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?

I understand now that this line

>and Meta pays out to the affected parties

probably won't come to pass, which I agree is not nearly as good. But I was responding to that possibility, as put forward by the the parent.

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."

Lots of hidden variables in this equation, like the number of ex-parents living only for retribution.