If this ruling results in Meta fully withdrawing from New Mexico because it's unlikely they'll actually net on a per customer basis than nothing of value will be lost.
Yes but Meta is being rewarded for harming children currently. So you're arguing, in fact, that we should not give kids money as restitution because it would create a bad "incentive" for them, rather than disincentivize the company that has already brought them harm from further harming them?
The status quo is already bizarre. Meta is actively profiting from harming minors. The alternative (minors getting a payout by visiting harmful websites) seems pretty tame by contrast, and in fact puts an active incentive on Meta to stop letting minors be harmed by their software.
One would argue the kids got paid for finding a dangerous place and entering. Up to the building owner to prevent access. It’s a form of giant bug bounty.
I wish I’d be paid a 7k$ bounty for every website where I can find an underage vulnerability.
The key thing is these people will get older and no longer be in that age bracket so you are relying on future groups in that age bracket to know this loophole which will be some but far fewer I suspect.
The inverse incentive is what's in place today: a platform actively harming the users who signed up for it, in pursuit of ad dollars. The incentive is to extract maximum revenue while disregarding the real-world effects of actions, including driving children to self-harm or mental illness.
That's bizarre. But I know for some people, it doesn't seem bizarre, and just seems like "capitalism."
The platform isn't actively harming. It's actively driving them to content they engage with. What they're choosing to engage with is harmful. The fact their parents let them on the platform is the crazy part, but the state already extracts vast amounts of money from them.
Why punish S.E. Massengill? It’s the parents, after all, who willingly allowed their children to drink sulfanilamide. Hell, if the children simply closed their mouths when the spoon is in front of them, they’d be perfectly fine!
This is a silly comparison. Social media doesn't instantly kill your children, and we've known it's bad for them for ages now so parents have had time to adjust. Give kids devices, win stupid prizes.
I just saw an ad for Instagram's teen features, aimed at parents. You can't advertise for your product and then say that people are using it of their own volition. We are right back to the 90s and Big Tobacco.
