alt Hacker News> Meta agreed in August to pay up to $18 billion to settle the multistate lawsuit surrounding child safety issues. Buried in the 130-page settlement was an agreement to release Meta from future liability related to the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, making New Mexico the only state to pursue a case. Florida was the only other state that did not sign the settlement, saying it was not tough enough on Meta.
This is an inconvenient reminder for people who want more "regulation" and who believe states with high levels of paper regulation like California really care about protecting consumers.
Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.
Replies
Stop framing bad regulation as a case against good regulation.
I think the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a big deal, and even used it to reinforce and reprioritize some privacy-focused initiatives at a past job. But I heard some credible voices on social media say that the actual impact was negligible. Anyone know what they mean? Maybe that has some bearing here?
Net neutrality is also a form of regulation. Are you against it?
How is this:
> people who want more "regulation"
Same as this:
> who believe states with high levels of paper regulation
I _do_ want real regulations with teeth against shitty companies like Meta. Just because California has done a performative take doesn't make expecting more controls on these scumbags a wrong thing to expect. Bad execution doesn't make the idea wrong, your scare-quotes be damned.
Nobody wants more “regulation” in the abstract, any more than they want more “water” in the abstract (to drink? When drowning? In a drought? In a flood?).
Positioning yourself as zealously in favor of or opposed to abstract concepts like regulation is silly.
> This is an inconvenient reminder for people who want more "regulation"
Some people say they want more “food,” but did you know that consuming calories can lead to obesity?! The existence of fat people is an inconvenient reminder for people who claim to be “malnourished” or “wasting away.”
...what's inconvenient about it? The less "regulation" in dem scary quotes there is, the easier it is for companies to shirk them (and cheaper, too). The only actual argument there can be is that that $18 bn fine will have to ultimately come out of the pockets of the Meta's customers, and perhaps that'll force Meta to adopt even uglier business practices (defying the whole point of regulating it).
> Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs working on the other side.
Man, I love people on Internet making predictions that will be impossible to disprove for decades, and by that point nobody would care anyhow.
> Years down the line, you'll find that a bunch of the people who worked on these cases have cush jobs
Aren't they supposed to be replaced by AI by then?
There won't even be human bodyguards; just Zuck, Musk, Bezos and Rasputin in their Thunderdomes sheltered by swarms of T-800s going StarCraft 3 on our ass
The multi-state settlement was a huge loss for Meta.
You are focusing on the money, which is not the important part. The important part is that the settlement just settled that one lawsuit. There are many thousands of individual lawsuits over many of the same issues, mostly by local governments (school districts).
Almost all the work the nearly 50 states in the multi-state lawsuit put in to prepare their case, such as depositions, getting expert reports, their successful legal arguments, the testimony from the trial, etc can be used by the plaintiffs in all those other suits.
This basically gives all those plaintiffs a fully loaded giant legal cannon that was custom built using the vast resources of the Attorney General's offices of almost 50 states specifically as an anti-Meta weapon.