Mark Zuckerberg's Social Reckoning
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/27/meta-s...
> That $18bn is certainly more than most companies could pay, but it pales in comparison with the $1.5tn Meta’s own PR team warned the case could cost it had it gone through the courts – and the more realistic $200bn the prosecuting lawyers sought to squeeze from the firm.
The consensus opinion was that the case would have cost them a lot more if it hadn't settled. Truly, the outcome couldn't have been more favorable to Meta. "Reckoning" -- yeah, right.
This was one lawsuit. It settled their immediate legal problems with the 47 states and DC that were included in the settlement.
Florida is continuing with its own case against them, and there are also thousands of other pending cases from individuals (89%) and governments below the state level such as school districts (11%).
The present settlement does include an admission of guilt so the plaintiffs in those other suits so there plaintiffs will also have to prove guilt, put they can use a massive amount of material that the states put together in their case.
They can use anything that was presented in open court.
They can also get copies of all the internal Meta information that the state Attorney Generals got via discovery, even if those documents were never presented in open court. They may have to keep them confidential and so can't use them in open court, but they can use them to build their case and depose Meta executives about them.
All in all, the plaintiffs in thousands of pending cases have just been handed a multi-million page trove of evidence put together using the enormous resources of 47 states designed to nail Meta.
Meta is pushing forward every measure it can to record precise identity, age, and income with everything that you do.
They're the ones behind the push for internet porn ID laws.
They're the ones behind the push for device attestation.
They're the ones behind the push for social media ID requirements.
They make more money, we lose freedom and privacy and sleep closer and closer to 1984.
One day the state will punish us for our ideas and associations. They already do to an extent, but it's going to get unbearable once the machinery is in place.
Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists - everyone should oppose this.
According to numerous comments in all the threads we've ever had on California's age verification law and the similar laws in a few other states, which move verification client side and do not provide any precise information to the server side, Meta is behind those bills because it wants to not have to store that data.
From what I've been able to tell from various searches, those people seem to be correct, although there seems to be a lot of exaggeration of the amount of money Meta put in to the effort. People seem to often mistake Meta's total lobbying spend in a state for the spending on just that one bill.
Until losing this lawsuit Meta lobbied against the bills that required them to do the work.
Note: I did not recurse into references to reach primary sources so I'm not sure how accurate the sites I found were.
You posit a useless POV
Think back to anything you can speak to with some authority, personally or professionally. Think of the last time a reporter actually got it right. It does happen, and there are a few good journalists still out there who care about getting the facts and the issues right. But it's buried under a pile of ignorant rage-baiting slop.
Everything is for sale and meta has the money.
Not as much as most people think.
A huge percentage of the physical world runs through these platforms - and if you add Twitter it gets even worse.
Plenty of groups I follow communicate exclusively through social media channels. If you want to know what events are happening there - in some cases even what hours they're open - it's through Facebook or Instagram.
For things which aren't formal businesses (photo clubs, bar popups, all sorts of things) it's even more prevalent.
Sure, if I want to sit in my house and discuss philosphy on Hacker News or IRC those exist, but it is very difficult to avoid Meta's platforms and have a social life - much less a dating life.
To many people, the Internet is Facebook.
Back in the day, the same people considered AOL to be the Internet.
That's also the reason why so many people don't have children any more, or only later in their life when they are economically settled.
Most of them don't work as advertised.
> Parental monitoring and controlling usage on sites like Youtube and Facebook is a long solved problem, if the parent put any basic effort in.
How old are your kids?
Both parents working actually i think is a net-good thing - it teaches children to be responsible from early age. As my parents were both working - USSR - even when i was 5 years old i was already watching my 1 year old sister. And we were pretty typical at that.
Please expand on this, cause holy fuck couldn't it less apply to my experience educating - then raising my own - kids.
On paper. In practice... especially in rural areas not filled to the brim with busybodies, enforcement is spotty or limited to excessive, inappropriate morons.
If we're going to promote a policy of personal responsibility, let's at least look at all the persons involved.
What would justice look like for someone responsible for building something so detrimental to society? What of the employees?
These commenters must believe Meta could not win at trial
The indication from the bellwethers is that plaintiffs can win, and Meta can be forced to settle
There are more cases coming down the pipe. When will it end A "win" for Meta would be winning a bellwether, putting uncertainty and doubt in the minds of potential plaintiffs
That still has not happened (one case was dropped)
This is a long game that's only just started
Meta said it was confident it could win the case."
How Meta’s $17.1 Billion Social Media Settlement Came Together | https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/29/technology/meta-states-se...
Zuckerberg is a sociopath with a dim view of humanity. He doesn't think people should have privacy. That's why the photo tagging and post visibility issues and the rest of it
He is one, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you follow