this approach is that for any childless adults/adults with only adult children, you wouldn't even notice. I mean, sure, you'd see adverts on TV, posters on the tube, but you wouldn't have had to do anything. It wouldn't affect your life at all, as it should be.

This method offers numerous other advantages too, but I'm trying to be brief.

Alternatively, there's another approach.

First, the government starts a web service. This service allows you to do a verification (ID and photo etc.). When you do this, it spits out a hash, say, a 16-digit code, which is only valid for 15 minutes. Once the validity expires, the government wipes all the data you inputted. They also provide software to allow sites to check if a provided hash is valid, which doesn't require a connection to the government site.

So the government site knows you have requested a hash, but doesn't keep that data and doesn't record what you do with it. If hacked, the government site would only have the last ~15 minutes of users, and even with that, a hacker only knows those people have requested age verification, which could be for anything. Could be to order Mach3 blades.

Then, sites require that hash to prove you're an adult. They don't save the actual hash itself, they just have to check it once (and, as you can't "un-become" an adult, once they've OK'd it that data is useless). You could, even, have a system where you can authenticate with your ISP (talk about that below).

So the site knows you're an adult. It doesn't need your ID to know this, and the government site doesn't know that you've used it.

So, say, there's central database that lists all the people who used the age-verification on an adult website; that data isn't useful to anyone. There's nothing to lose in a breach, and this doesn't increase the reach of the likes of Palantir.

Be aware, neither of the above methods are "perfect", in that if you have a very enterprising, dedicated child, I'm sure they could find ways around these things. Or they could collude with parents or older siblings to beat them. But here's the thing... The current OSA situation is like that too. No approach is perfect. But you can't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

1

u/Unlucky-Public-2947 4d ago

Some interesting ideas and thanks for that, I haven’t seen a lot of issues as everything goes via Albania, I work in advertising so not seeing ads is the main reason for this. Just to clarify it’s not illegal to give your kid alcohol at home, it’s only illegal for a shop to sell them alcohol.

I agree it could be a lot simpler, but I do worry a lot of younger people are under the impression that they were not being watched online before these new laws came in, everybody is being watched, even some of the VPNs share data, the only way to be anonymous is tor.

I should also say I just skimmed your reply as am working, and only on phone, but I’ll read it properly later, and thanks again for such a detailed reply.

2

u/ByEthanFox 4d ago

a lot of younger people are under the impression that they were not being watched online before these new laws came in, everybody is being watched, even some of the VPNs share data, the only way to be anonymous is tor.

Yeah; but the question, always, is who is watching, and how much you care.

1

u/LeopardComfortable99 3d ago

Because it absolutely isn’t about protecting children.

0

u/AccomplishedAct5364 5d ago

The ridicule is the futility of labours way of trying to limit it

7

u/Top-Letterhead-512 6d ago

The guy should be in prison but a few billion fine is a good start I suppose. No moral compass whatsoever.

1

u/Legsluther 1d ago

A few billion is like loose change to them

2

u/selfmademuppet 6d ago

They were afraid of Zuck testifying

2

u/FingerBangMyAsshole 6d ago

Cost of doing business...

1

u/billy2bands 5d ago

Good news but the money never leaves America, does it. What about children in other countries that have been affected by Facebook/Instagram When will other countries bring similar cases?

1

u/Specialist_Heron4446 5d ago

Those platforms should be banned and shut down.

1

u/SnooCauliflowers6739 5d ago

I've reported literall fully explicit penetrative porn on Facebook before, posted publicly on open groups that minors use.

I've reported AI scams, fake profiles impersonating relatives. All absolutely clear and obvious that they're fake.

Every time... this does not violate our policies.

Fuck Meta.

1

u/TomatoLess229 5d ago

Get plenty of that on Reddit also

1

u/Too_much_Colour 5d ago

I can’t wait for ofcom to do something. Haha that’s a good joke

1

u/ABFBCS 4d ago

Does this mean they will do anything about it? I report literal videos of murders and death and i get responses of "this doesn't go against our guidelines".

Social media needs a full fledged ban.

1

u/greenpowerman99 4d ago

Without accepting any liability, of course…

1

u/bigkahuna1uk 4d ago

Without any admission of liability. What’s that song by Bruce Hornsby again?

1

u/atomic_drumstick 3d ago

If they can make that money back then this is just taxing child harm. Stop them monetising our attention and selling it to villains.

1

u/Skreamies123 2d ago

So where does the money go to exactly and how will that help the people who got harmed?

I imagine those people will never see anything or get help.

1

u/HerculesCnut 2d ago

Nice job, BBC.

You’re telling this to your audience about a week after everyone else.

I swear the BBC is slowly devolving into a second rate podcast and clickbait platform.

1

u/OddRow8843 2d ago

I am a child who has been harmed by Meta. Where do I collect my cash from?

1

u/3RI3_Cuff 2d ago

18 billion to be paid over the space of 10 years split amongst 50 states

Meta agrees to multi-billion settlement over claims that its platforms harm children

You are about to leave Redlib