This settlement benefits meta immensely. Are the journalists reading the correct judgement? The stock pretty much had a breakout when this news came out.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's another case of people struggling with huge numbers. We just aren't prepared to tackle millions/billions/trillions very well.

▲

wpietri 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

psunavy03 2 days ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	fooblaster 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		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

▲

_carbyau_ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We should rephrase things in % terms. IE this payout is X% of their net profit from last year.

▲

SanjayMehta 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

paulpauper 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

trhway 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Like in "Chicago" they should have prepared 2 versions of the article, yet i guess they had only one.