> according to a lawyer who is prosecuting the world’s largest social media company.
The headline makes it sound like something internal at Meta got revealed. The catchy four-H phrase is the clever hook the lawyer came up with to try to hold the jury’s mind through the case.
If you’re unfamiliar with how these trials work, the lawyers are trying to create a compelling narrative to support their case and catchy phrases that sound like marketing lingo are often used. This wasn’t some internal Meta doc that got revealed.
Its the same way "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was coined. "Embrace and extend", without extinguish/exterminate, was used in Microsoft corp docs that were handed to the DOJ during the famous antitrust case, but it was the DOJ that turned it into EEE after realizing what "embrace and extend" actually meant in the broader context of Microsoft's machinations.
Did they actually use this phrase in their internal comms? The one reference I can find - https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/... - says that Steven McGeady (then VP of Intel) testified that Paul Maritz (then an exec at Microsoft) told Intel that Microsoft's strategy was to "embrace, extend, extinguish". However, I can't see that corroborated by any actual internal communications.
Blatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric. So catch phrases are essential elements to conveying the truth about the behavior
How about the whole discipline of rhetoric that has thousands of years of history. Or the fact that law schools specifically teach jury communication strategies that focus on the psychology of persuasion.
Seems like you’re just demanding proof for something that’s obvious on its face. Only someone that has never taken a writing, communication, debate or similar class would demand evidence for the proposition that effective communication to a general audience has to target a 3rd or 4th grade reading level and catch phrases with alliteration that fits within human short term memory is essential to ensure comprehension.
There's a difference between understanding rules for effective arguments and writing, and believing that those rules are shortcuts to swaying a jury without needing a case. It's certainly PART of communication, but this isn't a Hollywood script so glib speech alone isn't going to get you very far in this sort of case.
I'd also caution you to remember that for thousands of years people argued from "What was obvious" and they were inevitably wrong, so I'll stick to the scientific method over "You must not know how to write" as an argument.
The antidote to that would be for Meta to reveal all their internal communications. But they'll never do that because their own words and actions are likely far more damning than any story the DOJ could weave.
The trend I have noticed is anytime the actual truth leaks from these actors and companies, it's so much more evil than I could have imagined. Like the recent tell-all book from someone who worked directly with Zuckerberg, Careless People -- I was shocked at just how amoral those in leadership there. I had a dim view of them before, but their actual words and deeds were worse than I could have imagined.
A key part of trials like this is the discovery process, which would surface a lot of the documents and emails that supposedly contain this information you’re talking about.
If the lawyers found it, they’d be using it. I think the takeaway from this is that they decided their own catchphrase was more compelling than any language they found in those documents.
I know about discovery. I have a hard time believing that Meta is being perfectly transparent or comprehensive in what they disclose to the prosecution.
> The fun part is their internal communication might be relatively exculpatory, but a good prosecutor can find the crumb or two to hang them.
To the first part of that sentence: maybe, but I highly doubt it and these would be the last people on earth to give the benefit of the doubt to. Zuckerberg, and his peers, are operating in an "us vs them" mentality and we should also prosecute them in the exact same manner. They don't care about their users and they don't view them as humans or equals in any regard. They are parasites who only consume, cast blame, have zero interest in what's fair and treat everything around them as a capitalistic game of who can hoard the most. I would love to see Zuckerberg have to defend himself in a court of law and, instead of dodge every question, have to answer to his worldly peers in a truthful manner. The hatred towards a person like that must weigh on him. The best part about him is Facebook was an initiative in his own failings amongst his personal life. And it never filled that void. Zuckerberg is probably still socially broke on the inside. He's a terrible human through and through.
Indeed. Especially since we know that they know that they reserve the worst of it for face to face conversation and nothing gets recorded and it's all for the sake of maintaining plausible deniability. When asked about their private conversations they can and do lie.
> I mean, it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's governing our lives. What right do we have to poke around in Facebook's private affairs like that?
I think if facebook code governs your life, the major part of the fault does not lie with facebook. It is possible to live not being chained to the feed 24x7.
So far it seems to be the least-worst option. I wish there was a way to enable a citizen to vote their choice but do so in at least a reasonably informed way.
The greatest strength of democracy is an ironclad guarantee that even people holding ideas opposed to current leaders', if there are enough likeminded people, can win power.
That's what lets democracies change, even radically, through elections rather than revolutions.
Unfortunately... the universal and equal suffrage that's a cornerstone of that also precludes any sorting by authority of vote value.
Otherwise you inevitably end up with authority putting its thumb on the scales, similar to Iranian democracy (by design).
If you are into the book, I would highly recommend commentary from people who were also at the firm at the same time and currently working on the field.
I can see how the title is misleading, but I would have been shocked if it was internal Meta jargon. Execs at all the big tech companies nowadays have a culture of avoiding slogans that could be deemed overly aggressive.
Even “Move fast and break things” was technocratted into “Move fast with stable infrastructure” after Meta went public.
Quite. PEople complain about AI language being weird and unnatural, but imho it's just the distillation of this cultural habit of trying to turn everything into a brand, slogan, or mnemonic. When you have a society that generally dislies reading, everything becomes a pitch.
I hope people can see Meta is funding the other side in order to get Child Safety laws passed so they can have an out when children use their parent's device and Meta spies on them. Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one.
Dissolve the company. Jail the C levels. End of story.
If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream. The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on.
The world no longer needs Facebook and its leaders. It does not need its technology. It does not need the ideas of the people that are there. If you are still working there, you are complicit in acting in a company that is actively seeking to control a populous.
I understand it's hard not to work for "big tech" and not work for a company trying to control populous.
So yes. I agree. Stop letting them play games with the rules we spent generations putting in place to protect our citizenship.
America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. But it also applies the same restrictions and punishments as people without factoring in the underlying advantages a company has when breaking the law for profit.
1. Perpetual existence means breaking the law is a short term problem that is well worth the long term benefit — companies essentially live for ever and out live many of the consequences of their actions
2. They can’t be physically jailed and are rarely punished with equivalent restrictions. There is no ankle bracelet for bad companies. So the punishments are inadequate to serve as a deterrent,
3. Fines are rarely of a scale that threatens existence so they become just another cost of business that can be financially modeled
4. The decision makers almost never suffer the consequences of their companies actions. It’s so rare at this point for executives to face personal responsibility in terms of fines, or jail time that there is a absolute incentive to ignore laws in pursuit of short term earnings
5. There is a two tier system, large companies can abuse the legal process by outspending prosecution from the government or harmed parties. Law suits drag on so long that it’s essential a get out of jail free card for companies that are large enough.
6. It’s pretty clear the government wants Facebook to spy on and persuade the population of the world. So this behavior is a “national defense” asset and any harm is justified as being necessary for the preservation of that asset.
I could go on but until most of these are fixed, expect Facebook in particular to evade any meaningful punishment.
> America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights.
Corporate personhood does not mean a company have all the same legal rights as a person. Did you notice that companies can’t vote in elections or plead the fifth amendment like a person can? Corporations only get some rights.
Corporate personhood is common across the globe. If you thought it was an American idea that’s completely incorrect. It is a funny example of the kind of American exceptionalism where people assume that America is an exception in having some property they dislike when in fact it’s common everywhere.
The inability to personally jail megacorp CEOs who cause untold amounts of societal damage is not common "everywhere" ("many places", maybe). And that is the actual thing the person you're responding to cares about, and rightly so.
The countries who jail CEOs who due “societal damage” as a fuzzy cultural concept, as opposed to jailing CEOs according to the law, are not legal systems you want to imitate.
The US does jail CEOs who commit crimes. Social media just has a short memory for topics like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, or even recent topics like Theranos and FTX.
You may also have your personal list of “societal damages” that you believe should result in people being jailed despite not having committed crimes, but I guarantee your list doesn’t match everyone else’s list. You wouldn’t be happy when the list of “societal damages” started extending to things like using a VPN or trying to be anonymous on the internet, but for many people who get to government positions it most definitely would!
> The countries who jail CEOs who due “societal damage” as a fuzzy cultural concept, as opposed to jailing CEOs according to the law, are not legal systems you want to imitate.
The US doesn't jail people according to the law and does not have a legal system you want to imitate.
> The US does jail CEOs who commit crimes. Social media just has a short memory for topics like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, or even recent topics like Theranos and FTX.
Yes, the US jails CEOs that defraud investors, i.e. the powerful. This is a direct application of the fuzzy concepts that the US uses when deciding whether to jail someone.
Executives mostly get jailed when there is large media attention + the executive was foolish enough to leave evidence pointing straight at them. For every case where an executive is jailed, there are 100 other cases where they aren't. And that is just in the overt "breaking the law cases".
Even more incredible damage has been in us losing the laws that protect us in the first place. For nigh on 40 years thanks to neoliberal economists influencing policy we have been relaxing corporate and monetary regulation.
This has already provided great gifts to the world, such as enabling the fraud that led to the 2008 housing crisis (who was jailed again?).
When as a country you decide that punishing bad corporate behaviour is a non starter, you get the predictable consequences of increasing, not decreasing bad corporate behaviour.
Thousands of people were jailed in 2008 aftermath - look up operation Malicious Mortgage and Stolen Dreams. Most of them of course low level - because those were the people actually perpetrating the fraud. But some examples: Kareem Serageldin, Lee Farkas, Edward Woodard, etc. Ken Lewis, BoA CEO, faced multiple investigations and civil penalties, but none of those investigarions could find any criminal liability. He lost his post and BoA paid out billions in settlements.
Mangione had a personal grudge, caused by illness, pain and personal interactions with US healthcare system, which can grind down and drive to insanity anybody. The above just reads as a mashup or angry reddit posts which contain generic "evil rich people" platitudes, with zero depth or factual support. It's just low effort ranting.
You can jail CEO just fine if you prove they personally committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Proving that is hard, of course. Sometimes impossible because the CEO delegates a lot of what the corporation does. This is common for any big organization or group - be it corporation, political party, gang, army, state, etc. There's no special law or process singling out or protecting CEOs specifically, and no specific US rules for that.
But there are gaps. What CEO is jailed for knowingly leaking forever chemicals or putting lead in gasoline? They are long gone when the harm manifests. My point is the company should face consequences such as loss of the right to operate and perhaps the loss of limited liability so shareholders are personally liable. Limited liability is a privilege not a right. We could require all businesses operate as partnerships rather than corporations or limited liability companies. Lawyers have to operate that way. Bankers did until the 90s. The rationale was that they would be more careful with risk if each partner was personally liable for the debts of their partners actions.
Putting lead in gasoline is not some evil CEO's decision. That was widely accepted industry practice and completely approved by The Science (TM) at the time. If you want to blame a single person, it'd be Thomas Midgley Jr. (incredibly, he's also responsible for CFCs) and was also killed in 1944 by one of his other (non-chemical) invention, so by the time it has become clear TEL is dangerous he was not around anymore to blame. Even when the danger of TEL became known, there was no single "evil CEO" that was responsible for it's continued use - and it took a long time to make it unlawful. Once it was made unlwaful, I don't think there's a CEO on record that had still instructed his employees to use TEL despite what the law requires. So if the narrative is "evil CEOs put lead in gasoline and avoided jail because of US legal system being broken" - this would have very little connection to what actually happened, however tragic it was.
They can vote in some elections. And I would argue that unlimited political donations effectively means they can influence the layer above voting by influencing the people occupying the offices that were obtained through elections. So voting isn’t the lever of power that matters anymore and companies have superior influence on the levels that matter
This all is based on false premise - corporation being a "legal person" does not mean they have same rights as people. You can liquidate a corporation and if is not murder. You can boycott a corporation and it's not illegal discrimination. Corporations can not vote or be elected into office. Etc, etc. It's just a technical term and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Stop perpetuating this nonsense.
I am a lawyer not some random facebook troll. There are minor differences but my argument is clear. The asymmetric advantage accrue to the benefit of companies because their are perpetual and abstract so not punished in anything equal to human persons.
> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights
> > It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media
Funny how some folks can comment here on the world's biggest library and communications system but they can't take a minute to search out and read some actual details on the thing they're commenting about first. For example, Wikipedia's Corporate Personhood article [1] took me less than 5 seconds to find (including the time it took to open a web browser to my favorite search engine), and another two seconds to read enough to find that the very first sentence says some (not all) legal rights... The rest of the article has all the details anyone needs to understand what that first sentence actually means.
> Notion that corporations can have some legal rights, responsibilities and accountability (emphasis mine)
> If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream.
Get your pillow ready, because this is the only thing that'll happen if the verdict goes against them. Of course, the verdict could go the other way so no fine is levied at all. Maybe get a second pillow just in case
Fascinating story. The author was hopelessly ignorant and guilty of facilitating, but the execs were so devoid of anything approaching ethics or morality. Explains a lot if true.
Unless you've been on the inside at the top levels of huge companies, you don't know about the sheer sociopathy of the people there. It's easy, even normal, to be naive as a regular employee, even one at a fairly high management level.
Yes and no. I have been on the inside and watched as a very senior but non-C-suite, one who works with the officers and next in line for C. Cultures reinforce themselves in groups of people and so yes you see all the narcissism and sociopathy in action but the limits and what’s acceptable differ. Not all companies behave like Meta on the inside.
"The world no longer needs Facebook and its leaders. It does not need its technology."
Meta owns WhatsApp, which is core infrastructure in many countries now where it has basically replaced the PSTN. If WhatsApp went down without a long transition process first, it would take myriad small businesses down with it. I would love to see harsh punishments and jailed executives, but the world still needs the company for the time being.
> If WhatsApp went down without a long transition process first
The transition mechanism is that your contacts are in your phone address book, and you can call or text them or find them on other platforms indexed by phone number. Although, not for username contacts.
Would it be disruptive? Yes. Would it be world ending? No.
That is all well and good for individuals chatting with family, friends or small groups. But alot of small businesses all over the world are using WhatsApp for Business with features and data storage that cannot be immediately moved to another platform. If it disappeared tomorrow, you would see business failures and immediate economic impact in developing-world regions that can hardly afford such a hit.
Launch two parallel cases. One against Meta top execs for criminal behavior, the other one as antitrust against Meta for abusing their market position. Two cases at once gives you negotiating power and clearly signals that you're serious about curtailing their influence.
Ideally this results in jail time for Meta execs, but at a minimum divesting them of Whatsapp should be achievable. By the end you should be able to get Meta's businesses operating independently under new leadership.
We really don't. If that finally does happen, people are quick to adapt to change it will use one of the many alternatives, maybe even one that's interoperable or open so we're not in the same mess five years later
It would take 1 week for everyone to move over to something else.
> but the world still needs the company for the time being.
You have been caught hook, line and sinker. Flush the koolaid out of your system. I can absolutely guarantee you that if all of Meta disappears tomorrow, everyone will move over to a like-for-like replacement within weeks. I'd be willing to bet everything I have on it.
Only out of convenience. There are many alternatives, and search engines will find them. And (although it won't happen) if Facebook were ordered to shut down, hundreds of entrepreneurs would offer alternatives for "small business web presence"
Small businesses have complained about being buried in search results for long years. In some industries like restaurants, scammers create a higher-ranking website that looks like the real thing, in order to skim revenue.
Not everyone has SEO-fu, and hiring a contractor is an additional cost for small businesses. At least on Facebook one normally finds what one is looking for.
There is nothing technical that says this is how it has to be. A "business directory" that is vetted and paid for (like the old "Yellow Pages" used to be) could be trustworthy.
Angie's List started out this way but I think it has been corrupted since the merger with HomeAdvisor. I could be wrong about that.
Establishing trust would be the tricky part. People are so used to 80% of the internet being scams and clickbait. But that certainly goes for Facebook pages as well.
And just like they found Facebook they can, and will, find something else. And maybe they learn something about trust in that type of service the next time around.
Maybe they have no interest in finding something else. Maybe they aren't interested in your opinion and don't see you as someone they are want to learn lessons from.
And? This is the same argument the south made while supporting slavery. I’m not saying the two are equally bad, but this is just simply not a valid argument if you ignore the surrounding context.
I find that truly mystifying. I won’t go through the hassle of opening an account on any platform just to see some dumbed down website. I can’t be the only one, can I?
> The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on.
More importantly and less often talked about, these fines end up back in their pockets because Meta is a defense contractor in all but name. Governments gladly buy data from these companies; the US hapily buys data because it circumvents the 4th amendment. The reason the US does not have strong data privacy laws is because strong data privacy laws are antithetical to big tech, technofascism, and a surveilance state. Yes, the people running these companies are doing evil unto the world for profit, and arguably yes, they ought to face justice for such, and yes, what they are doing ought to be illegal because it is morally wrong and incredibly damaging. But when that justice is monopolized by the same governments that rely on these evil acts to fulfil their desire for power and self preservation, nothing will happen. Meta has been complicit in multiple genocides, yet you will never see it on any lists that harm its business.
Voters put big tech in charge. Blaming the people who need jobs to not be homeless instead of the people who continually vote for billionaires to abuse everyone is ridiculous. Did you go door to door telling your neighbors to vote against the current president and his party?
Voters are the ones voting for our current hellscape. It can only be stopped with voting.
>Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one.
I thought they were pushing for on-device age verification, which from a "mass surveillance" perspective is pretty bad? If you wanted mass surveillance, you'd want mandatory ID verification by sites and/or government SSO, both of which allows you to capture a persistent identifier. Of course, meta isn't doing all this lobbying out of altruism. Doing on-device verification means they're off the hook for it, and google/apple has the shoulder the burden instead.
The only reason age verification isn’t mandatory is because it isn’t scalable. A few states are moving forward with digital drivers licenses. When there are digital drivers licenses, passports and social security cards you’ll see a renewal to push verification.
FaceMash is a very primitive example of mass surveillance and data gathering: use people's pictures without their consent, collect the social rankings in a database somewhere.
Wrong. He literally made fun of users for giving information that he could use to spy on them and share that ability with friends. It was a childish form of spying but the intent was there and the monetization tactic came later.
He was definitely planning on PII abuse at scale for personal gain from day one. Probably not planning mass surveillance, but from all we know of him, he wouldn't have disliked the idea.
Sounds like the lawyer's spinning what any successful business does with trying to acquire customers and serve their needs as though they were dealing drugs (granted, the line can be blurry between things that are simply enjoyable versus that which is more strongly addictive - some people get "addicted" to eating, but we can't really ban food, for example)
It’s easy to have a successful business by breaking the law. It’s easy to with races when you take performance enhancing drugs.
And ask yourself, would facebook be significantly less successful if they didn’t intentionally market to teen girls based on their emotional state and had the decency to ignore signs of depression and anxiety instead of monetizing them? They might be more successful over time.
Perhaps, then, it's a matter of degree like most things. And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind?
I'm so tired of the whatabouts and the normalization and the pretending like this billion trillion whatever company has does anything but take advantage of its power to defend itself with slants and lies that any normal person or small group could never get away with.
You can be a big company and not be pointedly or maliciously harmful to society. Facebook is not that. And no, I will never refer to it as "meta" to allow yet another opportunity for these people to sane wash their behavior.
We know who they are. We know what they choose and chose to do. Let the tattered and broken laws of the world actually do something.
> If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecution.
Not necessarily. Even government resources are finite.
If you are doing what everyone else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted (currently), it could be (and often is) because the people doing the prosecuting have limited resources, and the best practical course of action for them is to go after one highly visible target and get a ruling that will spook everyone else into self-correcting (or be the next largest target).
Yeah, that doesn't fly with most Americans. Sounds a lot like the Sacklers - welp, can't ban pain meds, so might as well just addict as many as we can to opiods and take as much money as we can before they die
I wouldn't be surprised if Zuckerburg and Sackler were 4th or 5th cousins, they act so similar
This HHHH strategy phrase is made up by these lawyers. It's not like the Microsoft version their mimicking where Microsoft actually said it. It makes the headline misleading like it alleges they said it internally as their strategy.
"McGeady testified that Maritz told Intel that Microsoft’s strategy was
to “embrace, extend, extinguish.” McGeady, 11/9/98pm, at 53:17 -
54:8; McGeady, 11/10/98 am, at 21:22 - 23:19; GX 564."
The elderly are grown adults who have a lifetime of experience and can be expected to see through the charade and spot what's really going on. Young people are more naive. I'm almost legally a senior citizen and I saw Facebook for what it was a long time ago, and most of the people I know who are my age don't use it, they don't even like social media in general. They use email or text messages, mostly. The people who have asked me why I don't have Insta are all in their 20s.
Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age.
I disagree. They did not grow up with technology in the same way we did. This is all still quite new to them, and I truly believe the ragebait strategy and polarisation is just as damaging as the tricks used to ensnare teenagers.
> Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age.
If there were a clean way to define it, I'd probably be better to change:
- "elderly" to "individuals impacted by mental decline, dementia, or other disability;" and
- "children" to "people who haven't reached an adequate level of maturity to [long definition]."
The point is MOST elderly are impacted by mental decline or dementia by some age. That's often not the same as age-of-retirement. I know people where it happened at 60, and where it happened in their nineties.
Serious questions: You'll be a senior citizen soon enough, and maybe a decade later this will hit you too. What mechanisms would you like in place to be protected?
If and when it this hits you, there may be a long period where you'll be:
a) Functional (e.g. able to feed yourself, keep yourself clean, manage the house) and not needing care (e.g. nursing home);
b) Emotionally important to your relatives; and yet
c) Already vulnerable to predatory behaviour
What protective measures would you like to see in place during this period?
Footnote: In my current location, most people 80 and beyond are glued to some source of polarizing disinformation, be that Facebook or cable TV. Coincidentally, of the few I know better personally, some have empty bank accounts, since they can't manage their money properly any more. But they can cook, clean, shop, but not more complex things like that. It's not just outright scammers. It's predatory advertising, and all sorts of other predatory behaviour.
How would hurting elderly be more harmful than hurting children? I know that we are about to live in gerontocracy, but it’s still a wild statement to make.
I don't know that I would agree it's _worse_ than what FB does to children. But there's clearly a parallel, in that a vulnerable segment of society is prey to a careless corporation and the heinous ecosystem of scamers and abusers they foster.
There's just no conceivable legal case there. Manipulating "stupid old people" and causing them to believe bad things is First Amendment protected activity.
Sure there is, they are conspiring to break a variety of federal laws and continue to do so. I continue to get ads to join WhatsApp “investor groups” supposedly endorsed by Warren Buffet. I got one the other day that is run by Charlie Munger, who apparently rose from the dead to promote pump and dump schemes.
It’s inconceivable that Facebook doesn’t spot that sort of thing. They took a similar eyes off approach to the illegal foreign entity election manipulation.
How are the elderly, who have full rights as citizens/members of society, and are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions, more harmed than minors, who are none of that?
> are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions
I don't think you've ever had a relative with e.g. Alzheimer's or dementia.
There's a fine line where the above stops being the case. "Vulnerable to predatory behaviour" happens a long time before "can't find the bathroom without a nurse."
I hate when people say things like “Google did this” or “Meta did that.” There are actual named humans making these decisions. I want them found and held accountable. As of late these people have more power than ever. A single contributor at a company like Meta can make a change that impacts 0.025% of users (potentially hundreds of thousands of people) with zero notice or oversight, for their own individual gain. Not even to mention the systemic decisions this article describes.
As someone else noted "Hook, hold, harvest and hide" is the framing from the plaintiffs. There likely wasn't some twirly mustached executive giving a presentation with those words on the slide deck. Instead the "decisions" made are far more banal. Shareholders wants growing revenues and users, executives tell their subordinates to implement those objectives, and it eventually hits the ICs where they're tweaking the color of the buttons to be maximally engaging. All these tweaks cumulatively makes the product addicting, but it's not like making meth or cigarettes where it's addicting from day 1.
> There likely wasn't some twirly mustached executive giving a presentation with those words on the slide deck.
why oh why are giving them the benefit of the doubt? There was in fact a twirled moustache executive.
> Internal chats within the company stated, “Oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now? Zuck has been talking about that for a while…targeting 11 year olds feels like tobacco companies a couple decades ago (and today). Like we’re seriously saying ‘we have to hook them young’ here.”
> Even after determining internally that teen safety was a massive problem on its platforms, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “teen time spent be our top goal of 2017.”
> One internal email from September 2018 indicates that, according to Meta,
“The lifetime value of a 13 [year old] teen is roughly $270 per teen.”
>> Internal chats within the company stated, “Oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now? Zuck has been talking about that for a while…targeting 11 year olds feels like tobacco companies a couple decades ago (and today). Like we’re seriously saying ‘we have to hook them young’ here.”
This might seem like the most damning quote, but if you read it again it's pretty clear it's someone who's objecting. In other words, not a twirly mustached executive saying "we're going after <13 year olds" as an actual objective, or "we have to hook them young".
>> Even after determining internally that teen safety was a massive problem on its platforms, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “teen time spent be our top goal of 2017.”
>> One internal email from September 2018 indicates that, according to Meta, “The lifetime value of a 13 [year old] teen is roughly $270 per teen.”
So... exactly what I said earlier about "Shareholders wants growing revenues and users"?
You misread that first quote in your defense of Meta. The twirly mustached exec is Zuck himself who wants to target 11 year olds. By having a person object to him, he's no longer evil???
>The twirly mustached exec is Zuck himself who wants to target 11 year olds. By having a person object to him, he's no longer evil???
That itself is hearsay, from someone who's apparently opposed to whatever Meta is doing. Taking that to mean Zuckerberg literally said "we should target 11 year olds" is a stretch.
The actual named humans making these decisions are very frequently not people who you would consider accountable. If Meta announced that they're firing hundreds of engineers and PMs for optimizing addiction-correlated metrics, even if there was a clear memo instructing them not to do that, nobody would be satisfied and everyone would see it as a deflection of responsibility by the executives. I know this because it's exactly what happened with the Wells Fargo fake account scandal.
I agree with that, the other side of that coin is executives creating incentive structures that encourage contributors to do risky things, while using the ambiguity to make it seem like nobody is really responsible.
Though I kind of doubt the Wells Fargo executives would’ve considered fake accounts a valid way to grow revenue. It seems Meta is happy to turn the blind eye, because addictive mechanics do in fact grow their revenue
My point isn’t that Zuck’s not responsible, but rather the system he’s created is fucked and a bandaid is to name all of those responsible
On one hand I totally see your point. It's just disgusting that someone on high position is fully aware that Facebook is about making people addicted to slop and serve them exploitative ads. On the other hand, it is an organizational failure, because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius.
> because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius.
I generally agree with you, however this makes an assumption about what "correctly" means. In this case, Meta could be working correctly and take it's orders directly from the Zuck commander's intent. In which case he would be a single person that would have a massive impact on the outcome. Therefore, should be appropriately accountable.
Just want to be clear here: you appear to be saying that you support a regime putting people in prison that a regime doesn't like, on made-up charges, with the excuse of "harmed society or the economy" - have I got that right?
Reality is the same behind the polite facades both in the East and the West. The problem with the West is that being rich mostly excludes you from being put in prison for being not liked by the powerful. Excuses are also irrelevant.
You can put people behind bars on made-up charges in USA as well, if they interfere with powerful enough interests. Just not the rich enough people. China doesn't make that exception. Is that worse or better?
It sounds appealing when you imagine that nobody you like would ever be cut, but that's not how the Chinese system works. I would guess that at some point in the past you've laughed at memes making fun of political leaders; in China, this is not allowed, because the authorities believe that posting mean things about the system or its leadership damages the trust in government which is required for a healthy society.
Yeah, like Jack Ma (of alibaba) who disappeared for months, and got his company's IPO canceled, all because he criticized the government's financial regulations a bit too much? Trump wishes he has as much ability to put people behind bars as Xi.
Which seems exactly like the sort of thing an authoritarian regime would do to placate the masses. Make an example of some big boss, but conveniently fail to fix or even acknowledge the issues that led to the crisis in the first place. In the example of the property bubble, it's domestic financial repression making real estate the only option for savings, and local governments being hooked (heh) on land sales to fund their budgets. The whole system was designed to pump up property prices and drive a bubble.
That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't. They try to fix the issues and rightly jail the CEO. To act as if he was just an unknowing cog in the system is nonsensical.
>That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't.
Except you know, all the incentives for keeping the current system in place. Financial repression still exists. Same with the local government funding model. Also the government's intervention was arguably what led to the crisis, by abruptly disrupting real estate companies' cashflow. The problem needed to be solved, but in typical CCP fashion, rash decisions made the situation worse. Same as with the one child policy.
Finally, what makes you think meta "haven't tried to fix the issues"? They're trying very hard with age verification :^)
Luckily we have rule of law here so if you say someone in particular needs to go to prison there needs to be a law that you have proven to break. Just because you dont like someone you can't just lock them up.
We have rule of law here? have you seen the non-independent DOJ today? The Supreme court's rubber stamp and bribed justices? Trump's blatant illegalities?
(Yes, Clarence Thomas has been bribed. That's what the RV and the trips are.)
It's funny isn't it, what the word China triggers in people. They'll say that the US is going down the gutter, but then the very next sentence if China is mentioned, it's all "we have rule of law, we're a just, democratic, lawful country, unlike them". There's still far too much pride.
You're in the lead for funniest comment of the year award!
How's Ghislaine Maxwell doing nowadays? Last I heard, living a very comfy VIP "prison" life. How are her mates? Right, running free. Now let's look at how people jailed for marijuana possession are doing.
Everyone commits crimes, yet prosecution is hilariously selective. Everyone knows this. White collar crimes have a prosecution rate of <1%. Three felonies per day.
There is absolutely no meaningful rule of law in the US. The absurd degree of selective prosecution is antithetical to this.
> The jury’s role is advisory, which means they will give recommendations to the presiding judge, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will make the final decision on the verdict and damages.
What kind of trial is that, and what provision is there for it in the law? Who gets to choose that? The trial is in US federal court in Oakland [0].
No person with 'morals' would join this company in 2026, unless with the next RSU cliff, the morality hormone immediately gets triggered when the bank account reaches 7 figures.
I don’t think any company has “morals”. For sure individuals might but a big advantage of the corporate structure is this diffusion of decision making and blame. Anthropomorphizing corporations isn’t helping us get a clearer picture of how they work or why they do what they do.
A company is made up out of people. Some are made up out of people with morals (yes, these exist). Those companies have morals. Some, like Meta, consist of people with no morals. Those companies have no morals.
I'm sure everyone here understands that. But, there's a difference between a company that puts morality and ethics first vs. one that abandons it altogether or even encourages its opposition. I've worked for all three types, and after unwittingly working for scum, I recommend to always check who one's bosses are. In my understanding, I believe Zuckerburg has always operated in opposition to morality.
In my opinion at least, any attempt to intentionally engineer addiction is morally wrong and should be at the very least civilly if not criminally actionable (if it can be proven).
It's mind control. That phrase is often associated with woo woo conspiracy theory, but I don't think that's hyperbolic. If you are engineering addiction, what you're doing is attempting to run a black hat security attack against the human central nervous system to violate a person's will and autonomy. That is the definition of mind control. Properly framed I think it's a form of assault, especially when deployed with deliberate concealment of motive or against children, the elderly, the mentally ill, anyone not strong enough to resist it.
The medium doesn't matter: addictive drugs, slot machines, web sites, social media apps, games. In that list I actually think explicitly labeled gambling stuff like Las Vegas is the least evil since at least in that case it's kind of up front and overt about what it is. I mean, it's a casino. WTF do you think a casino does? Hard drugs are kind of the same at this point. The thing that makes this case so awful is that people genuinely didn't know. Nobody including myself understood just how effective addiction engineering in a digital medium could be, and these companies were secretive about just how hard-core they were getting about studying and engineering this. They hired psychologists. There's stories of studies putting people in FMRI machines. It was a deliberate R&D program with the (secretive) stated goal of addiction.
The next thing important to understand is that businesses are structurally incapable of self-policing something with a profit incentive. I didn't say unwilling. I said incapable. Businesses, like all "corporate" entities (non-profits, governments, etc.) operate with a certain set of constraints, social customs, and rules, and for a business one of those is that they must earn revenue and/or attract investment to survive. If addiction results in revenue, then any business that refuses to engineer addiction will fail.
This is also why regulation of things like child labor, forced labor, safety requirements, etc. are required. If a safe workplace reduces profits than any company implementing a safe workplace loses to those who do not, etc.
BTW this is something a lot of "online Marxist" type anti-capitalists don't understand when they vilify business leaders. A business that doesn't do the profitable thing stops being a business. It's outcompeted by those who do the thing. The only way to stop these things is to universally police them, which levels the playing field and allows businesses who don't do the bad thing to keep operating. It's an instant race to the bottom because a business cannot not race.
So yeah... lots of words but I think this is an important issue and it's good that it's happening. I really hope an example gets made here, or that this at least raises awareness.
I think it's critically important that we start dealing with digital addiction engineering as an issue before the AI funding bubble pops. When that happens all the AI companies will have to look for other sources of revenue. Addiction engineering online became a thing after the dot.com bubble popped for exactly that reason. We already have AI driven addictionware in the form of digital partner apps and such, but if the AI investment gold rush stalls and we have a mass push for revenue among AI companies then with no policing here this will get really really bad.
A final moral to the story, I think, is that science f'ing works.
Like I said, it shocked me to see how much addiction a web site or a mobile app could create. Learning that it was deliberately engineered makes it less surprising.
Science works. When you apply the scientific method to an engineering goal, progress gets made, often dramatic progress. If the laws of physics and the nature of the system you're studying will allow it, you can get so far that the result can be shocking. Look at the hydrogen bomb. Look at aviation, space flight, AI, modern medicine. There's good and bad in there of course cause people do both good and bad things.
Which is why saying "we are going to apply science to make our product more addictive" should be criminal conspiracy. "We are going to apply science to do X" where X is some form of assault should be criminal. "We didn't think it would work that well" is a poor defense because I think at this point we should have learned that science works.
By your definition, almost any ad is mind control and should be forbidden. At least any effective ad. And I don't disagree at that conclusion. There's a difference between telling people you have a product and making people want to have your product
I kept saying "policing" here because unfortunately this is the absolute worst kind of evil for a society to have to deal with: the kind that is not absolutely black and white.
Murder is a tidy kind of evil. If you murder someone that's bad and you go to jail, and murder is pretty decisive. The victim is no longer alive. The black and white nature kills all the nuance around "why did you do it?" It doesn't matter why you killed them. You killed them so you committed murder.
This, however, has shades of grey, and that sucks. If I write a novel and try to make it entertaining and make it a page turner by making chapters punchy and short, is that "engineering addiction?" What if I design a game and try to make it fun and end up making it addictive?
You end up with stuff like the famous and infamous statement about porn: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." That sucks because to police something you need definitions and lines.
Moral problems like this suck because they require deeply nuanced thinking and a continuous social discourse around where to draw the line, and we hate that. People like absolutes. So one problem you tend to get with moral problems like this is bifurcation of the discourse into moralist crusaders with a zero-tolerance policy versus libertines who think it's not a problem. Both of these extremes lead to abuse and immoral actions. The crusaders end up being worse tyrants than the problem, while the libertines leave the sheep to be devoured by wolves.
But that's what this is. It's a complicated grey problem that mandates a continuous ongoing social discourse and a never-ending series of court cases. But it exists, so we have to deal with it, so we have to do that.
It means we have to think. Ugh.
To answer your question directly: yeah, I think a big part of the ad industry falls here, and that's good. What remains is ads that are informative, playful, or entertaining, and those are the kids of ads we don't tend to hate so much. Some of them can even be legitimate art.
The best way to start with problems like this is: start by drawing a line just to the right of the stuff that is unambiguously terrible.
If you create a scientific R&D program to study the human brain and human psychology with the express purpose of engineering addiction and then fail to communicate this fact to the people you're trying to addict, that's IMO pretty damn unambiguously evil. When the government did this it was called MKULTRA and there were congressional hearings over it and people shredded documents and hid under rocks in fear of what they were doing coming to light, which kind of shows that the people doing it knew it was bad. So let's start by banning that kind of shit even if it's happening in the private sector with private money.
Then once you've drawn that line, re-assess. If the problem is still terrible and pervasive, consider drawing another line a little further to the right. Repeat.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. There should be one central catalog of products and services and all commercial information should be available to "pull" and never get "pushed". To be able to sell any product or service you should be legally required to register it in the catalog with detailed description (including manuals, also technical manuals) and up to date price.
$META has everything it needs: the best distribution channels on the internet, a massive user base, GPU infrastructure, and an amazing, talented young team. I think $META will succeed.
In the opening sentence:
> according to a lawyer who is prosecuting the world’s largest social media company.
The headline makes it sound like something internal at Meta got revealed. The catchy four-H phrase is the clever hook the lawyer came up with to try to hold the jury’s mind through the case.
If you’re unfamiliar with how these trials work, the lawyers are trying to create a compelling narrative to support their case and catchy phrases that sound like marketing lingo are often used. This wasn’t some internal Meta doc that got revealed.
Its the same way "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was coined. "Embrace and extend", without extinguish/exterminate, was used in Microsoft corp docs that were handed to the DOJ during the famous antitrust case, but it was the DOJ that turned it into EEE after realizing what "embrace and extend" actually meant in the broader context of Microsoft's machinations.
The DOJ's clever hook won them the case.
This is false. They explicitly used extinguish in their internal doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
Did they actually use this phrase in their internal comms? The one reference I can find - https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/... - says that Steven McGeady (then VP of Intel) testified that Paul Maritz (then an exec at Microsoft) told Intel that Microsoft's strategy was to "embrace, extend, extinguish". However, I can't see that corroborated by any actual internal communications.
That statement was itself internal communication.
Not unlike "delay, deny, defend".
Would explain Zuck’s late interest in martial arts …
Very much his schtoyle
> The DOJ's clever hook won them the case.
Or, rather, the fact that Microsoft was blatantly illegally abusing their monopoly position to kill competitors.
Blatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric. So catch phrases are essential elements to conveying the truth about the behavior
[citation needed]
How about the whole discipline of rhetoric that has thousands of years of history. Or the fact that law schools specifically teach jury communication strategies that focus on the psychology of persuasion.
This is just you repeating "I don't need to prove anything, it's obvious" over and over again.
It's hard to prove a negative, you know.
Seems like a good argument for tempering claims around negatives then, if people want to be taken seriously.
Seems like you’re just demanding proof for something that’s obvious on its face. Only someone that has never taken a writing, communication, debate or similar class would demand evidence for the proposition that effective communication to a general audience has to target a 3rd or 4th grade reading level and catch phrases with alliteration that fits within human short term memory is essential to ensure comprehension.
There is the rule of three
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)
and rule of seven.
https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/blog/the-rule-of-seve...
There's a difference between understanding rules for effective arguments and writing, and believing that those rules are shortcuts to swaying a jury without needing a case. It's certainly PART of communication, but this isn't a Hollywood script so glib speech alone isn't going to get you very far in this sort of case.
I'd also caution you to remember that for thousands of years people argued from "What was obvious" and they were inevitably wrong, so I'll stick to the scientific method over "You must not know how to write" as an argument.
The antidote to that would be for Meta to reveal all their internal communications. But they'll never do that because their own words and actions are likely far more damning than any story the DOJ could weave.
The trend I have noticed is anytime the actual truth leaks from these actors and companies, it's so much more evil than I could have imagined. Like the recent tell-all book from someone who worked directly with Zuckerberg, Careless People -- I was shocked at just how amoral those in leadership there. I had a dim view of them before, but their actual words and deeds were worse than I could have imagined.
A key part of trials like this is the discovery process, which would surface a lot of the documents and emails that supposedly contain this information you’re talking about.
If the lawyers found it, they’d be using it. I think the takeaway from this is that they decided their own catchphrase was more compelling than any language they found in those documents.
I know about discovery. I have a hard time believing that Meta is being perfectly transparent or comprehensive in what they disclose to the prosecution.
I think it's fair to say there's a lot of internal Meta comms that are undiscoverable because they intentionally no longer exist.
See Google's infamous 'Do we have deletion turned on for this chat?' executive records.
Companies aren't dumb, and the easiest way to prevent discovery is to have a policy that ensures prompt document destruction.
Luckily, humans (especially powerful ones) are terrible at adhering to often inconvenient opsec, hence the bits that do dribble out.
But it's worth not forgetting those are just bits...
The fun part is their internal communication might be relatively exculpatory, but a good prosecutor can find the crumb or two to hang them.
"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find something in them to hang him." — Cardinal Richelieu (Armand Jean du Plessis)
> The fun part is their internal communication might be relatively exculpatory, but a good prosecutor can find the crumb or two to hang them.
To the first part of that sentence: maybe, but I highly doubt it and these would be the last people on earth to give the benefit of the doubt to. Zuckerberg, and his peers, are operating in an "us vs them" mentality and we should also prosecute them in the exact same manner. They don't care about their users and they don't view them as humans or equals in any regard. They are parasites who only consume, cast blame, have zero interest in what's fair and treat everything around them as a capitalistic game of who can hoard the most. I would love to see Zuckerberg have to defend himself in a court of law and, instead of dodge every question, have to answer to his worldly peers in a truthful manner. The hatred towards a person like that must weigh on him. The best part about him is Facebook was an initiative in his own failings amongst his personal life. And it never filled that void. Zuckerberg is probably still socially broke on the inside. He's a terrible human through and through.
Indeed. Especially since we know that they know that they reserve the worst of it for face to face conversation and nothing gets recorded and it's all for the sake of maintaining plausible deniability. When asked about their private conversations they can and do lie.
> I mean, it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's governing our lives. What right do we have to poke around in Facebook's private affairs like that?
-xkcd 1390
I think if facebook code governs your life, the major part of the fault does not lie with facebook. It is possible to live not being chained to the feed 24x7.
Absolutely. But many others are, and they can have an impact on your life even if you never logged in.
The tyranny of democracy is that you only need to influence the most susceptible 50%+1.
So far it seems to be the least-worst option. I wish there was a way to enable a citizen to vote their choice but do so in at least a reasonably informed way.
The greatest strength of democracy is an ironclad guarantee that even people holding ideas opposed to current leaders', if there are enough likeminded people, can win power.
That's what lets democracies change, even radically, through elections rather than revolutions.
Unfortunately... the universal and equal suffrage that's a cornerstone of that also precludes any sorting by authority of vote value.
Otherwise you inevitably end up with authority putting its thumb on the scales, similar to Iranian democracy (by design).
If you are into the book, I would highly recommend commentary from people who were also at the firm at the same time and currently working on the field.
https://anchorchange.substack.com/p/careless-people-is-carel...
I can see how the title is misleading, but I would have been shocked if it was internal Meta jargon. Execs at all the big tech companies nowadays have a culture of avoiding slogans that could be deemed overly aggressive. Even “Move fast and break things” was technocratted into “Move fast with stable infrastructure” after Meta went public.
“Move fast and break things” -> “Move fast with stable infrastructure”
Lawyers and bureaucrats are organizational cancer.
Quite. PEople complain about AI language being weird and unnatural, but imho it's just the distillation of this cultural habit of trying to turn everything into a brand, slogan, or mnemonic. When you have a society that generally dislies reading, everything becomes a pitch.
If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.
“alleged” in the headline makes it pretty clear that it’s what they are being accused of
"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"
*dont
I hope people can see Meta is funding the other side in order to get Child Safety laws passed so they can have an out when children use their parent's device and Meta spies on them. Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one.
Dissolve the company. Jail the C levels. End of story.
If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream. The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on.
The world no longer needs Facebook and its leaders. It does not need its technology. It does not need the ideas of the people that are there. If you are still working there, you are complicit in acting in a company that is actively seeking to control a populous.
I understand it's hard not to work for "big tech" and not work for a company trying to control populous.
So yes. I agree. Stop letting them play games with the rules we spent generations putting in place to protect our citizenship.
America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. But it also applies the same restrictions and punishments as people without factoring in the underlying advantages a company has when breaking the law for profit.
1. Perpetual existence means breaking the law is a short term problem that is well worth the long term benefit — companies essentially live for ever and out live many of the consequences of their actions
2. They can’t be physically jailed and are rarely punished with equivalent restrictions. There is no ankle bracelet for bad companies. So the punishments are inadequate to serve as a deterrent,
3. Fines are rarely of a scale that threatens existence so they become just another cost of business that can be financially modeled
4. The decision makers almost never suffer the consequences of their companies actions. It’s so rare at this point for executives to face personal responsibility in terms of fines, or jail time that there is a absolute incentive to ignore laws in pursuit of short term earnings
5. There is a two tier system, large companies can abuse the legal process by outspending prosecution from the government or harmed parties. Law suits drag on so long that it’s essential a get out of jail free card for companies that are large enough.
6. It’s pretty clear the government wants Facebook to spy on and persuade the population of the world. So this behavior is a “national defense” asset and any harm is justified as being necessary for the preservation of that asset.
I could go on but until most of these are fixed, expect Facebook in particular to evade any meaningful punishment.
> America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights.
Corporate personhood does not mean a company have all the same legal rights as a person. Did you notice that companies can’t vote in elections or plead the fifth amendment like a person can? Corporations only get some rights.
Corporate personhood is common across the globe. If you thought it was an American idea that’s completely incorrect. It is a funny example of the kind of American exceptionalism where people assume that America is an exception in having some property they dislike when in fact it’s common everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
The inability to personally jail megacorp CEOs who cause untold amounts of societal damage is not common "everywhere" ("many places", maybe). And that is the actual thing the person you're responding to cares about, and rightly so.
The countries who jail CEOs who due “societal damage” as a fuzzy cultural concept, as opposed to jailing CEOs according to the law, are not legal systems you want to imitate.
The US does jail CEOs who commit crimes. Social media just has a short memory for topics like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, or even recent topics like Theranos and FTX.
You may also have your personal list of “societal damages” that you believe should result in people being jailed despite not having committed crimes, but I guarantee your list doesn’t match everyone else’s list. You wouldn’t be happy when the list of “societal damages” started extending to things like using a VPN or trying to be anonymous on the internet, but for many people who get to government positions it most definitely would!
> The countries who jail CEOs who due “societal damage” as a fuzzy cultural concept, as opposed to jailing CEOs according to the law, are not legal systems you want to imitate.
The US doesn't jail people according to the law and does not have a legal system you want to imitate.
> The US does jail CEOs who commit crimes. Social media just has a short memory for topics like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, or even recent topics like Theranos and FTX.
Yes, the US jails CEOs that defraud investors, i.e. the powerful. This is a direct application of the fuzzy concepts that the US uses when deciding whether to jail someone.
Executives mostly get jailed when there is large media attention + the executive was foolish enough to leave evidence pointing straight at them. For every case where an executive is jailed, there are 100 other cases where they aren't. And that is just in the overt "breaking the law cases".
Even more incredible damage has been in us losing the laws that protect us in the first place. For nigh on 40 years thanks to neoliberal economists influencing policy we have been relaxing corporate and monetary regulation.
This has already provided great gifts to the world, such as enabling the fraud that led to the 2008 housing crisis (who was jailed again?).
When as a country you decide that punishing bad corporate behaviour is a non starter, you get the predictable consequences of increasing, not decreasing bad corporate behaviour.
Thousands of people were jailed in 2008 aftermath - look up operation Malicious Mortgage and Stolen Dreams. Most of them of course low level - because those were the people actually perpetrating the fraud. But some examples: Kareem Serageldin, Lee Farkas, Edward Woodard, etc. Ken Lewis, BoA CEO, faced multiple investigations and civil penalties, but none of those investigarions could find any criminal liability. He lost his post and BoA paid out billions in settlements.
This is turning into a gish gallop.
What specific laws would cause Mark Zuckerberg to go to jail?
This conversation feels like it really captures Mangione's point of view. It's like I'm listening to an internal dialogue.
Mangione had a personal grudge, caused by illness, pain and personal interactions with US healthcare system, which can grind down and drive to insanity anybody. The above just reads as a mashup or angry reddit posts which contain generic "evil rich people" platitudes, with zero depth or factual support. It's just low effort ranting.
You can jail CEO just fine if you prove they personally committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Proving that is hard, of course. Sometimes impossible because the CEO delegates a lot of what the corporation does. This is common for any big organization or group - be it corporation, political party, gang, army, state, etc. There's no special law or process singling out or protecting CEOs specifically, and no specific US rules for that.
But there are gaps. What CEO is jailed for knowingly leaking forever chemicals or putting lead in gasoline? They are long gone when the harm manifests. My point is the company should face consequences such as loss of the right to operate and perhaps the loss of limited liability so shareholders are personally liable. Limited liability is a privilege not a right. We could require all businesses operate as partnerships rather than corporations or limited liability companies. Lawyers have to operate that way. Bankers did until the 90s. The rationale was that they would be more careful with risk if each partner was personally liable for the debts of their partners actions.
Putting lead in gasoline is not some evil CEO's decision. That was widely accepted industry practice and completely approved by The Science (TM) at the time. If you want to blame a single person, it'd be Thomas Midgley Jr. (incredibly, he's also responsible for CFCs) and was also killed in 1944 by one of his other (non-chemical) invention, so by the time it has become clear TEL is dangerous he was not around anymore to blame. Even when the danger of TEL became known, there was no single "evil CEO" that was responsible for it's continued use - and it took a long time to make it unlawful. Once it was made unlwaful, I don't think there's a CEO on record that had still instructed his employees to use TEL despite what the law requires. So if the narrative is "evil CEOs put lead in gasoline and avoided jail because of US legal system being broken" - this would have very little connection to what actually happened, however tragic it was.
They can vote in some elections. And I would argue that unlimited political donations effectively means they can influence the layer above voting by influencing the people occupying the offices that were obtained through elections. So voting isn’t the lever of power that matters anymore and companies have superior influence on the levels that matter
> Did you notice that companies can’t vote in elections
They absolutely can by proxy, post-Citizens United.
Corporation -> unlimited money -> influence -> votes
The only brake is whether a given corporation cares enough about a specific election to buy votes.
This all is based on false premise - corporation being a "legal person" does not mean they have same rights as people. You can liquidate a corporation and if is not murder. You can boycott a corporation and it's not illegal discrimination. Corporations can not vote or be elected into office. Etc, etc. It's just a technical term and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Stop perpetuating this nonsense.
> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights
It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media
I am a lawyer not some random facebook troll. There are minor differences but my argument is clear. The asymmetric advantage accrue to the benefit of companies because their are perpetual and abstract so not punished in anything equal to human persons.
> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights
> > It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media
Funny how some folks can comment here on the world's biggest library and communications system but they can't take a minute to search out and read some actual details on the thing they're commenting about first. For example, Wikipedia's Corporate Personhood article [1] took me less than 5 seconds to find (including the time it took to open a web browser to my favorite search engine), and another two seconds to read enough to find that the very first sentence says some (not all) legal rights... The rest of the article has all the details anyone needs to understand what that first sentence actually means.
> Notion that corporations can have some legal rights, responsibilities and accountability (emphasis mine)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Except that you’re wrong: most of the articles shows broad overlap with ver few divergent rights.
More importantly none of the divergence undermines my argument that the US has extended rights too far and has not extended punishment far enough.
"If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream."
You may need this: https://eathealthy365.com/learn-to-scream-like-a-pro-the-def...
Excellent post. 10 out of 10. Would recommend.
> If this ends in another fine to put into a ledger book I'll scream.
Get your pillow ready, because this is the only thing that'll happen if the verdict goes against them. Of course, the verdict could go the other way so no fine is levied at all. Maybe get a second pillow just in case
Buy a copy of Careless People to read between the tears.
Fascinating story. The author was hopelessly ignorant and guilty of facilitating, but the execs were so devoid of anything approaching ethics or morality. Explains a lot if true.
Unless you've been on the inside at the top levels of huge companies, you don't know about the sheer sociopathy of the people there. It's easy, even normal, to be naive as a regular employee, even one at a fairly high management level.
By this comment I assume you have been one of these executives at a huge company?
Yes and no. I have been on the inside and watched as a very senior but non-C-suite, one who works with the officers and next in line for C. Cultures reinforce themselves in groups of people and so yes you see all the narcissism and sociopathy in action but the limits and what’s acceptable differ. Not all companies behave like Meta on the inside.
There are definitely other things that could happen, that would not make OP scream. Not by the justice department though, that's true.
"The world no longer needs Facebook and its leaders. It does not need its technology."
Meta owns WhatsApp, which is core infrastructure in many countries now where it has basically replaced the PSTN. If WhatsApp went down without a long transition process first, it would take myriad small businesses down with it. I would love to see harsh punishments and jailed executives, but the world still needs the company for the time being.
> If WhatsApp went down without a long transition process first
The transition mechanism is that your contacts are in your phone address book, and you can call or text them or find them on other platforms indexed by phone number. Although, not for username contacts.
Would it be disruptive? Yes. Would it be world ending? No.
That is all well and good for individuals chatting with family, friends or small groups. But alot of small businesses all over the world are using WhatsApp for Business with features and data storage that cannot be immediately moved to another platform. If it disappeared tomorrow, you would see business failures and immediate economic impact in developing-world regions that can hardly afford such a hit.
This is trivial to solve.
Launch two parallel cases. One against Meta top execs for criminal behavior, the other one as antitrust against Meta for abusing their market position. Two cases at once gives you negotiating power and clearly signals that you're serious about curtailing their influence.
Ideally this results in jail time for Meta execs, but at a minimum divesting them of Whatsapp should be achievable. By the end you should be able to get Meta's businesses operating independently under new leadership.
That is something that should concern those countries. It means their economies are extremely vulnerable to even light US sanctions.
Welcome to capitalism.
Wasn’t WhatsApp famously created by a team of 20 people?
It’s not meta’s contribution to the world. It can be cleanly extracted from the company. Or a replacement created if need be.
We really don't. If that finally does happen, people are quick to adapt to change it will use one of the many alternatives, maybe even one that's interoperable or open so we're not in the same mess five years later
> it will use one of the many alternatives, maybe even one that's interoperable or open
If the collapse of Twitter is any indication, it might just drive people to even worse and more exploitative platforms instead.
It would take 1 week for everyone to move over to something else.
> but the world still needs the company for the time being.
You have been caught hook, line and sinker. Flush the koolaid out of your system. I can absolutely guarantee you that if all of Meta disappears tomorrow, everyone will move over to a like-for-like replacement within weeks. I'd be willing to bet everything I have on it.
The world absolutely does not need Meta, period.
A myriad of small businesses also use Facebook as their public facing website.
Only out of convenience. There are many alternatives, and search engines will find them. And (although it won't happen) if Facebook were ordered to shut down, hundreds of entrepreneurs would offer alternatives for "small business web presence"
Small businesses have complained about being buried in search results for long years. In some industries like restaurants, scammers create a higher-ranking website that looks like the real thing, in order to skim revenue.
Not everyone has SEO-fu, and hiring a contractor is an additional cost for small businesses. At least on Facebook one normally finds what one is looking for.
There is nothing technical that says this is how it has to be. A "business directory" that is vetted and paid for (like the old "Yellow Pages" used to be) could be trustworthy.
Angie's List started out this way but I think it has been corrupted since the merger with HomeAdvisor. I could be wrong about that.
Establishing trust would be the tricky part. People are so used to 80% of the internet being scams and clickbait. But that certainly goes for Facebook pages as well.
So millions of small business owners would have to pay for something they get now for free
And just like they found Facebook they can, and will, find something else. And maybe they learn something about trust in that type of service the next time around.
Maybe they have no interest in finding something else. Maybe they aren't interested in your opinion and don't see you as someone they are want to learn lessons from.
Maybe understanding the problem as outlined is important. Neither of the two sentences you've written make any sense in the context of what I said.
There are plenty of cheap and better alternatives.
And those business owners are free to choose those alternatives at any time they please. You are not free to make that choice for them.
And? This is the same argument the south made while supporting slavery. I’m not saying the two are equally bad, but this is just simply not a valid argument if you ignore the surrounding context.
I find that truly mystifying. I won’t go through the hassle of opening an account on any platform just to see some dumbed down website. I can’t be the only one, can I?
>> If you are still working there, you are complicit in acting in a company that is actively seeking to control a populous.
+1.
> The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on.
More importantly and less often talked about, these fines end up back in their pockets because Meta is a defense contractor in all but name. Governments gladly buy data from these companies; the US hapily buys data because it circumvents the 4th amendment. The reason the US does not have strong data privacy laws is because strong data privacy laws are antithetical to big tech, technofascism, and a surveilance state. Yes, the people running these companies are doing evil unto the world for profit, and arguably yes, they ought to face justice for such, and yes, what they are doing ought to be illegal because it is morally wrong and incredibly damaging. But when that justice is monopolized by the same governments that rely on these evil acts to fulfil their desire for power and self preservation, nothing will happen. Meta has been complicit in multiple genocides, yet you will never see it on any lists that harm its business.
Everything is a rich man's trick
Or build an open source self hosted version that is not run on adds.
There are dozens of these.
> Jail the C levels.
Also the board and anyone who's ever held more than 1% of the stock.
Voters put big tech in charge. Blaming the people who need jobs to not be homeless instead of the people who continually vote for billionaires to abuse everyone is ridiculous. Did you go door to door telling your neighbors to vote against the current president and his party? Voters are the ones voting for our current hellscape. It can only be stopped with voting.
There are other jobs though no? Or you could start a company.
>Child Safety laws are just mass surveillance in disguise which has always been Meta's game plan since day one.
I thought they were pushing for on-device age verification, which from a "mass surveillance" perspective is pretty bad? If you wanted mass surveillance, you'd want mandatory ID verification by sites and/or government SSO, both of which allows you to capture a persistent identifier. Of course, meta isn't doing all this lobbying out of altruism. Doing on-device verification means they're off the hook for it, and google/apple has the shoulder the burden instead.
The only reason age verification isn’t mandatory is because it isn’t scalable. A few states are moving forward with digital drivers licenses. When there are digital drivers licenses, passports and social security cards you’ll see a renewal to push verification.
I seriously doubt that the FaceMash guy was planning mass surveillance from day one. The people who propped him up might have, though.
FaceMash is a very primitive example of mass surveillance and data gathering: use people's pictures without their consent, collect the social rankings in a database somewhere.
Wrong. He literally made fun of users for giving information that he could use to spy on them and share that ability with friends. It was a childish form of spying but the intent was there and the monetization tactic came later.
He was definitely planning on PII abuse at scale for personal gain from day one. Probably not planning mass surveillance, but from all we know of him, he wouldn't have disliked the idea.
So you want them to be held responsible when kids use their platform, but you don't want them to be able to prevent kids from using it?
Sounds like the lawyer's spinning what any successful business does with trying to acquire customers and serve their needs as though they were dealing drugs (granted, the line can be blurry between things that are simply enjoyable versus that which is more strongly addictive - some people get "addicted" to eating, but we can't really ban food, for example)
It’s easy to have a successful business by breaking the law. It’s easy to with races when you take performance enhancing drugs.
And ask yourself, would facebook be significantly less successful if they didn’t intentionally market to teen girls based on their emotional state and had the decency to ignore signs of depression and anxiety instead of monetizing them? They might be more successful over time.
Perhaps, then, it's a matter of degree like most things. And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind?
I'm so tired of the whatabouts and the normalization and the pretending like this billion trillion whatever company has does anything but take advantage of its power to defend itself with slants and lies that any normal person or small group could never get away with.
You can be a big company and not be pointedly or maliciously harmful to society. Facebook is not that. And no, I will never refer to it as "meta" to allow yet another opportunity for these people to sane wash their behavior.
We know who they are. We know what they choose and chose to do. Let the tattered and broken laws of the world actually do something.
"What normal businesses do"... sheesh.
>And perhaps, again, "what most businesses do" is not really a good defense to hide behind?
If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecution.
Or industry-wide cancerous practices only now being addressed in some way.
> If you're doing what every one else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted, that's reeks of political motivated prosecution.
Not necessarily. Even government resources are finite.
If you are doing what everyone else is doing, but only you are being prosecuted (currently), it could be (and often is) because the people doing the prosecuting have limited resources, and the best practical course of action for them is to go after one highly visible target and get a ruling that will spook everyone else into self-correcting (or be the next largest target).
Yeah, that doesn't fly with most Americans. Sounds a lot like the Sacklers - welp, can't ban pain meds, so might as well just addict as many as we can to opiods and take as much money as we can before they die
I wouldn't be surprised if Zuckerburg and Sackler were 4th or 5th cousins, they act so similar
Sounds like a lot of successful businesses should be shut down then if Meta is the result of what "any" business does.
This HHHH strategy phrase is made up by these lawyers. It's not like the Microsoft version their mimicking where Microsoft actually said it. It makes the headline misleading like it alleges they said it internally as their strategy.
My local grocery chain does the same HHHH strategy:
1. Get new customers 2. Retain them as customers 3. Track what the customers do 4. Keep internal operations confidential
Honestly I dislike them but they are the closest store to me.
>Microsoft actually said it
Not quite
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400754
"McGeady testified that Maritz told Intel that Microsoft’s strategy was to “embrace, extend, extinguish.” McGeady, 11/9/98pm, at 53:17 - 54:8; McGeady, 11/10/98 am, at 21:22 - 23:19; GX 564."
Was this testimony false?
I think what's missing here is elderly.
Arguably, that's even more harmful.
The elderly are grown adults who have a lifetime of experience and can be expected to see through the charade and spot what's really going on. Young people are more naive. I'm almost legally a senior citizen and I saw Facebook for what it was a long time ago, and most of the people I know who are my age don't use it, they don't even like social media in general. They use email or text messages, mostly. The people who have asked me why I don't have Insta are all in their 20s.
Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age.
I disagree. They did not grow up with technology in the same way we did. This is all still quite new to them, and I truly believe the ragebait strategy and polarisation is just as damaging as the tricks used to ensnare teenagers.
> Yes, some elderly are disabled by mental decline or dementia, that's no different from a mental disability at any age.
If there were a clean way to define it, I'd probably be better to change:
- "elderly" to "individuals impacted by mental decline, dementia, or other disability;" and
- "children" to "people who haven't reached an adequate level of maturity to [long definition]."
The point is MOST elderly are impacted by mental decline or dementia by some age. That's often not the same as age-of-retirement. I know people where it happened at 60, and where it happened in their nineties.
Serious questions: You'll be a senior citizen soon enough, and maybe a decade later this will hit you too. What mechanisms would you like in place to be protected?
If and when it this hits you, there may be a long period where you'll be:
a) Functional (e.g. able to feed yourself, keep yourself clean, manage the house) and not needing care (e.g. nursing home);
b) Emotionally important to your relatives; and yet
c) Already vulnerable to predatory behaviour
What protective measures would you like to see in place during this period?
Footnote: In my current location, most people 80 and beyond are glued to some source of polarizing disinformation, be that Facebook or cable TV. Coincidentally, of the few I know better personally, some have empty bank accounts, since they can't manage their money properly any more. But they can cook, clean, shop, but not more complex things like that. It's not just outright scammers. It's predatory advertising, and all sorts of other predatory behaviour.
How would hurting elderly be more harmful than hurting children? I know that we are about to live in gerontocracy, but it’s still a wild statement to make.
The DOJ pays a lot of attention to elder abuse: https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/about-elder-abuse
I don't know that I would agree it's _worse_ than what FB does to children. But there's clearly a parallel, in that a vulnerable segment of society is prey to a careless corporation and the heinous ecosystem of scamers and abusers they foster.
The elderly can vote, and are easier to scam.
Harming kids creates harmed kids. Harming elders helps install terrible governments which harm everyone - including kids.
Look around. The raging dumpster fire consuming everything was started by armies of stupid old people manipulated on platforms like Facebook.
The kids will be ok. The revolution won’t be started by boomer dads.
There's just no conceivable legal case there. Manipulating "stupid old people" and causing them to believe bad things is First Amendment protected activity.
Sure there is, they are conspiring to break a variety of federal laws and continue to do so. I continue to get ads to join WhatsApp “investor groups” supposedly endorsed by Warren Buffet. I got one the other day that is run by Charlie Munger, who apparently rose from the dead to promote pump and dump schemes.
It’s inconceivable that Facebook doesn’t spot that sort of thing. They took a similar eyes off approach to the illegal foreign entity election manipulation.
How are the elderly, who have full rights as citizens/members of society, and are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions, more harmed than minors, who are none of that?
> are (as far as the law is concerned) free and accountable for their own actions
I don't think you've ever had a relative with e.g. Alzheimer's or dementia.
There's a fine line where the above stops being the case. "Vulnerable to predatory behaviour" happens a long time before "can't find the bathroom without a nurse."
I do...
... then (at least if they are far enough gone), you have elderly relatives who are not "free and accountable for their own actions."
https://archive.is/ND9GL
Let’s be clear: Meta is Zuckerberg.
Is the defense that everyone else was just following orders?
No, but unless the penalties are specifically targeted at Zuck, it's a miss.
Meta is Facebook, forever.
I hate when people say things like “Google did this” or “Meta did that.” There are actual named humans making these decisions. I want them found and held accountable. As of late these people have more power than ever. A single contributor at a company like Meta can make a change that impacts 0.025% of users (potentially hundreds of thousands of people) with zero notice or oversight, for their own individual gain. Not even to mention the systemic decisions this article describes.
As someone else noted "Hook, hold, harvest and hide" is the framing from the plaintiffs. There likely wasn't some twirly mustached executive giving a presentation with those words on the slide deck. Instead the "decisions" made are far more banal. Shareholders wants growing revenues and users, executives tell their subordinates to implement those objectives, and it eventually hits the ICs where they're tweaking the color of the buttons to be maximally engaging. All these tweaks cumulatively makes the product addicting, but it's not like making meth or cigarettes where it's addicting from day 1.
> There likely wasn't some twirly mustached executive giving a presentation with those words on the slide deck.
why oh why are giving them the benefit of the doubt? There was in fact a twirled moustache executive.
> Internal chats within the company stated, “Oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now? Zuck has been talking about that for a while…targeting 11 year olds feels like tobacco companies a couple decades ago (and today). Like we’re seriously saying ‘we have to hook them young’ here.”
> Even after determining internally that teen safety was a massive problem on its platforms, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “teen time spent be our top goal of 2017.”
> One internal email from September 2018 indicates that, according to Meta, “The lifetime value of a 13 [year old] teen is roughly $270 per teen.”
>> Internal chats within the company stated, “Oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now? Zuck has been talking about that for a while…targeting 11 year olds feels like tobacco companies a couple decades ago (and today). Like we’re seriously saying ‘we have to hook them young’ here.”
This might seem like the most damning quote, but if you read it again it's pretty clear it's someone who's objecting. In other words, not a twirly mustached executive saying "we're going after <13 year olds" as an actual objective, or "we have to hook them young".
>> Even after determining internally that teen safety was a massive problem on its platforms, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “teen time spent be our top goal of 2017.”
>> One internal email from September 2018 indicates that, according to Meta, “The lifetime value of a 13 [year old] teen is roughly $270 per teen.”
So... exactly what I said earlier about "Shareholders wants growing revenues and users"?
You misread that first quote in your defense of Meta. The twirly mustached exec is Zuck himself who wants to target 11 year olds. By having a person object to him, he's no longer evil???
>The twirly mustached exec is Zuck himself who wants to target 11 year olds. By having a person object to him, he's no longer evil???
That itself is hearsay, from someone who's apparently opposed to whatever Meta is doing. Taking that to mean Zuckerberg literally said "we should target 11 year olds" is a stretch.
It is exactly like that, and future generations will see it like that.
It’s lazy shorthand and also serves the obscurity that these individuals seek.
Similarly, I get irritated when people frequently almost continuously attribute actions and results to ‘the President’ or such state heads.
The actual named humans making these decisions are very frequently not people who you would consider accountable. If Meta announced that they're firing hundreds of engineers and PMs for optimizing addiction-correlated metrics, even if there was a clear memo instructing them not to do that, nobody would be satisfied and everyone would see it as a deflection of responsibility by the executives. I know this because it's exactly what happened with the Wells Fargo fake account scandal.
I agree with that, the other side of that coin is executives creating incentive structures that encourage contributors to do risky things, while using the ambiguity to make it seem like nobody is really responsible.
Though I kind of doubt the Wells Fargo executives would’ve considered fake accounts a valid way to grow revenue. It seems Meta is happy to turn the blind eye, because addictive mechanics do in fact grow their revenue
My point isn’t that Zuck’s not responsible, but rather the system he’s created is fucked and a bandaid is to name all of those responsible
On one hand I totally see your point. It's just disgusting that someone on high position is fully aware that Facebook is about making people addicted to slop and serve them exploitative ads. On the other hand, it is an organizational failure, because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius.
> because in a correctly working organization a single person wouldn't be able to throw shit with such a blast radius.
I generally agree with you, however this makes an assumption about what "correctly" means. In this case, Meta could be working correctly and take it's orders directly from the Zuck commander's intent. In which case he would be a single person that would have a massive impact on the outcome. Therefore, should be appropriately accountable.
More CEOs need to go to prison.
One thing China does well. Put people that damage their society or economy behind bars.
In China, "harmed society or the economy" is very very often the excuse used to put political enemies into prison.
So? It works. Their economy is starting to lap the West one. Maybe cutting a little bit off the top works regardless of who exactly is being cut?
Just want to be clear here: you appear to be saying that you support a regime putting people in prison that a regime doesn't like, on made-up charges, with the excuse of "harmed society or the economy" - have I got that right?
Reality is the same behind the polite facades both in the East and the West. The problem with the West is that being rich mostly excludes you from being put in prison for being not liked by the powerful. Excuses are also irrelevant.
You can put people behind bars on made-up charges in USA as well, if they interfere with powerful enough interests. Just not the rich enough people. China doesn't make that exception. Is that worse or better?
It sounds appealing when you imagine that nobody you like would ever be cut, but that's not how the Chinese system works. I would guess that at some point in the past you've laughed at memes making fun of political leaders; in China, this is not allowed, because the authorities believe that posting mean things about the system or its leadership damages the trust in government which is required for a healthy society.
You won't scare me into compassion for people so different than me that they might as well not be carbon based.
Yeah, like Jack Ma (of alibaba) who disappeared for months, and got his company's IPO canceled, all because he criticized the government's financial regulations a bit too much? Trump wishes he has as much ability to put people behind bars as Xi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown
While that is bad, so is unregulated crypto, sports betting, prediction markets, gutting of consumer financial protection, etc we are getting now.
Read about Joseph Nacchio sometime.
Is that true or is it just people that challenge the power of the current Communist Party leadership that get punished?
There is this recent example https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/20/evergrande-...
Which seems exactly like the sort of thing an authoritarian regime would do to placate the masses. Make an example of some big boss, but conveniently fail to fix or even acknowledge the issues that led to the crisis in the first place. In the example of the property bubble, it's domestic financial repression making real estate the only option for savings, and local governments being hooked (heh) on land sales to fund their budgets. The whole system was designed to pump up property prices and drive a bubble.
That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't. They try to fix the issues and rightly jail the CEO. To act as if he was just an unknowing cog in the system is nonsensical.
>That's a cop out. You can do both. Do you really think they haven't tried to fix the issues? There's no reason why they wouldn't.
Except you know, all the incentives for keeping the current system in place. Financial repression still exists. Same with the local government funding model. Also the government's intervention was arguably what led to the crisis, by abruptly disrupting real estate companies' cashflow. The problem needed to be solved, but in typical CCP fashion, rash decisions made the situation worse. Same as with the one child policy.
Finally, what makes you think meta "haven't tried to fix the issues"? They're trying very hard with age verification :^)
Luckily we have rule of law here so if you say someone in particular needs to go to prison there needs to be a law that you have proven to break. Just because you dont like someone you can't just lock them up.
We have rule of law here? have you seen the non-independent DOJ today? The Supreme court's rubber stamp and bribed justices? Trump's blatant illegalities?
(Yes, Clarence Thomas has been bribed. That's what the RV and the trips are.)
It's funny isn't it, what the word China triggers in people. They'll say that the US is going down the gutter, but then the very next sentence if China is mentioned, it's all "we have rule of law, we're a just, democratic, lawful country, unlike them". There's still far too much pride.
> we have rule of law here
You're in the lead for funniest comment of the year award!
How's Ghislaine Maxwell doing nowadays? Last I heard, living a very comfy VIP "prison" life. How are her mates? Right, running free. Now let's look at how people jailed for marijuana possession are doing.
Everyone commits crimes, yet prosecution is hilariously selective. Everyone knows this. White collar crimes have a prosecution rate of <1%. Three felonies per day.
There is absolutely no meaningful rule of law in the US. The absurd degree of selective prosecution is antithetical to this.
CEOs do go to prison. They go to prison for misleading investors.
They don't go to prison for environmental or social harm.
Some do in other countries. Though Trump would pardon them asap, as he has done with all the others
INT META BOARDROOM - DAY
Expensive Image Consultant: "It's vital we present a friendly, innocuous brand throughout what promises to be a long--"
Zuck: "We still got that scary fucker who looks like he just defends mobsters on retainer?"
Lackey: "We do, boss."
Zuck: "Think we're done here."
exeunt by taking off glasses
> The jury’s role is advisory, which means they will give recommendations to the presiding judge, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will make the final decision on the verdict and damages.
What kind of trial is that, and what provision is there for it in the law? Who gets to choose that? The trial is in US federal court in Oakland [0].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/18/meta-chil...
This is oddly reassuring
One man to blame only
Every single person who's ever worked for that piece of shit company shares some blame. The CEO is just the most visible.
> Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.
Those evil states!
Morals at Meta is an oxymoron.
No person with 'morals' would join this company in 2026, unless with the next RSU cliff, the morality hormone immediately gets triggered when the bank account reaches 7 figures.
I don’t think any company has “morals”. For sure individuals might but a big advantage of the corporate structure is this diffusion of decision making and blame. Anthropomorphizing corporations isn’t helping us get a clearer picture of how they work or why they do what they do.
The comment you’re replying to doesn’t anthropomorphize meta. “Morals at Meta” refers to the morals of the people that work at meta.
A company is made up out of people. Some are made up out of people with morals (yes, these exist). Those companies have morals. Some, like Meta, consist of people with no morals. Those companies have no morals.
I'm sure everyone here understands that. But, there's a difference between a company that puts morality and ethics first vs. one that abandons it altogether or even encourages its opposition. I've worked for all three types, and after unwittingly working for scum, I recommend to always check who one's bosses are. In my understanding, I believe Zuckerburg has always operated in opposition to morality.
In my opinion at least, any attempt to intentionally engineer addiction is morally wrong and should be at the very least civilly if not criminally actionable (if it can be proven).
It's mind control. That phrase is often associated with woo woo conspiracy theory, but I don't think that's hyperbolic. If you are engineering addiction, what you're doing is attempting to run a black hat security attack against the human central nervous system to violate a person's will and autonomy. That is the definition of mind control. Properly framed I think it's a form of assault, especially when deployed with deliberate concealment of motive or against children, the elderly, the mentally ill, anyone not strong enough to resist it.
The medium doesn't matter: addictive drugs, slot machines, web sites, social media apps, games. In that list I actually think explicitly labeled gambling stuff like Las Vegas is the least evil since at least in that case it's kind of up front and overt about what it is. I mean, it's a casino. WTF do you think a casino does? Hard drugs are kind of the same at this point. The thing that makes this case so awful is that people genuinely didn't know. Nobody including myself understood just how effective addiction engineering in a digital medium could be, and these companies were secretive about just how hard-core they were getting about studying and engineering this. They hired psychologists. There's stories of studies putting people in FMRI machines. It was a deliberate R&D program with the (secretive) stated goal of addiction.
The next thing important to understand is that businesses are structurally incapable of self-policing something with a profit incentive. I didn't say unwilling. I said incapable. Businesses, like all "corporate" entities (non-profits, governments, etc.) operate with a certain set of constraints, social customs, and rules, and for a business one of those is that they must earn revenue and/or attract investment to survive. If addiction results in revenue, then any business that refuses to engineer addiction will fail.
This is also why regulation of things like child labor, forced labor, safety requirements, etc. are required. If a safe workplace reduces profits than any company implementing a safe workplace loses to those who do not, etc.
BTW this is something a lot of "online Marxist" type anti-capitalists don't understand when they vilify business leaders. A business that doesn't do the profitable thing stops being a business. It's outcompeted by those who do the thing. The only way to stop these things is to universally police them, which levels the playing field and allows businesses who don't do the bad thing to keep operating. It's an instant race to the bottom because a business cannot not race.
So yeah... lots of words but I think this is an important issue and it's good that it's happening. I really hope an example gets made here, or that this at least raises awareness.
I think it's critically important that we start dealing with digital addiction engineering as an issue before the AI funding bubble pops. When that happens all the AI companies will have to look for other sources of revenue. Addiction engineering online became a thing after the dot.com bubble popped for exactly that reason. We already have AI driven addictionware in the form of digital partner apps and such, but if the AI investment gold rush stalls and we have a mass push for revenue among AI companies then with no policing here this will get really really bad.
A final moral to the story, I think, is that science f'ing works.
Like I said, it shocked me to see how much addiction a web site or a mobile app could create. Learning that it was deliberately engineered makes it less surprising.
Science works. When you apply the scientific method to an engineering goal, progress gets made, often dramatic progress. If the laws of physics and the nature of the system you're studying will allow it, you can get so far that the result can be shocking. Look at the hydrogen bomb. Look at aviation, space flight, AI, modern medicine. There's good and bad in there of course cause people do both good and bad things.
Which is why saying "we are going to apply science to make our product more addictive" should be criminal conspiracy. "We are going to apply science to do X" where X is some form of assault should be criminal. "We didn't think it would work that well" is a poor defense because I think at this point we should have learned that science works.
By your definition, almost any ad is mind control and should be forbidden. At least any effective ad. And I don't disagree at that conclusion. There's a difference between telling people you have a product and making people want to have your product
Yeah, there was a great discussion here on making ads illegal, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
I kept saying "policing" here because unfortunately this is the absolute worst kind of evil for a society to have to deal with: the kind that is not absolutely black and white.
Murder is a tidy kind of evil. If you murder someone that's bad and you go to jail, and murder is pretty decisive. The victim is no longer alive. The black and white nature kills all the nuance around "why did you do it?" It doesn't matter why you killed them. You killed them so you committed murder.
This, however, has shades of grey, and that sucks. If I write a novel and try to make it entertaining and make it a page turner by making chapters punchy and short, is that "engineering addiction?" What if I design a game and try to make it fun and end up making it addictive?
You end up with stuff like the famous and infamous statement about porn: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." That sucks because to police something you need definitions and lines.
Moral problems like this suck because they require deeply nuanced thinking and a continuous social discourse around where to draw the line, and we hate that. People like absolutes. So one problem you tend to get with moral problems like this is bifurcation of the discourse into moralist crusaders with a zero-tolerance policy versus libertines who think it's not a problem. Both of these extremes lead to abuse and immoral actions. The crusaders end up being worse tyrants than the problem, while the libertines leave the sheep to be devoured by wolves.
But that's what this is. It's a complicated grey problem that mandates a continuous ongoing social discourse and a never-ending series of court cases. But it exists, so we have to deal with it, so we have to do that.
It means we have to think. Ugh.
To answer your question directly: yeah, I think a big part of the ad industry falls here, and that's good. What remains is ads that are informative, playful, or entertaining, and those are the kids of ads we don't tend to hate so much. Some of them can even be legitimate art.
The best way to start with problems like this is: start by drawing a line just to the right of the stuff that is unambiguously terrible.
If you create a scientific R&D program to study the human brain and human psychology with the express purpose of engineering addiction and then fail to communicate this fact to the people you're trying to addict, that's IMO pretty damn unambiguously evil. When the government did this it was called MKULTRA and there were congressional hearings over it and people shredded documents and hid under rocks in fear of what they were doing coming to light, which kind of shows that the people doing it knew it was bad. So let's start by banning that kind of shit even if it's happening in the private sector with private money.
Then once you've drawn that line, re-assess. If the problem is still terrible and pervasive, consider drawing another line a little further to the right. Repeat.
> almost any ad [...] should be forbidden
I wholeheartedly agree with this. There should be one central catalog of products and services and all commercial information should be available to "pull" and never get "pushed". To be able to sell any product or service you should be legally required to register it in the catalog with detailed description (including manuals, also technical manuals) and up to date price.
Side note: what the everliving fuxxorz is up with their cookie banner. It seems wildly illegal.
Enough that I'm not gonna read their shit ever again if they stick with THAT.
The only two options are "accept all" and "reject all and subscribe".
Seriously why use privacy as a form of anticonsumer leverage?
This was supposed to be a form of consumer empowerment, not a literal extortion mechanism.
How am I supposed to take their stance seriously? They rag on people who do shit like this
$META has everything it needs: the best distribution channels on the internet, a massive user base, GPU infrastructure, and an amazing, talented young team. I think $META will succeed.
Not that anyone is asking the question that you’re answering, but what’s amazing about their talented young team?