Or the settlements goes to the state and no one ever sees a dollar.

My guess: to discriminate whether traffic is from a humam or bot to improve ad delivery metrics.

Of course it's for the protection of the children!

Why else would they want to sneakily add facial recognition to smart glasses?! /s https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses-f...

Meta is like one giant cancer that grew a few small tumors of benign[1] nature, like some of their efforts in open source and open research (React, Llama, etc.).

[1]: I could be wrong thinking those are benign.

This. Meta made $60B in net income in 2025.

"We went a little over the line to figure out where the line is, so, we can now guarantee you, dear shareholder, that we're extracting the absolute maximum possible value! Isn't that splendid!"

Two things can be true, and I am in the same boat. Should the next generation have their brains fried by ad-tech corporations and their algorithms? Absolutely not. Should the overdue off-ramp from this trend be the on-ramp to mass-surveillance and government overreach? Also a firm no.

Meta is lobbying to push age verification to the OS level.

I have read the OSINT report from Reddit. The data it has is being interpreted as Meta orchestrating a global lobbying scheme.

However the data is equally if not more supportive of Meta simply taking advantage of global political sentiment to position itself better.

I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but the HN zeitgeist seems to be resistant to the idea that tech is the “bad guy” today.

I work in trust and safety, and have near front row seats to all the insanity playing out today.