Technology

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”.

Unclear how age verification would play out with their Digital Childhood Alliance efforts.

Until throw these fucks in jail this shit will continue.

Which is exactly why that won't happen. Our president is a pedophile. There's a whole network of wealthy pedophiles who no longer have an island. The pedophiles are in power.

Fine based on % income of the company.

Dude…installing Facebook Purity doesn’t protect you from child predators, what are you even talking about?

Want to know how all social media could simply and easily protect minors, and everybody at large? Hire some fucking moderators. Every social media company should be required to use as many humans as it takes to moderate all content posted on their platforms…everybody problem would be reduced to near zero. What’s happening now is nobody works at META…except at the design, legal and coding level. If you’re a bad actor and you want to post…you use a bot to interact with an automated process, and you’re always one step ahead of the automated process.

And improve parental controls for children’s accounts. I’m sure there’s nothing currently giving a “parent” account high level control over a “child” account, but I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

Parental controls already exist in every major OS, they suffice to restrict & monitor social media, and they go unused.

A better solution might be for laws to provide parents resources & incentives to parent children's online activity (including training to use resources they already have) & to provide children education in online safety & literacy. Decades ago, federal courts citing commission findings & studies recommended these alternatives as superior in effectiveness, meeting government duties to minimize impact on civil liberties, allocation of law enforcement resources, etc. For the permanent injunction to COPA, the judge wrote

Moreover, defendant contends that: (1) filters currently exist and, thus, cannot be considered a less restrictive alternative to COPA; and that (2) the private use of filters cannot be deemed a less restrictive alternative to COPA because it is not an alternative which the government can implement. These contentions have been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in ruling upon the efficacy of the 1999 preliminary injunction by this court. The Supreme Court wrote:

Congress undoubtedly may act to encourage the use of filters. We have held that Congress can give strong incentives to schools and libraries to use them. It could also take steps to promote their development by industry, and their use by parents. It is incorrect, for that reason, to say that filters are part of the current regulatory status quo. The need for parental cooperation does not automatically disqualify a proposed less restrictive alternative. In enacting COPA, Congress said its goal was to prevent the “widespread availability of the Internet” from providing “opportunities for minors to access materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can frustrate parental supervision or control.” COPA presumes that parents lack the ability, not the will, to monitor what their children see. By enacting programs to promote use of filtering software, Congress could give parents that ability without subjecting protected speech to severe penalties.

I also agree and conclude that in conjunction with the private use of filters, the government may promote and support their use by, for example, providing further education and training programs to parents and caregivers, giving incentives or mandates to ISP’s to provide filters to their subscribers, directing the developers of computer operating systems to provide filters and parental controls as a part of their products (Microsoft’s new operating system, Vista, now provides such features, see Finding of Fact 91), subsidizing the purchase of filters for those who cannot afford them, and by performing further studies and recommendations regarding filters.

Adult supervision, child education on online safety & literacy, parental controls & filters are more effective at less expense to fundamental rights. Governments know this & conveniently forget it.

Phrased in another way, it's equivalent to if you had $1,618 in the bank and were fined $0.30.

Super small compared to their income, but a GREAT reason to make all the users age validate.

I'ma bet that they spend 10 million of that 79 billion on bribes to change the law so this never happens to them again.

If social media companies were required to moderate their content…if they were responsible for what’s posted…all problems would go away.

As it stands bad actors use bots to stay one step ahead of automated moderation.

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

Do I have to remind everyone the ending of The Wolf of Wall Street?

Billionaires bought a jail free cards decades ago