Earlier this year, following the initial verdict in the state of New Mexico’s case against Meta (arguing that Meta caused harm to children by doing things like encrypting messages), we noted …
  • Dr. Bob@lemmy.caEnglish
    8·
    2 months ago

    This is exactly what judges should do if the company won’t clean up their own act. The article is a long whine about muh slippery slope.

    An example of the whine to save you a click…

    Judges simply shouldn’t be in the business of determining the proper user interface for software. Indeed, I’d deem it to be an example of compelled speech and (in cases of banning certain features) suppression of speech.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyzEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      I think you’re being a little uncharitable, it does correctly point out the issue of state mandated identity checks in the paragraph directly below that

      In the ruling, the judge now says that Meta will need to limit the amount of time children can spend on the app (which means mandating age verification of every user), that the number of “likes” on photos on kids’ accounts must be hidden, and then some compelled “warnings” about the supposed harms of social media. All of this is problematic.

      • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Warnings about “supposed” harms is “problematic”?

        I have issues with age verification, but they stem from the fact that these companies can already guess pretty accurately without being compelled to collect even more data.

        And, to put it bluntly, Mike Masnick is pretty well known for being a pro social media advocate. He is on the board for a Twitter competitor. He has quite the conflict of interest with these stories, and without even looking, I guessed he was the author of this one.