> $16.7 billion spread over ten years against $60 billion in annual profit.

Just 2.6% of profit or less than 0.8% of revenue. Seems like FB got the deal of the century since any judgement would have real restrictions and enforcement with teeth. Since this is just a consent decree, FB can now start the 'malicious compliance' game where they incrementally erode, reinterpret and route around any deal terms they don't like. The DA's position is now substantially weaker because they'll have to go back to court to stop FB's inevitable backsliding.

> I’d still want to know why they thought this was the moment to take the deal.

Ultimately, this is about politics and money. By taking a lousy deal the DAs got their headlines and payoff now and can claim a 'victory' before the next election cycle. The alternative is even after the DAs won this ruling, FB would certainly drag out the inevitable appeals because ~$200B tanks the stock, while 0.8% of rev is just a cost of business. By the time all appeals were done none of these DAs would even be in office. Neither the headlines nor cash would do them any good.

Becoming a parent was probably the point in my life when I stopped thinking I was in control of everything.

Before you become a parent, you think it's easy. You think you can just decide things for the kid, and that's the way it goes. Especially if you're a high flier, everything just seems like it works out if you put in a little effort.

The thing that's really frustrating is that this is also a lottery. Some kids will actually simply do the thing that you want, and generally choose things that are good for them. Like my first kid. If I only had one I would think it was simple, and that everyone can just raise a kid who can read books for adults before they're ten, or do calculus before tenth grade, or cook a full meal for himself. I mean, you just tell them what you think they should do, right?

But you can also have a kid that will not do what you want. You will get all the same well-meaning advice about making it fun for them, explaining your choices to them, and providing incentives. These advisors are at a loss when you do all the things they said, and yet the kid still won't eat their vegetables. They don't want to read, they don't want to try the sports you take them to, and they are having constant tantrums.

While you think you are simply doing what you did the first time around.

As the kids get older, it also becomes clear that you are not their only parent. And I don't mean your better half. They get an awful lot of impressions from the rest of society, which you are not in control of. If everyone has a phone, you then need to decide whether you want to just go with the flow, or your kid is going to be the one without. If their friends are on social media, you then have to decide what you think about that.

Parents have the busiest schedule of anyone in our society. If we're going to hold them responsible for their choices, the least we can do is provide them with some sensible defaults.

Do you have children?

While parents have some control, they don't have as much control as you think. It is a constant, "but my friends can do this", and you have to deal with it all the time.

Parents now have to work 2 jobs, so the kid spends most of their time outside of home.

Also, comparing FB to cars, doritos is not fair imo, FB is closer to crack. It can also be accessed on other devices than phones, WHICH they need for school. Not every parent knows how to block it, and kids find ways around road blocks anyway.

If you're interested in understanding things rather than just throwing around lazy generalizations, the questions you are asking have answers!

Meta is getting sued because they knew that their product caused harm to users, could detect which users were harmed, and chose to do nothing. It's a little bit like selling food to a customer that you know will give them food poisoning. It's very different from selling someone something that's slightly less healthy than their other options.

Ofc not all of these cases are so clear cut. There are big systemic problems with our food system and our mobility system that you seem to be aware of - but also if you notice Frito Lay is not getting sued by the justice department. Neither are car manufacturers writ large. There's actually a lot of writing and reflection on where the line is between "reasonable service" and "exploiting consumers".

> Facebook sucks but if your child is addicted to their phone take the phone away.

I can't really disagree with that, but I still wonder why it's okay to use the same addictive methods on adults. To me it doesn't matter if it's children or adults, not if you know this will harm people and you still do it.

It's extremely weird you're allowed to actively built in addictive properties to your product, in an attempt to make users stay. If it was a side effect which happens get a certain (low) percentage addicted that's one thing, but to actively seek out the properties is another. Again, especially when you know that it causes psychological damage and destabilizes communities. How the hell Zuckerberg, Meta management and shareholders sleep at night is beyond me.

Still, even in the examples given, cars allow you to drive fast, but you can still sue a car manufacturer if they sells cars without airbags and a seatbelt. Doritos can make you fat, but you can still sue Frito Lay if they put overly addictive and harmful chemicals to keep customers coming back. Isn't this the same?

That’s a bit like blaming parents for their kids smoking cigarettes. Meta intentionally ignored warnings that bad things were happening as a result of its products, and doubled down on the addictive design.

Generally aligned on the bizarrely culturally-absent parent responsibility gap, chiming in from the feedback...

It is your responsibility as a parent to raise and care for your kids, regardless of the law. It doesn't just have to do with social media or phone use, it applies to addictions, to behaviors, to their mental and physical makeup. We've had decades of unambiguous feedback that screens and especially social media are bad for kids. Yes its hard. Be the adult and do it! Consider google family link, screen time and app restrictions, taking away the phone for a time, or forever. Know that I and other parents will be cheering for you <3

I recommend reading "the anxious generation", lots of helpful grounded findings and data.

It is not OK to knowingly create harmful products, spend millions on A/B testint so that they are as addictive as possible ... and then blame others for not counteracting it.

hmm seems "Everyone can control themself" is assumed here

well, if you look at legal side, the OPPOSITE is assumed in many cases:

- age-limits on smoking cigar(rettes)/sex/drinking

- soft-limits on gambling

- hard-limits on drugs

(1) Social media addiction is an addiction but taking away the phone isn't a simple solution. For one thing, apps have dominated many markets such as dating and finding out about local events. A local board game club, for instance, meets weekly in the basement of a church but if you found one of their posters at a game shop you'd find only a headline and a QR code that points to a Facebook page -- and if you log into Facebook you find out when and where they meet. And so much is like that. Like it's not just you who have to quit social media, it is all your friends and potential friends.

For all the ethical problems I have with Meta I am still on Facebook because my extended family is there and other people I interact with, like the musicians who I photograph at events, are there. Student groups are on Insta, etc.

(2) There is so much bad about Facebook. I see scam ads every day, particularly ads that reproduce UI elements from Facebook suggesting that you have notifications and then send you to some bizzaro world that is certainly some kind of fraud. I report these ads and get a nice note back about how they took action on them and two days later... the same ads appear. These idiots got it in writing [1] that they'd rather not filter the 10% of ads that are scam ads so they can make money ' https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...

(3) I'm not a Christian, in fact I am something very different, but I'm tempted to say that Meta and other social media border on the satanic in terms of social influence. In particular I'd point to the way they draw a rift between men and women, for instance there are the endless thirst traps on Instagram and the come-ons for OnlyFans performers that never stop and on YouTube some of the easiest rabbit holes to get into are "Men suck", "Women suck", "Trans people suck", "Cis people suck", ... It makes some people rich at the expense of us all.

(4) It sounds like a lot of money by ordinary standards, but it is nowhere near enough to change their behavior.

[1] ... my conspirators in relatively innocent transgressions know better!

There's something to your point of overzealous litigation and making too many rules but on the other hand Facebook's ad delivery network is allowing CSAM onto it meaning they don't vet it at all

That would be one thing except for Facebook's tendency to ban you, for any reason, while the horrific thing (like that, for example) you report is never taken down ever

[dead]

You see the problem with people suing companies? The problem with the legal system is that companies aren't regulated enough and prosecuted enough for their clear crimes.

Minnesota attorney Keith Ellison was suing car manufacturers (Kia and Hyundai) because lots of "young people" were stealing them. Instead of, you know, just making crimes auto-theft, crime again.

Heroin sucks, but if you child is addicted to the needle, take the needle away.

The point was for ignorant Americans (whom I believe Mark once called "dumb fucks") to just see "states win big Billions number from Facebook" and shut up and "trust it" at that point once they saw a headline they thought meant they won.

That's a different issue than age verification.