Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by buttersicle 77 days ago
Sure, but this is also how these companies make money. You need to actually pass a law that prohibits this before you fine the companies that do it.

Letting juries rob them just because the jury doesn't like it is nothing more than fascism.
2 comments
wheelerwj 77 days ago
Theres already laws that protect kids. Thats why they just lost in court.
link
buttersicle 77 days ago
Please provide a link.
link
mocheeze 77 days ago
http://nmlegis.gov/Sessions/99%20Regular/FinalVersions/SB013...
link
buttersicle 77 days ago
You're linking to new mexico state law?

If you're going to pick a law from one of the smallest states in the union, the least you could do is quote the relevant excerpts.

This is a pathetic rebuttal.

link
Paradigm2020 77 days ago
Meta is also reeling from a separate $375m verdict delivered on Tuesday.

New Mexico prosecutors convinced a jury the company enabled child exploitation on its platforms.

link
yabutlivnWoods 77 days ago
Lol @ "rob them"

The outcome followed laws that enable the jury to conclude as they did! So there you go, laws passed.

Is this Zuckerberg's burner account?

link
buttersicle 77 days ago
No, there is no law banning anything these companies did. You know this; that's why you didn't link to the law in your comment.

There should be a law banning the addictive practices of these apps. Until there is, fining the companies that make these apps is unjust.

link
yabutlivnWoods 77 days ago
Not how the legal system works.

There are laws enabling the judiciary to operate as it has to give plaintiffs a platform in the first place, in the absence of specific laws because legislative bodies are slow to adopt new laws for various excuses.

For example; not hard to pay off a handful of legislators to vote no. Then what? People just suck up living at the mercy of the rich?

Judiciary has leeway to allow such cases and outcomes to bubble up useful context for changes to law. Longstanding precedent and in some cases is codified in law itself.

The lack of a specific legal language banning social media actions is also irrelevant because of similarities to other situations that are enshrined in law. That human biology is susceptible to psychological manipulation is already well understood. Tiny little difference in legal context does not invalidate known truth of biology.

Society doesn't exist in your head alone and has existed for some time. Much of this is not truly new territory.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

link