Zuckerberg lied about concern for child safety, Meta whistleblower testifies at landmark trial
the Guardian
Zuckerberg lied about concern for child safety, Meta whistleblower testifies at landmark trial
Arturo Béjar, former Meta safety engineer, tells jury tech company was aware of products’ potential harm to children
We can’t even trust our benevolent billionaires now?! What has this world come to
If only taxation in the past worked (it did)!
Is there any way we can get out of this terrible predicament (it’s taxing the wealthy, btw).
tax wealth not work
100% cool with taxing wealth.
The tragedy of a missing coma.
They meant “Tax wealth, not work” as in we should tax excessive wealth as opposed to taxing the labour of everyday people.
I think everyone in this thread agrees with each other.
That is how I read it.
“no shit”
Could have just stopped at “Zuck lied” because that guy has never told the truth once in his entire life
I’ll say it twice today, fuck Mark Zuckerberg.
There’s only two ways to stop a billionaire from harming others while in pursuit of more money/power, because they have zero empathy. First, is laws with sharp teeth and prison time. The second involves more direct application of sharp objects.
Why is this news?
Zuckerberg ist going to call Cheeto Benito and he’ll find a way to supress the trials outcome.
…I’m tired.
Why doesn’t he try being less of a skid mark, I feel like that would be a good direction for him to take his personality. Far apart from anything else if you didn’t constantly take the evil root he would probably make more money.
Like the metaverse thing, it could have actually worked if literally any of one other than Mark Zuckerberg had been in charge of the project.
why is it the company’s job to look after kids instead of the parents?
The same reason cartoons don’t advertise cigarettes anymore. Capitalists would willingly murder children if they could make money off it.
I don’t know how to make any clearer, if you want a future country it is all our job to make sure kids are safe. The parents may be primarily responsible for protecting them, but if your company is a threat to children, and you’re not taking steps to mitigate that, you need to be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.
I think it’s the company’s job to put the tools in place for parents to turn on and configure. In the same way you use a hammer to hit the nail to hang the painting, you need the tools in place for parental controls.
But it’s also up to the parents to actually USE these tools. If the parents don’t turn them on, then the parents are at fault. And if there were gaps in these controls that Meta was aware of, then Meta was at fault.
Though the problem here is that Meta probably knew what they were doing, and they were likely doing so because they profited from it. Meta requires continued engagement to make money from ad revenue, and you do that by addicting the people using it. It’s always about the money.
did meta not have parental controls?
Would you think it acceptable for a gun manufacturer to make a gun that looked like a Fisher-Price toy, then market it to children? I’m not saying parents do not have a role here, I’m saying there are behaviors from companies that should be explicitly banned because they target children.
We shouldn’t expect companies to “look after kids”. We should, however, force companies to adhere to the law. The law in this case is, “don’t use manipulative and socially destructive business practices; They fck our society and harm the kids.”
It’s both.
But companies like Meta profit from harm they do to the population and should be reigned in.
I dont think we should have a society full of threats and then blame the parents when they don’t predict and protect their kids from it.
Its better to not have the threats. Specially since these kind of threats are for profit and it’s their business model.
Not look after but maybe not trojan horsing brain washing content for young minds. And no, parents shouldn’t have to worry about anything that comes in contact with their children
When they make money not doing it.
Thats a very important distinction. Negligence over something free is one thing, but profiting off it is a whole different thing for pretty much any other company on Earth, yet somehow social media has gotten a pass.