What reckoning? The settlement benefits Meta immensely. They just got the go ahead to implement age-gating at a wide scale, which will make their ad platform even more lucrative after each account can be tied back to a real identifiable person. They've totally captured the regulatory system, and the media is applauding it.
> That $18bn is certainly more than most companies could pay, but it pales in comparison with the $1.5tn Meta’s own PR team warned the case could cost it had it gone through the courts – and the more realistic $200bn the prosecuting lawyers sought to squeeze from the firm.
The consensus opinion was that the case would have cost them a lot more if it hadn't settled. Truly, the outcome couldn't have been more favorable to Meta. "Reckoning" -- yeah, right.
Meta's stock price went up on the news, which I took to be a sign of the settlement costing less than investors feared it would when they previously priced meta stock. I didn't think about the regulatory capture angle.
> What reckoning? The settlement benefits Meta immensely.
This was one lawsuit. It settled their immediate legal problems with the 47 states and DC that were included in the settlement.
Florida is continuing with its own case against them, and there are also thousands of other pending cases from individuals (89%) and governments below the state level such as school districts (11%).
The present settlement does include an admission of guilt so the plaintiffs in those other suits so there plaintiffs will also have to prove guilt, put they can use a massive amount of material that the states put together in their case.
They can use anything that was presented in open court.
They can also get copies of all the internal Meta information that the state Attorney Generals got via discovery, even if those documents were never presented in open court. They may have to keep them confidential and so can't use them in open court, but they can use them to build their case and depose Meta executives about them.
All in all, the plaintiffs in thousands of pending cases have just been handed a multi-million page trove of evidence put together using the enormous resources of 47 states designed to nail Meta.
Meta is pushing forward every measure it can to record precise identity, age, and income with everything that you do.
They're the ones behind the push for internet porn ID laws.
They're the ones behind the push for device attestation.
They're the ones behind the push for social media ID requirements.
They make more money, we lose freedom and privacy and sleep closer and closer to 1984.
One day the state will punish us for our ideas and associations. They already do to an extent, but it's going to get unbearable once the machinery is in place.
> Meta is pushing forward every measure it can to record precise identity, age, and income with everything that you do.
According to numerous comments in all the threads we've ever had on California's age verification law and the similar laws in a few other states, which move verification client side and do not provide any precise information to the server side, Meta is behind those bills because it wants to not have to store that data.
From what I've been able to tell from various searches, those people seem to be correct, although there seems to be a lot of exaggeration of the amount of money Meta put in to the effort. People seem to often mistake Meta's total lobbying spend in a state for the spending on just that one bill.
Until losing this lawsuit Meta lobbied against the bills that required them to do the work.
Note: I did not recurse into references to reach primary sources so I'm not sure how accurate the sites I found were.
This settlement benefits meta immensely. Are the journalists reading the correct judgement?
The stock pretty much had a breakout when this news came out.
I'm ok with generic people struggling with that. But anybody covering tech or business should be able to work effectively with the numbers at hand. Anything less is journalistic malpractice.
There's arguably more journalistic malpractice going on than actual journalism.
Think back to anything you can speak to with some authority, personally or professionally. Think of the last time a reporter actually got it right. It does happen, and there are a few good journalists still out there who care about getting the facts and the issues right. But it's buried under a pile of ignorant rage-baiting slop.
Unfortunately, it really depends who you consider a journalist. With internet advertising destroying journalism as a revenue source, as anyone can really say anything about who they are
Meta stock is up $400 since 2016-2018, when "teen mental health" first became a concern. It's clear that META has boomed since then. Fines have amounted to little more than a cost of doing business. Stern words amount to no more than empty threats.
The only outcome I see from the Meta ruling is all of the other platforms getting spooked by the huge payout and starting to preemptively add aggressive age-gating and ID checks on everything on the internet (regardless of local legislation).
What other platforms (I think you mean social media) exist in the West? It's just Meta (Facebook, Instagram) and whatever company manages the western Tik Tok. Luckily, they are easy to stay away from. There is more to the internet than these 2 companies.
> There is more to the internet than these 2 companies.
Not as much as most people think.
A huge percentage of the physical world runs through these platforms - and if you add Twitter it gets even worse.
Plenty of groups I follow communicate exclusively through social media channels. If you want to know what events are happening there - in some cases even what hours they're open - it's through Facebook or Instagram.
For things which aren't formal businesses (photo clubs, bar popups, all sorts of things) it's even more prevalent.
Sure, if I want to sit in my house and discuss philosphy on Hacker News or IRC those exist, but it is very difficult to avoid Meta's platforms and have a social life - much less a dating life.
Your definition of what is a social media site may differ from the definition of someone who has an axe to grind against you and take you and your phpbb forum to court.
Social media encompasses most the internet usage yes (including Youtube/Google). Plus ChatGPT, Discord, Twitch, messaging apps, porn sites, Reddit, Netix, image sharing sites, etc.. basically any major B2C category
Society depends upon having generation after generation of healthy members. That has never been a time when individual parents were sufficient to solve all the problems there. And even that were possible, directing all the attention on them acts to absolve Meta of all responsibility for their own actions.
If we're going to promote a policy of personal responsibility, let's at least look at all the persons involved.
How? Between 11 hours of work+commute, 8 hours of sleep and 2 hours of work-adjacent activities such as making food or household chores... there isn't that much time left in a day.
That's also the reason why so many people don't have children any more, or only later in their life when they are economically settled.
People worked that hard when families often had 3 or more kids. The difference is one parent could afford to not work. We've let corporations "optimize" that away.
Phones have had parental controls already built in forever. My sister is a busy executive who commutes daily and she didn't let her kid have a phone until age 13, and when they bought an Android phone they signed up for one of the (many) existing parental monitoring apps. Which for ex will notify the parent when their child gets messaged from a new person not in their existing curated contact list. So their phone is only used contacting their close friends at school. Parental monitoring and controlling usage on sites like Youtube and Facebook is a long solved problem, if the parent put any basic effort in.
I think the reason may be generational. The current parents are majority Millenials, the generation which didn't have to shoulder a lot of personal responsibility like previous generations. Thus when it comes to their children they as usually place the responsibility on anybody but themselves.
Both parents working actually i think is a net-good thing - it teaches children to be responsible from early age. As my parents were both working - USSR - even when i was 5 years old i was already watching my 1 year old sister. And we were pretty typical at that.
Governments require age verification to drive a car, purchase alcohol and other dangerous products, enter adult venues, and in various other scenarios. Why not for accessing Internet properties that are just as harmful?
> Governments require age verification to drive a car, purchase alcohol and other dangerous products, enter adult venues, and in various other scenarios.
On paper. In practice... especially in rural areas not filled to the brim with busybodies, enforcement is spotty or limited to excessive, inappropriate morons.
HN commenters who suggest this settlement was a "win" for Meta are implying Meta stood to lose more by not settling
These commenters must believe Meta could not win at trial
The indication from the bellwethers is that plaintiffs can win, and Meta can be forced to settle
There are more cases coming down the pipe. When will it end
A "win" for Meta would be winning a bellwether, putting uncertainty and doubt in the minds of potential plaintiffs
That still has not happened (one case was dropped)
2010 for me. I mean they're continually fucking around with privacy settings. It shows. Things show up all the time that people didn't approve of/vet
Zuckerberg is a sociopath with a dim view of humanity. He doesn't think people should have privacy. That's why the photo tagging and post visibility issues and the rest of it
He is one, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you follow
https://archive.is/5Rlva
What reckoning? The settlement benefits Meta immensely. They just got the go ahead to implement age-gating at a wide scale, which will make their ad platform even more lucrative after each account can be tied back to a real identifiable person. They've totally captured the regulatory system, and the media is applauding it.
It was a clear win for Meta.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/27/meta-s...
> That $18bn is certainly more than most companies could pay, but it pales in comparison with the $1.5tn Meta’s own PR team warned the case could cost it had it gone through the courts – and the more realistic $200bn the prosecuting lawyers sought to squeeze from the firm.
The consensus opinion was that the case would have cost them a lot more if it hadn't settled. Truly, the outcome couldn't have been more favorable to Meta. "Reckoning" -- yeah, right.
Meta's stock price went up on the news, which I took to be a sign of the settlement costing less than investors feared it would when they previously priced meta stock. I didn't think about the regulatory capture angle.
META makes so much money that this is immaterial. It's insane how profitable this company is
And yet the vast majority of it is fraud
> What reckoning? The settlement benefits Meta immensely.
This was one lawsuit. It settled their immediate legal problems with the 47 states and DC that were included in the settlement.
Florida is continuing with its own case against them, and there are also thousands of other pending cases from individuals (89%) and governments below the state level such as school districts (11%).
The present settlement does include an admission of guilt so the plaintiffs in those other suits so there plaintiffs will also have to prove guilt, put they can use a massive amount of material that the states put together in their case.
They can use anything that was presented in open court.
They can also get copies of all the internal Meta information that the state Attorney Generals got via discovery, even if those documents were never presented in open court. They may have to keep them confidential and so can't use them in open court, but they can use them to build their case and depose Meta executives about them.
All in all, the plaintiffs in thousands of pending cases have just been handed a multi-million page trove of evidence put together using the enormous resources of 47 states designed to nail Meta.
This is the correct read.
Meta is pushing forward every measure it can to record precise identity, age, and income with everything that you do.
They're the ones behind the push for internet porn ID laws.
They're the ones behind the push for device attestation.
They're the ones behind the push for social media ID requirements.
They make more money, we lose freedom and privacy and sleep closer and closer to 1984.
One day the state will punish us for our ideas and associations. They already do to an extent, but it's going to get unbearable once the machinery is in place.
Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists - everyone should oppose this.
> Meta is pushing forward every measure it can to record precise identity, age, and income with everything that you do.
According to numerous comments in all the threads we've ever had on California's age verification law and the similar laws in a few other states, which move verification client side and do not provide any precise information to the server side, Meta is behind those bills because it wants to not have to store that data.
From what I've been able to tell from various searches, those people seem to be correct, although there seems to be a lot of exaggeration of the amount of money Meta put in to the effort. People seem to often mistake Meta's total lobbying spend in a state for the spending on just that one bill.
Until losing this lawsuit Meta lobbied against the bills that required them to do the work.
Note: I did not recurse into references to reach primary sources so I'm not sure how accurate the sites I found were.
The age gate isnt about ad revenue. Its about liability and in the grift economy, the victim is always liable.
You posit a useless POV
This settlement benefits meta immensely. Are the journalists reading the correct judgement? The stock pretty much had a breakout when this news came out.
It's another case of people struggling with huge numbers. We just aren't prepared to tackle millions/billions/trillions very well.
I'm ok with generic people struggling with that. But anybody covering tech or business should be able to work effectively with the numbers at hand. Anything less is journalistic malpractice.
There's arguably more journalistic malpractice going on than actual journalism.
Think back to anything you can speak to with some authority, personally or professionally. Think of the last time a reporter actually got it right. It does happen, and there are a few good journalists still out there who care about getting the facts and the issues right. But it's buried under a pile of ignorant rage-baiting slop.
Unfortunately, it really depends who you consider a journalist. With internet advertising destroying journalism as a revenue source, as anyone can really say anything about who they are
We should rephrase things in % terms. IE this payout is X% of their net profit from last year.
The journalists were most likely told to spin it this way so that meta can put on a sad face in public.
Everything is for sale and meta has the money.
Meta stock is up $400 since 2016-2018, when "teen mental health" first became a concern. It's clear that META has boomed since then. Fines have amounted to little more than a cost of doing business. Stern words amount to no more than empty threats.
Like in "Chicago" they should have prepared 2 versions of the article, yet i guess they had only one.
The only outcome I see from the Meta ruling is all of the other platforms getting spooked by the huge payout and starting to preemptively add aggressive age-gating and ID checks on everything on the internet (regardless of local legislation).
What other platforms (I think you mean social media) exist in the West? It's just Meta (Facebook, Instagram) and whatever company manages the western Tik Tok. Luckily, they are easy to stay away from. There is more to the internet than these 2 companies.
> There is more to the internet than these 2 companies.
Not as much as most people think.
A huge percentage of the physical world runs through these platforms - and if you add Twitter it gets even worse.
Plenty of groups I follow communicate exclusively through social media channels. If you want to know what events are happening there - in some cases even what hours they're open - it's through Facebook or Instagram.
For things which aren't formal businesses (photo clubs, bar popups, all sorts of things) it's even more prevalent.
Sure, if I want to sit in my house and discuss philosphy on Hacker News or IRC those exist, but it is very difficult to avoid Meta's platforms and have a social life - much less a dating life.
> There is more to the internet than these 2 companies.
To many people, the Internet is Facebook.
Back in the day, the same people considered AOL to be the Internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Youtube is the big one called out in this settlement
“Other platforms” - social media sites? If so this != “everything on the internet”
Your definition of what is a social media site may differ from the definition of someone who has an axe to grind against you and take you and your phpbb forum to court.
Social media encompasses most the internet usage yes (including Youtube/Google). Plus ChatGPT, Discord, Twitch, messaging apps, porn sites, Reddit, Netix, image sharing sites, etc.. basically any major B2C category
Parents really need to parent
Society depends upon having generation after generation of healthy members. That has never been a time when individual parents were sufficient to solve all the problems there. And even that were possible, directing all the attention on them acts to absolve Meta of all responsibility for their own actions.
If we're going to promote a policy of personal responsibility, let's at least look at all the persons involved.
How? Between 11 hours of work+commute, 8 hours of sleep and 2 hours of work-adjacent activities such as making food or household chores... there isn't that much time left in a day.
That's also the reason why so many people don't have children any more, or only later in their life when they are economically settled.
People worked that hard when families often had 3 or more kids. The difference is one parent could afford to not work. We've let corporations "optimize" that away.
Phones have had parental controls already built in forever. My sister is a busy executive who commutes daily and she didn't let her kid have a phone until age 13, and when they bought an Android phone they signed up for one of the (many) existing parental monitoring apps. Which for ex will notify the parent when their child gets messaged from a new person not in their existing curated contact list. So their phone is only used contacting their close friends at school. Parental monitoring and controlling usage on sites like Youtube and Facebook is a long solved problem, if the parent put any basic effort in.
> Phones have had parental controls already built in forever.
Most of them don't work as advertised.
> Parental monitoring and controlling usage on sites like Youtube and Facebook is a long solved problem, if the parent put any basic effort in.
How old are your kids?
I think the reason may be generational. The current parents are majority Millenials, the generation which didn't have to shoulder a lot of personal responsibility like previous generations. Thus when it comes to their children they as usually place the responsibility on anybody but themselves.
Both parents working actually i think is a net-good thing - it teaches children to be responsible from early age. As my parents were both working - USSR - even when i was 5 years old i was already watching my 1 year old sister. And we were pretty typical at that.
> Millenials, the generation which didn't have to shoulder a lot of personal responsibility like previous generations
Please expand on this, cause holy fuck couldn't it less apply to my experience educating - then raising my own - kids.
Governments require age verification to drive a car, purchase alcohol and other dangerous products, enter adult venues, and in various other scenarios. Why not for accessing Internet properties that are just as harmful?
> Governments require age verification to drive a car, purchase alcohol and other dangerous products, enter adult venues, and in various other scenarios.
On paper. In practice... especially in rural areas not filled to the brim with busybodies, enforcement is spotty or limited to excessive, inappropriate morons.
won't someone think of the corporations and CEOs
There is still yet no reckoning for Zuckerberg nor the people who choose to work for Meta.
What would justice look like for someone responsible for building something so detrimental to society? What of the employees?
Maximilien Robespierre.
[dead]
HN commenters who suggest this settlement was a "win" for Meta are implying Meta stood to lose more by not settling
These commenters must believe Meta could not win at trial
The indication from the bellwethers is that plaintiffs can win, and Meta can be forced to settle
There are more cases coming down the pipe. When will it end A "win" for Meta would be winning a bellwether, putting uncertainty and doubt in the minds of potential plaintiffs
That still has not happened (one case was dropped)
This is a long game that's only just started
Why settle. No confidence?
My feed's been an absolute dumpster fire since 2016. Reckoning feels long overdue for the platform's architects.
2010 for me. I mean they're continually fucking around with privacy settings. It shows. Things show up all the time that people didn't approve of/vet
Zuckerberg is a sociopath with a dim view of humanity. He doesn't think people should have privacy. That's why the photo tagging and post visibility issues and the rest of it
He is one, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you follow
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Are you referencing people that killed themselves because someone was mean to them on social media, or something more??
Probably Rohingya genocide ?