6 ms·

So if I write a book that your kid just can't stop reading it over and over again because I deliberately made it compulsively re-readable, and then your kid dev

So if I write a book that your kid just can't stop reading it over and over again because I deliberately made it compulsively re-readable, and then your kid develops some kind of issues because my book is so interesting to him, you can sue me and win? I don't like that idea. Personally, I value free speech more than some supposed "harms" done to children by content. Content that they can easily stop consuming by just closing the app.

rlpb 21d ago
It's established that exposing children to bad things causes harm. This isn't specific to technology. "Free speech" isn't a concept that applies to the exposure of harmful speech to children.
- SpicyLemonZest 21d ago
  "Free speech" is definitely a concept that applies to the exposure of harmful speech to children. That's why there's no law on the topic; the Child Online Protection Act was overturned, and organizations like the EFF have been opposing recent attempts (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/house-passed-kids-act-senate-should-reject-it https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/house-passed-kids-act-...) to pass a new one.
65 21d ago
I agree, I should be allowed to give children my amazing crystal meth, it's such an untapped market.
- Ajedi32 21d ago
  There's a law against that. There's currently no law against making a website so fun that kids will waste all their time playing with it if their parents let them.
  - 65 21d ago
    And how did we create the law against giving children crystal meth in the first place? At a certain point in time, there was no law against it.
    - Ajedi32 20d ago
      How? Certainly not by judicial fiat. I'm not saying I'm against passing laws on this subject. My point is that no such laws currently exist, but a bunch of lawyers and judges just decided Facebook owes $17B for breaking these non-existent laws anyway.
DonHopkins 21d ago
Yeah, and all you perverts stop telling Grok to produce kiddie porn, because Elon is a free speech absolutist who absolutely believes in his own free speech, and your own personal responsibility to close his kiddie porn generation app. So if somebody uses it to generate pictures of your children, you can easily stop consuming by just closing the app.
jimmyjazz14 21d ago
Agreed, this is just setting the stage for requiring age verification (and surveillance) under the pretense of "saving the children".
- Ajedi32 21d ago
  If you can get sued for $16B for not having age verification then it's already required.
- Scaled 21d ago
  This is the part all the articles are glossing over. If the settlement terms include age (identity) verification, this is a big loss for everyone's privacy. The plaintiffs will take this template and apply it to other networks like Discord and push to normalize id collection everywhere.
billynomates 21d ago
[flagged]
Der_Einzige 21d ago
Yup! I hate meta too but this case wasn’t the right way to take them down. Glad they got away with it.
yodsanklai 21d ago
I don't think this has to do with free speech. If companies can deliberately harm kids, they should be regulated.
- Ajedi32 21d ago
  This isn't regulation. If it was regulation, Meta could just read the regulation and comply and they'd be in the clear. This is the judicial branch making up and enforcing regulations that don't exist based on their own personal opinions about what causes "harm". No way to know what you need to do to comply until after you're already getting sued.
  - intended 21d ago
    > personal opinions about what causes "harm " Source that it was their personal opinion? I've personally read multiple research papers, worked in the field, AND read the transcripts where people at Meta told their leadership that their choices were causing harm. For years. Sorry, but have you read the details of the case, or am I missing something?
    - Ajedi32 21d ago
      So if a person at your company claims you're "causing harm" in a vague, indirect way that's not explicitly against the law, you're legally obligated to both agree with them and change your whole business model to accommodate that? Apparently yes, but I personally think that's pretty dumb. And no I haven't read all the details, it's an extremely broad settlement that apparently covers everything from vague allegations of harm caused by social media addiction to Cambridge Analytica's misuse of data obtained through Facebook's API. There are too many claims to investigate all of them individually in detail without making that a full time job, so I'm speaking in broad terms here about how I think our legal system ought to function.
      - intended 21d ago
        What in ? > Meta shut down internal research into the mental health effects of Facebook after finding causal evidence that its products harmed users’ mental health, according to unredacted filings in a lawsuit by U.S. school districts against Meta and other social media platforms. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-buried-causal-evidence-social-media-harm-us-court-filings-allege-2025-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... This is researchers and internal teams finding causal evidence of harm from their products. Not just once either. This case is one of the most significant cases of our time. None of this is based on some random person at work having an opinion. Separately, How does it not being your full time job, save you from having to back up your opinion or your own thoughts? I fully recognize you don't have to be an expert on my neck of the woods, so sharing info is natural. But you are doubling down after I am giving you information. Do you think that the lawyers for meta, the courts and the plaintiffs would have gotten away with such throw away arguments?
jleehn 21d ago
There's an appreciable difference between creating a compelling work within an established medium like literature and inventing a (digital) machine that exploits psychological vulnerabilities (ie intermittent reward cravings) to keep the target engaged. > Content that they can easily stop consuming by just closing the app. If staying away from social media is this trivial to you I applaud your self discipline but googling 'social media addiction' suggests a very real phenomenon where people, children and adults alike, often find themselves incapable of self regulating their usage.

rlpb 21d ago

It's established that exposing children to bad things causes harm. This isn't specific to technology. "Free speech" isn't a concept that applies to the exposure of harmful speech to children.

SpicyLemonZest 21d ago
"Free speech" is definitely a concept that applies to the exposure of harmful speech to children. That's why there's no law on the topic; the Child Online Protection Act was overturned, and organizations like the EFF have been opposing recent attempts (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/house-passed-kids-act-senate-should-reject-it https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/house-passed-kids-act-...) to pass a new one.

65 21d ago

I agree, I should be allowed to give children my amazing crystal meth, it's such an untapped market.

Ajedi32 21d ago
There's a law against that. There's currently no law against making a website so fun that kids will waste all their time playing with it if their parents let them.
- 65 21d ago
  And how did we create the law against giving children crystal meth in the first place? At a certain point in time, there was no law against it.
  - Ajedi32 20d ago
    How? Certainly not by judicial fiat. I'm not saying I'm against passing laws on this subject. My point is that no such laws currently exist, but a bunch of lawyers and judges just decided Facebook owes $17B for breaking these non-existent laws anyway.

DonHopkins 21d ago

Yeah, and all you perverts stop telling Grok to produce kiddie porn, because Elon is a free speech absolutist who absolutely believes in his own free speech, and your own personal responsibility to close his kiddie porn generation app. So if somebody uses it to generate pictures of your children, you can easily stop consuming by just closing the app.

jimmyjazz14 21d ago

Agreed, this is just setting the stage for requiring age verification (and surveillance) under the pretense of "saving the children".

Ajedi32 21d ago
If you can get sued for $16B for not having age verification then it's already required.
Scaled 21d ago
This is the part all the articles are glossing over. If the settlement terms include age (identity) verification, this is a big loss for everyone's privacy. The plaintiffs will take this template and apply it to other networks like Discord and push to normalize id collection everywhere.

billynomates 21d ago

[flagged]

Der_Einzige 21d ago

Yup! I hate meta too but this case wasn’t the right way to take them down. Glad they got away with it.

yodsanklai 21d ago

I don't think this has to do with free speech. If companies can deliberately harm kids, they should be regulated.

Ajedi32 21d ago
This isn't regulation. If it was regulation, Meta could just read the regulation and comply and they'd be in the clear. This is the judicial branch making up and enforcing regulations that don't exist based on their own personal opinions about what causes "harm". No way to know what you need to do to comply until after you're already getting sued.
- intended 21d ago
  > personal opinions about what causes "harm " Source that it was their personal opinion? I've personally read multiple research papers, worked in the field, AND read the transcripts where people at Meta told their leadership that their choices were causing harm. For years. Sorry, but have you read the details of the case, or am I missing something?
  - Ajedi32 21d ago
    So if a person at your company claims you're "causing harm" in a vague, indirect way that's not explicitly against the law, you're legally obligated to both agree with them and change your whole business model to accommodate that? Apparently yes, but I personally think that's pretty dumb. And no I haven't read all the details, it's an extremely broad settlement that apparently covers everything from vague allegations of harm caused by social media addiction to Cambridge Analytica's misuse of data obtained through Facebook's API. There are too many claims to investigate all of them individually in detail without making that a full time job, so I'm speaking in broad terms here about how I think our legal system ought to function.
    - intended 21d ago
      What in ? > Meta shut down internal research into the mental health effects of Facebook after finding causal evidence that its products harmed users’ mental health, according to unredacted filings in a lawsuit by U.S. school districts against Meta and other social media platforms. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-buried-causal-evidence-social-media-harm-us-court-filings-allege-2025-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... This is researchers and internal teams finding causal evidence of harm from their products. Not just once either. This case is one of the most significant cases of our time. None of this is based on some random person at work having an opinion. Separately, How does it not being your full time job, save you from having to back up your opinion or your own thoughts? I fully recognize you don't have to be an expert on my neck of the woods, so sharing info is natural. But you are doubling down after I am giving you information. Do you think that the lawyers for meta, the courts and the plaintiffs would have gotten away with such throw away arguments?

jleehn 21d ago

There's an appreciable difference between creating a compelling work within an established medium like literature and inventing a (digital) machine that exploits psychological vulnerabilities (ie intermittent reward cravings) to keep the target engaged. > Content that they can easily stop consuming by just closing the app. If staying away from social media is this trivial to you I applaud your self discipline but googling 'social media addiction' suggests a very real phenomenon where people, children and adults alike, often find themselves incapable of self regulating their usage.