This isn't regulation. If it was regulation, Meta could just read the regulation and comply and they'd be in the clear. This is the judicial branch making up and enforcing regulations that don't exist based on their own personal opinions about what causes "harm". No way to know what you need to do to comply until after you're already getting sued.

▲

intended a day ago | parent [-]

> personal opinions about what causes "harm " Source that it was their personal opinion?

I've personally read multiple research papers, worked in the field, AND read the transcripts where people at Meta told their leadership that their choices were causing harm. For years.

Sorry, but have you read the details of the case, or am I missing something?

▲

Ajedi32 a day ago | parent [-]

So if a person at your company claims you're "causing harm" in a vague, indirect way that's not explicitly against the law, you're legally obligated to both agree with them and change your whole business model to accommodate that? Apparently yes, but I personally think that's pretty dumb.

And no I haven't read all the details, it's an extremely broad settlement that apparently covers everything from vague allegations of harm caused by social media addiction to Cambridge Analytica's misuse of data obtained through Facebook's API. There are too many claims to investigate all of them individually in detail without making that a full time job, so I'm speaking in broad terms here about how I think our legal system ought to function.

▲

intended a day ago | parent [-]

What in ? > Meta shut down internal research into the mental health effects of Facebook after finding causal evidence that its products harmed users’ mental health, according to unredacted filings in a lawsuit by U.S. school districts against Meta and other social media platforms.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

This is researchers and internal teams finding causal evidence of harm from their products. Not just once either.

This case is one of the most significant cases of our time. None of this is based on some random person at work having an opinion.

Separately, How does it not being your full time job, save you from having to back up your opinion or your own thoughts?

I fully recognize you don't have to be an expert on my neck of the woods, so sharing info is natural.

But you are doubling down after I am giving you information. Do you think that the lawyers for meta, the courts and the plaintiffs would have gotten away with such throw away arguments?

	▲	Ajedi32 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What were they legally required to do after their research uncovered this "causal evidence" in your opinion? Shut down? Cars get into crashes and kill people everyday, yet I don't think it would be appropriate to sue car manufacturers for this harm, solely under the grounds that they "knew about it and ignored it", even if they conducted a study finding a clear causal link between the existence of cars and roadway deaths. In general, I think our legal system ought not to punish people or organizations for failing to do things that they have no clear legal mandate to do. This is a general claim that I don't feel I need to know all the details of the case to make, though you're certainly welcome to provide specifics if you think they would change my opinion about this specific situation. > Do you think that the lawyers for meta, the courts and the plaintiffs would have gotten away with such throw away arguments? No, because unfortunately our legal system doesn't work the way I'm saying it should. If someone feels you have injured them in some way, they can sue you even if you acted in good faith and broke no laws, and if they can demonstrate harm, even indirect harm, they have a good chance of winning. It makes for a very unstable legal environment.