So imma play devil's advocate a bit, cuz I think it's fun, also I dislike bandwagoning.

Meta may not be a great company but I don't think their loss here is all that great either:

>In New Mexico, Meta is being required to improve "age assurance models and tools" using AI, and to attempt "to develop, within two years, a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model."

None of that sounds really desirable to me. I read that as "death of the anonymous internet", Meta's loss (to the cheers of everyone) is ushering in ubiquitous age verification.

I also see stuff like this:

> [google and youtube were] negligent and failed to warn users of the dangers associated with using their platforms.

and

> Industry experts are calling it social media's "Big Tobacco" moment, with Meta as the centerpiece

While psychological addiction is a thing lets not conflate that with literal physical addiction to a chemical. "warn users of the dangers",really? what do they want; a big banner that says "Warning! youtube might be too entertaining"?

While I don't doubt Meta's done some shady stuff, or at least mildly negligent stuff because it benefits them I think in some respects they have an impossible task. I also thing they've become a scapegoat such that lazy parents and bored adults can eschew any personal responsibility for their actions. "its not my fault I let my kid on Facebook unfettered, or spent all Tuesday doomscrolling, it's these damn companies giving me everything I want!", hell I do it here on HN which barely even has "an algorithm" it's such an easy trap to fall into companies barely need to even try.

> None of that sounds really desirable to me. I read that as "death of the anonymous internet", Meta's loss (to the cheers of everyone) is ushering in ubiquitous age verification.

This is an interesting point, that Meta's unpopularity in this matter could be used as cover to push other unpopular agendas.