Discussion:

Did Meta's Big Settlement Actually Help It?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49464678

Meta reaches $17B settlement over social media harms to children

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49448819

These arguments are not very strong. It also makes the assumption that these platforms are the only possible place on the web for minors to get information. That's only true because these platforms literally made it that way. It also makes the absolutely insane assumption that children are on there consuming meaningful content and not literal brain rotting slop or worse.

There's no amount of mental gymnastics in my head I can think of to get to the conclusion this is bad for children, somehow. Bad for the web and privacy? I don't doubt it will become that way, but that's the world we already exist in, and again, no other large players are behaving well there either. That's an entirely different battle that should never have been mixed in with this one.

Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?