this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
1167 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

83251 readers
4726 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 35 points 6 days ago (5 children)

jury finds firm misled consumers over safety and enabled harm against users

If I do something like this, I go to jail

WHY THE FUCK IS ZUCKERBERG NOT IN JAIL?

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because limited liability corporations were created to avert liability from individuals. His firm is liable, but no single individual within it.

Not even the ones making the executive decisions, despite their near-monarchic power. I guess since they're appointed by a board of directors, it's something like an electoral monarchy, except the board isn't democratically elected so it's a plutocracy by proxy. The ultimate culprit would be - and this is a chorus you've probably heard a thousand times on here - the shareholders, and going after them is hard. Particularly when the shareholders are themselves corporations...

But the CEO is the pin focusing shareholder intent down into decisions and ultimately action. If they were effectively held responsible for their decisions, it would at least provide some counterbalance to the shareholders' demands. It could also solve the "shareholders are corporations" issue, since you could make the CEOs of those companies liable for demanding illegal measures from companies they control.

Of course, such a drastic change would be hard to actually push through, as things stand, since it would inhibit (illegal) profit and growth and "the economy" is a sacred cow. It's still worth pushing for, in my opinion, but building awareness and support takes patience and tact to avoid pushing people into political apathy.

The alternative I could see (and would prefer, but suspect to be even less attainable) is to dismantle the stock and capital system entirely. What you'd replace it with is a whole separate debate I won't cover in this comment. Drastic systemic change is difficult to plan and enact, and building and maintaining the new system is difficult in the face of insecurities, old habits, unforeseen challenges that it may not yet have developed effective ways to deal with and generally all the growing pains that come with new things.

They're not mutually exclusive, and the first may be a step on the road to the second. Either way, public support is key, and that is rarely won quickly.

[–] polderprutser@feddit.nl 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I get the meme, but it's kinda dumb. This is a website where you're free to just not read my comment, if you don't wanna engage with the topic, not a captive audience like a retail employee.

[–] polderprutser@feddit.nl 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I was just highlighting the juxtaposition in length and depth between the two comments by dropping a dumb meme one level deeper. I get that might come across as not taking this seriously, and I do apologise for that. 🙇🏼‍♂️

I genuinely value your post. It makes sense, and it fills me with dread precisely because I don't see this changing quickly for the better. I do hope empathy and basic human decency prevail in the long run.

Absurdist humour is one of my coping mechanisms for exactly these kinds of topics, not a way to dodge them. This particular attempt may have overshot that mark a bit though.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I was just highlighting the juxtaposition in length and depth between the two comments by dropping a dumb meme one level deeper.

I know, I get the meme. I just took it as inspiration for another wordy, serious comment, which I now realise continued the trend. I suppose the apt follow-up would have been some even shorter quip like "OK Boomer". Instead, you had to make a serious reply of your own and break the chain. Thanks, Obama.

I genuinely value your post.

And I value your genuine response and explanation. We hope together.

Absurdist humour is one of my coping mechanisms for exactly these kinds of topics

That I can get behind. When confronted with the absurdity of our great ambitions and worries in face of our own insignificance, what else can we do but make memes?

What better way to bear dark times than to make light of them?

When life is serious enough, you don't need to be.

Live. Laugh. Shitpost.

[–] polderprutser@feddit.nl 3 points 5 days ago

This made my week. Live. Laugh. Shitpost. 🙏🏼

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

You can't put a shareholder in jail, they're the entire point of the system gestures broadly

[–] impdroid@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Billionaires bought a jail free cards decades ago

[–] MashedTech@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

He is young and he has a bright future ahead of him. We can't take that away.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

civil trial

[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 26 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh no, "child protection" was never about protecting children? I am shocked, shocked

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

Yeah, so I'm holding off celebrating this "historic win" for protecting the children.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

The New Mexico court heard how Meta’s 2023 decision to encrypt Facebook Messenger – its direct messaging platform, which predators have used as a tool to groom minors and exchange child abuse imagery – blocked access to crucial evidence of these crimes.

Encryption! These monsters!

In the next phase of the legal proceedings, due to begin on 4 May, the attorney general’s office will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta’s platforms that “offer stronger protections for children”, said Torrez.

The design feature changes the state is seeking include “enacting effective age verification, removing predators from the platform, and protecting minors from encrypted communications that shield bad actors”.

And when that happens, the headline lemmings here will call it enshittification and call for even harsher rules.

[–] Quexotic 4 points 5 days ago

If corporations are people, then why can't Facebook go to jail?

Money.

[–] FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

This lawsuit is about end-to-end encryption and the lack of age verification on Instagram. So not good.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

If we can keep getting these assholes in front of juries, maybe something will change.

I predict this will be tied up in appeals until the day SCOTUS or the executive sniff these suits out.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

look, if the children didn't want to become victims then why did they make themselves so sexy

-- Meta defense (probably)

[–] uenticx@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The details of evasion tactics they used where even harder to read. How fucking irresponsible and outright fucked up do you have to be to OK this shit. Wow.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

The normal appeal and out of court settlement. The f'n lawyers always win.

[–] GarboDog@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

But it’s for the children!!

^Heavy sarcasm^

load more comments
view more: next ›