Nice detailed write up. I love-hate Meta’s PR spin on this: “Meta's Agreement With Bipartisan Attorneys General: Calling on TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting Teens”
They learned good from the tobacco industry about how to manage this properly. Getting way out in front of things and pretending to regulate themselves.
Genuinely unhinged that companies can just lie this way to the public and it’s completely fine. Normal even.
You didn’t agree to shit, Meta. You’re scum, so much so that even in the incredibly hostile to industry regulation environment we find ourselves in, you managed to get fined.
In Brazil, communications do run entirely on WhatsApp, but payments are entirely on Pix.
Also I rememeber when there was a Meta-wide outage, and people switched to Telegram within the day, so the stranglehold they have might not be that strong.
Is there a "crypto-shred" method for destroying access to your account? Like, change your email to one that expires/isn't reusable, then change the password to some totally random, lengthy string and then never record it?
These arguments are not very strong. It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way. It also makes the absolutely insane assumption that children are on there consuming meaningful content and not literal brain rotting slop or worse.
There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.
>It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way.
The platforms cannot stop someone from publishing information on a website outside of the platform.
Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.
https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...
You didn’t agree to shit, Meta. You’re scum, so much so that even in the incredibly hostile to industry regulation environment we find ourselves in, you managed to get fined.
DuPont hid Teflon pollution for decades.
https://www.ewg.org/research/dupont-hid-teflon-pollution-dec...
Delete them off your phone. You don't need insta and whatsapp.
Starve the demon of your data.
If you want to book a doctor's appointment you don't call and talk to an AI chat bot you message them on WhatsApp.
Signal was starting to gain traction until they dumped text message support and people were like, "well if I need two apps now I'll just drop Signal"
Also I rememeber when there was a Meta-wide outage, and people switched to Telegram within the day, so the stranglehold they have might not be that strong.
It’s so rare to come across it in India, I can say - there’s no such thing.
WhatsApp payments are only offered [1] in four countries (including India) it can't be "no such thing"
[1]: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1293279751500598
If you don't write the regulations yourself, then these companies are happy to come along and write them for you.
There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.
The platforms cannot stop someone from publishing information on a website outside of the platform.
Did Meta's Big Settlement Actually Help It?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49464678
Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.