Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the lawsuit in the article draws a reasonable, if not conservative, line at knowingly exploiting vulnerable people to boost profits, which a whistleblower is saying Meta is doing. It's not just that the product is harming people, but that it is going out of its way to harm people. Is open decentralized social media doing this?

There are restrictions around advertising for cigarettes, I think for the same reason. To take it a step further in discussing around cars, I think companies who sell certain sized trucks are aware of the blind spots that make it hard to see people in certain spots. Reasonably, these trucks should be banned, or at least more conservatively, no new trucks with this flaw should be built or sold or require a commercial license.



> knowingly > exploitable > vulnerable

None of these are cut and dry. How vulnerable does someone have to be before you can exploit them? How harmful does the behavior have to be before it’s exploitation? What is “knowingly” in an organization? How should events be handled if it’s a single engineer operating in the shadows vs a board decision? etc etc etc

The answers to these question may seem obvious to you, and someone else nay have a completely different answer that seems equally obvious to them.


It's not about any of our opinions. As the article says, there is a whistleblower from Meta saying that this is documented. The lawsuit is what's going to sort it out.


The internal study presented by the whistleblower actually found that Instagram made users feel better more often than it made them feel worse: https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...


That just means it’s about the opinion of the government, which isn’t much better in my opinion (and is arguably worse).


No, it means it's the opinion of the jury. Their job is to determine fact.


> it is going out of its way to harm people

I'm having a very hard time buying this. I may be wrong but I'd assume that Meta is audited and well-regulated. Besides, the company is very transparent. I know a bunch of people working there and they don't strike me as people who would purposely harm people. Besides, every employee has access to the whole code base and freely talk about what they work on. I don't believe in some conspiracy.

That being said, it's perfectly reasonable that we keep these companies under the microscope given the power they have, and they may be making mistakes.

> Is open decentralized social media doing this?

Arguably, decentralized social media without moderation would be more harmful than Facebook/Instagram.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: