Mark Zuckerberg to testify in landmark social media trial (ft.com)

Paywall article, sadly but understandable

As someone who was working there in a technical role while all this shit was going on... I've never breathed easier than the day I quit

[dead]

Of course he did: Zuckerberg has shown countless times that he's morally bankrupt: Each time, when given the choice (and regulatory landscape is gray) even with full knowledge of internal experts advising him against, he chose profits, even if "move fast and break things" includes the very society he and we all live in. (<- see current state of the world)

Voters overrule countless well-being experts to keep alcohol available everywhere.

This seems like entirely normal human behavior at every level of society, no? Of course asking Zuckerberg is a bit like asking a bartender, but we know very well that it's not only bartenders who'd be against stopping alcohol sales.

It is strange to condemn Zuckerberg for doing this unless you're also willing to implement the all the other (vastly more important) advice from wellbeing experts that we as a society have pretty decisively rejected.

> They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks.

[flagged]

Unironically, Zuckerberg should be in the Hague. We tried people in Nuremberg for less than he has done in his life.

I suggest anyone who hasn’t reads Careless People.

Everyone I passed my copy around to has left Facebook almost instantly. Zuck is just one of the worst humans on the planet.

Questions, as the article is paywalled and I don't know:

* what in Earth is a "wellbeing expert".

This title sounds entirely made up, and I doubt there is such a degree.

If there is no degree, what were they basing their recommendations on?

What research? Papers?

If they have no formal schooling, what makes them experts or not?

Were these just Meta employees?

If they are, were other Meta employees equally skilled saying it was OK?

Ah well. Maybe the article says.

Somebody should tell him that the character of Mr Burns in The Simpsons was meant to be a satirical parody of evil tycoons, not a role model.

I'd wager that one day, his grandchildren (possibly even children), are going to call for his arrest and imprisonment, as a means to stop themselves being judged for his sins.

> Mark Zuckerberg overruled 18 wellbeing experts to keep beauty filters on Insta

Is there a source for this? The article doesn't seem to mention it. On that topic, should we update the title to match the article title?

I don't see the problem. He's offering a completely legal product to an eager audience. If people want to propose banning social media in some capacity, that could and should be voted on-- but Zuck isn't violating any legal or moral law I've ever heard of, and he shouldn't have to guess what products will be illegal in 20 years and preemptively withdraw them.

If it's harming your mental health, stop using it. The "Delete App" button is right there.

[flagged]

So the new wave of reptiloid zuck memes incoming.

Regardless of the verdict, I suspect the long-term impact will be more about design norms than liability

There was a blip of time when Mark Zuckerberg seemed to be somewhat human, maybe the last couple of years, but since then he's shown what kind of guy he really is, that he doesn't really care.

He really had a chance.

Original HN title: Mark Zuckerberg overruled 18 wellbeing experts to keep beauty filters on Insta

[dead]

The Epstein Harvard roofie class, of which Zuck is a product, views women and girls as nonhuman property, so of course beauty filters were kept.

How does US products liability law work (personal injury plaintiffs)

How does US public nuisance law work (local government/school district plaintiffs)

For example,

what are the claims

what do the plaintiffs have to prove to succeed

what about strict liability

what about causation

what about duty to warn

and so on

Here are the master complaints for

(a) the personal injury plaintiffs

https://dn710108.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.40...

(b) the local government/school district plaintiffs

https://dn710108.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.cand.40...

The defendants have not had much success in dismissing any of the plaintiffs' claims nor in excluding plaintiffs' experts' testimony (so far)

e.g., https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.40...

In the Google antitrust litigation Google resorted to unusual, creative tactics to avoid a jury trial

Will a jury get to decide on the plaintiffs' claims here, or will the remaining defendants settle

We will know soon enough

Then HN can return to 100% "AI" topics

But a substantial portion of the evidence gathered in this litigation will live on in the public record; not everything is sealed

There was a time before so-called "social media" when personal websites did not force visitor to "sign in", when personal websites did not have millions of pages, let alone millions of pages authored by other people, and when a third party's personal website was not used by members of the public to communicate with each other "directly" while being surveilled by the website's operator, who aims to sell them out to advertisers

The internet is still in its infancy. It's still evolving

Works where archive.ph is blocked, no CAPTCHAs, no Javascript:

   printf '%s\r\n%s\r\n%s\r\n\r\n' \
   "GET /content/0c6d8ff6-f207-431b-bfb9-1d8b42bb4b6d HTTP/1.0" \
   "host: www.ft.com" \
   "user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Java) outbrain" \
   |busybox ssl_client www.wsj.com  >1.htm
   firefox ./1.htm