Judge: Zuckerberg not liable for social media harm to children

This reminds me of the joke that says if you want to harm someone, do it under LLC and you will not go to jail.<p>Its a joke of course but behind it a lot of criticism towards the current system.

&gt; control of corporate activity alone is insufficient<p>That&#x27;s very vague. It seems like the accusation brought forth was Zuckerberg knowingly concealed the addictive behavior, but it seems like the best the prosecution came up with was just, &quot;He&#x27;s CEO, therefore he is liable.&quot; Unless I&#x27;m completely misunderstanding this.

Lets be clear, Mark Zuckerberg could make changes to avoid this harm to children, As the controller of these companies he would sure be fully aware of the problem - its all over the media and has been for years. These social media companies place profit over the harm of children.

If it wasn&#x27;t for him, it would be someone else. He is not the inventor of the internet. It is completely the parents&#x27; fault for allowing their children to use social media. Do we blame car manufacturers for young people driving and killing themselves or others? No.

Not surprised. It’s an unwinnable argument.<p>However, I stand by my belief that Social Media is a cancer on society. I divide history between “before Twitter” and “after Twitter”. Facebook went to shit when they started copying Twitter.

Governments need to legislate what they want. In this case - something like children - say under 16 not to have access to social media - such as Facebook. The penalty for allowing access ( contrary to the new proposed legislation ) needs to be hugh. Like jail for company executives. And if can not be done after some date the service needs to be close down the social media service. (This is similar to what happens with gambling services. )

- They &quot;trust me&quot;. Dumb f*cks - Mark Zuckerberg

Recently there was this post about how bureaucracy structures itself to remove any responsibility.<p>Apparently free market enterprises are not that different after all, they happen to collect all profits and those who run these systems don&#x27;t have liability.<p>I&#x27;m extremely curious how would the upcoming version of USA work as people who collected all the profits kept complaining endlessly and beared no responsibility for any problems are about to run it. Very interesting times.

This has got to be literally the dumbest batch of random blame being thrown around to explain &quot;people get a dopamine hit when people like your posts and comments&quot; which gets compounded when it&#x27;s people you know IRL. Reddit and HN make it an explicit part of the platform by <i>keeping score</i>.<p>Like no shit people, attention is addicting. This has been the cause of people doing stupid things since the dawn of community. Platforms providing the community &#x2F; audience aren&#x27;t responsible for the high of being on stage.

&quot;Too rich to be liable&quot;. What a shame. Someday people will realize what he is responsible for. But if a poor man sells weed to kids, or even worse, truly addictive drugs...

&gt; But the judge found a lack of specifics about what Zuckerberg did wrong, and said “control of corporate activity alone is insufficient” to establish liability. Her decision does not affect related claims against Meta itself.<p>So direct evidence that Zuck directed the wrongdoing was not given. If it was, Zuck would know precisely what he has to defend himself against.<p>Instead, Zuck was labeled responsible by the plaintiff because he could stop the harm and did not stop the harm. This is not something anyone can defend themselves against. For starters, Zuck would have to admit that harm was done to be able to defend himself.<p>Secondly, the method of harm should lead directly to him. Without a trial establishing the method of harm that was taken, he is not able to defend himself.<p>What were the AGs thinking? Are they complicit in making the case weak enough for public dismissal.?

And know ask the same judge about copyright violations through social media

&gt;&quot;control of corporate activity alone is insufficient&quot;<p>Compare with Pavel Durov.<p>&gt;&quot;Her decision does not affect related claims against Meta itself.&quot;<p>Does not smell right in combination with the first statement

And even if he was, he is a billionaire, so he wouldn&#x27;t be held accountable