Wow.. That is quite a statement. Am I right in saying that in order to claim for the class action lawsuit, which facebook has been 'found negligent', that the victims need to take an action collectively in order to claim ? IE They need to be reached somehow to inform them of the possibility ?
Seems the most obvious place to advertise would be Meta.
I understand Meta can basically do whatever they like with their ToS but the statement from the Meta spokesperson seems like an extremely bad idea.
The 20$ dollars people get is nothing but a guise that the trial lawyers are helping people.
It's to allow companies to not have to deal with individual claims for each person. I see that the ranges can be substantial though, several thousands, but seems to be criteria.
> Nearly nine months later, Mark received a notification that his claim had been approved. Two weeks after that, $186 was deposited into his bank account. While the amount wasn’t substantial, it covered a grocery run and a phone bill—and more importantly, it reminded him that companies can be held accountable, even in small ways. [0]
[0] https://peopleforlaw.com/blog/how-much-do-people-typically-g...
If the fine's don't dissuade companies from bad practices, the class actions with theoreticaly no upper limit might be a better option to enforce proper behaviour.
These people are one of the few people holding Meta accountable for their evil acts and because of that you call them "scummiest people in the US"
That's nonsense.
They don't even bother trying to get more when they can, because they're just bottom feeding.
As they say, "95% of lawyers give the remaining 5% a bad name."
At the same time, 99% of social networks give the remaining 1% a bad name.
I wonder if that is what will happen next.
k33n•1h ago
Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.
gilrain•1h ago
nkrisc•1h ago
wnevets•1h ago
mc32•1h ago
pixl97•1h ago
This is not how it works when you're found guilty of committing harm. Tobacco companies are a good example of this.
mc32•55m ago
k33n•49m ago
If they went back to operating as “friends and family feed providers” then letting them keep their 230 immunity would be easier to justify.
wbobeirne•32m ago
TheCoelacanth•16m ago
When they are making editorial decisions about what to content to promote to you and what content to hide from you, then they should lose it.
schubidubiduba•1h ago
raincole•59m ago
Fraterkes•5m ago
zeroonetwothree•10m ago
mywittyname•3m ago
3form•1h ago
Mine is that it could then well be required to do so by law. Companies are not individuals, so I don't think they are owed any freedoms beyond what is best for utility they can provide.
iinnPP•1h ago
It's not just a Meta issue either.
pixl97•1h ago
Meta can go fuck themselves with a chainsaw if they think they can produce a harmful product without consequences.
streetfighter64•1h ago
Larrikin•59m ago
mirashii•54m ago
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...
freejazz•54m ago
hashmap•49m ago
Zigurd•43m ago
swiftcoder•41m ago
Is their defence of Section 230 protections not in part rooted in that claim of impartiality?
nradov•34m ago
hansvm•25m ago
You don't even have to invoke the idea that Meta is big enough to be regulated as a public utility for this to have broad precedent in favor of forcing a malicious actor to inform its victims that they might be entitled to a small fraction of their losses in compensation.
zeroonetwothree•9m ago