Restrictions yes, but a $17B fine for "addiction"?

Slippery slope, and here we go again... it's always someone else's fault.

"I'm addicted to social media", so they fine Meta.

What's next...
"I'm addicted to alchohol", fine liquor manufacturers?
"I'm addicted to fast food", fine the restaurant chains?
"I'm addicted to caffeine", fine the coffee shops?
"I'm addicted to gambling", fine the casinos?

If you were truly interested in this topic, take some time over the weekend to read the complaint outlining what Meta did.

You'll see that your analogies are not remotely comparable

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/FINAL%20Meta%20Multistate%20Complaint%2C%20N.D.%20Cal.%20%28REDACTED%2C%20CONFORMED%29.pdf

Quote:

---

Certain alcohol manufacturers have developed marketing, product-design, branding, and distribution strategies intended to recruit younger consumers and convert them into long-term purchasers of alcoholic beverages. These strategies include products formulated to reduce the sensory barriers associated with alcohol consumption; branding associated with popularity, social acceptance, sports, music, entertainment, and other aspects of youth culture; digital and social-media advertising; influencer and celebrity promotion; artificial scarcity and limited-edition products; and other mechanisms designed to increase product familiarity, initiation, purchase frequency, and brand loyalty.

---

Quote:

---

These manufacturers financially benefit when consumers begin drinking earlier, purchase alcohol more frequently, consume greater quantities, and remain loyal to their brands over time. Where manufacturers possess research or marketing data demonstrating substantial appeal to or exposure among minors, yet continue those practices while publicly asserting that they market only to legal-age consumers and prioritize responsible drinking, those representations and omissions may form the basis of claims that consumers and the public were misled regarding the nature and objectives of the manufacturers' practices.

---

The manufacturers allegedly understood the vulnerabilities associated with youth and early alcohol initiation, deliberately engineered products and marketing to exploit those vulnerabilities and establish long-term customers, possessed superior information showing that the strategy was reaching or influencing young people, financially benefited from that behavior, and nevertheless publicly portrayed its practices as responsible and exclusively adult-directed.

BMX Bandit said:

---

If you were truly interested in this topic, take some time over the weekend to read the complaint outlining what Meta did.

You'll see that your analogies are not remotely comparable

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/FINAL%20Meta%20Multistate%20Complaint%2C%20N.D.%20Cal.%20%28REDACTED%2C%20CONFORMED%29.pdf

---

233 pages of redacted text doesn't fit in my schedule.

Summary - their product is engineered for dopamine hit, I get it.

I'm addicted to TexAgs, guess I'll file a claim too.

zephyr88 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

If you were truly interested in this topic, take some time over the weekend to read the complaint outlining what Meta did.

You'll see that your analogies are not remotely comparable

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/FINAL%20Meta%20Multistate%20Complaint%2C%20N.D.%20Cal.%20%28REDACTED%2C%20CONFORMED%29.pdf

---

233 pages of redacted text doesn't fit in my schedule.

Summary - their product is engineered for dopamine hit, I get it.

I'm addicted to TexAgs, guess I'll file a claim too.

---

Brandon has already agreed to settle with me by making me the primary mod of the East Texas board.

Took him to the cleaners on this. Idiot.

Ag with kids said:

---

Quote:

---

Certain alcohol manufacturers have developed marketing, product-design, branding, and distribution strategies intended to recruit younger consumers and convert them into long-term purchasers of alcoholic beverages. These strategies include products formulated to reduce the sensory barriers associated with alcohol consumption; branding associated with popularity, social acceptance, sports, music, entertainment, and other aspects of youth culture; digital and social-media advertising; influencer and celebrity promotion; artificial scarcity and limited-edition products; and other mechanisms designed to increase product familiarity, initiation, purchase frequency, and brand loyalty.

---

Quote:

---

These manufacturers financially benefit when consumers begin drinking earlier, purchase alcohol more frequently, consume greater quantities, and remain loyal to their brands over time. Where manufacturers possess research or marketing data demonstrating substantial appeal to or exposure among minors, yet continue those practices while publicly asserting that they market only to legal-age consumers and prioritize responsible drinking, those representations and omissions may form the basis of claims that consumers and the public were misled regarding the nature and objectives of the manufacturers' practices.

---

The manufacturers allegedly understood the vulnerabilities associated with youth and early alcohol initiation, deliberately engineered products and marketing to exploit those vulnerabilities and establish long-term customers, possessed superior information showing that the strategy was reaching or influencing young people, financially benefited from that behavior, and nevertheless publicly portrayed its practices as responsible and exclusively adult-directed.

---

100% this. It's the standard corporate double standard: pretend you're all about "responsible drinking" on paper, but design products and ads specifically to hook younger people.

Honestly, half these brands and the influencers they pay just buy Instagram followers anyway to fake the hype train and look like the coolest new thing overnight. When kids see a brand blowing up with huge follower counts, it builds instant FOMO and normalizes the product before anyone even stops to think about it. Meanwhile, the companies just shrug and act like they're just engaging on modern platforms.

double aught said:

---

I'm hopeful it will have at least some impact. It's one step to help this problem. If nothing else, maybe it'll give some parents pause before they let their kids run wild online unsupervised.

---

How about raising kids that aren't so week-minded that they run to the computer every time they feel like their feelings are hurt....and then have to announce that to the world????

We are so soft.....

BMX Bandit said:

---

If you were truly interested in this topic, take some time over the weekend to read the complaint outlining what Meta did.

You'll see that your analogies are not remotely comparable

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/FINAL%20Meta%20Multistate%20Complaint%2C%20N.D.%20Cal.%20%28REDACTED%2C%20CONFORMED%29.pdf

---

Yeah, I stopped reading on page 2 after reading this as one of the complaints. I mean come on - if this was of such importance to put on page 2 the rest of the complaint is probably garbage as well.

Quote:

---

"content-presentation formats, such as infinite scroll, designed to discourage young users' attempts to self-regulate and disengage with Meta's Platforms."

---

Never in my entire 30 year career as a software developer have I seen infinite scroll described as a mechanism to discourage users from "self-regulating and disengaging".


It seems like Meta was guilty of three things:

1) Being too successful at marketing
2) Not being kid's parents.
3) Having too much money, which makes them a nice target

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

TRM said:

---

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

---

Last time I checked being on the internet didn't cause cancer.

javajaws said:

---

TRM said:

---

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

---

Last time I checked being on the internet didn't cause cancer.

---

reddit
bluesky
TikTok


?

But it can cause mental illness

Come Out Roll said:

---

double aught said:

---

I'm hopeful it will have at least some impact. It's one step to help this problem. If nothing else, maybe it'll give some parents pause before they let their kids run wild online unsupervised.

---

How about raising kids that aren't so week-minded that they run to the computer every time they feel like their feelings are hurt....and then have to announce that to the world????

We are so soft.....

---

I'm raising my son to be month-minded.






























And to be able to spell well.

"Weak-minded".

TRM said:

---

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

---

Also - if you are in favor of this settlement then you must also be in favor of doing the same thing against gun manufacturers and alcohol makers. While were at it lets sue the Hollywood studios as well.

Surely those groups have done more harm to kids than Meta, right?

Let's just sue everyone until good parenting is no longer needed!

BigRobSA said:

---

javajaws said:

---

TRM said:

---

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

---

Last time I checked being on the internet didn't cause cancer.

---

reddit
bluesky
TikTok

?

---

While I agree with the sentiment...not cancer.

Quote:

---

if you are in favor of this settlement then you must also be in favor of doing the same thing against gun manufacturers and alcohol makers.

---

very fake news

javajaws said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

javajaws said:

---

TRM said:

---

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

---

Last time I checked being on the internet didn't cause cancer.

---

reddit
bluesky
TikTok

?

---

While I agree with the sentiment...not cancer.

---

Yet.


And, to the point, I don't agree with this judgement. Parent your children, or don't. But if you don't, stop looking for bogeymen. The onus is on you.

TRM said:

---

But it can cause mental illness

---

So we've reached snowflake utopia now where we are responsible to stop all the causes of mental illness? You going to ban human interaction as well - that's the real cause of a lot of people's mental illness. Going to force everyone to be nice? Maybe we should start up the whole "ban video games" movement again?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

if you are in favor of this settlement then you must also be in favor of doing the same thing against gun manufacturers and alcohol makers.

---

very fake news

---

Your comment must be fake news then as well...whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

javajaws said:

---

if you are in favor of this settlement then you must also be in favor of doing the same thing against gun manufacturers and alcohol makers.

---

really bad take.

There are laws all over the place to protect children from accessing guns and alcohol. Not perfect ones and enforcement isn't 100% "bulletproof", but by and large...

javajaws said:

---

TRM said:

---

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

---

Also - if you are in favor of this settlement

---

If you read the thread, I'm not in favor of it.

Meta got off easy.

TRM said:

---

But it can cause mental illness

---

Yes. See women and Democrats.

it was a polite way of saying you are completely talking about of your rear end as its evident you have zero clue what the allegations are against Meta, what Meta admits it did, and how the gun industry and current alcohol industry is not even in the same universe.

and given your admission that you won't even bother to read past two pages to educate yourself, you are clearly someone that wallows in ignorance. that is your certainly your right, and you also have the right to have a different opinion on Meta. But when you show that opinion is not based on any facts, but all emotion, no one will or should take your opinion with any amount of seriousness.

perhaps you should have just taken "fake news" and been on your merry way.

I'd say that social media is a cancer.

Sid Farkas said:

---

javajaws said:

---

if you are in favor of this settlement then you must also be in favor of doing the same thing against gun manufacturers and alcohol makers.

---

really bad take.

There are laws all over the place to protect children from accessing guns and alcohol. Not perfect ones and enforcement isn't 100% "bulletproof", but by and large...

---

Not really. It'll happen eventually as we rely more and more on the government being our nanny and allowing them to oppress anything they deem bad for us.

Deerdude said:

---

I'd say that social media is a cancer.

---

yea....for the WEAK and feeble-minded (nod to you Rob!).....and for those parents that don't give a sheet about what their kids are up to....

javajaws said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

javajaws said:

---

TRM said:

---

How would you compare that to the case brought against big tobacco?

---

Last time I checked being on the internet didn't cause cancer.

---

reddit
bluesky
TikTok

?

---

While I agree with the sentiment...not cancer.

---

AIDS?