this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
324 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

83027 readers
3534 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A New Mexico jury ruled Tuesday that Meta knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case.

Jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety. The jury determined Meta violated parts of the state's Unfair Practices Act on accusations the company hid what it knew about about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms and impacts on child mental health.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BigTrout75@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

I guess the crime was worth it for Meta

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

$375m?

$375 fucking million?

For how many hundreds of millions of children did Meta harm, and to pay a fucking pittance. Fucking CSAM is a slap on the wrist for the rich.

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 2 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

Which is why I'm all for killing anyone who enables this shit. I'm so fucking tired of being manipulated by the rich, who's causing harm to millions of people, but as long as they get more money, the don't care.

Well guess what: I don't care about you, and I would happily become a martyr if I'd have the chance of taking you down with me!

I know this comment will be deleted due to "community guidelines", but here it is: kill 👏 the 👏 rich👏!

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 41 minutes ago

We need to enact age verification laws to protect the kids tho!

Who're we protecting them from? Apparently not the people doing it.

Ah. Of course it's New Mexico. Don't know, but I'd bet there's a statutory cap on judgments. Like around $5,000 a criminal violation, regardless what it is.

Well that law is going to change fast

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 3 points 2 hours ago

Meta sucks, but not for the reasons claimed by the state. It's bad for everyone's mental health, and the best fix shouldn't be apology money and undoing end-to-end encryption but restructuring with robust parental controls and making it so it doesn't constantly encourage you to interact with strangers.

[–] pant0crator@lemmy.zip 21 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

We should be glad that tech comoanies are finally getting some warmth on the arse about this.

Dear reader, I'm not sure if you follow Chris Hansen's podcast, but he currently has a series in regards to the ongoing investigations into Roblox and their alleged and apparent housing + protection of pedophiles.

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 2 points 7 hours ago

That's really awesome. Go Hanson!

[–] artifex@piefed.social 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

While a win, it’s pocket change for Meta, who will be further disincentivized to fix the problem when even a loss is so cheap.

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That's less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.

Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion and the company's stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news.

Juror Linda Payton, 38, said the jury reached a compromise on the estimated number of teenagers affected by Meta's platforms, while opting for the maximum penalty per violation. With a maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation, she said she thought each child was worth the maximum amount.

[–] ElectricAirship@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Seriously need to up the maximum fine

[–] artifex@piefed.social 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Seriously. When downloading an MP3 carries a fine of $30,000 to as much as $150,000 per download, damages of a measly $5,000 maximum for facilitating, enabling and even encouraging child exploitation is beyond insulting.

You're comparing federal and state laws is part of the reason. Feds carry the big stick

[–] org@lemmy.org 40 points 9 hours ago

Zuck has that cash between the cushions of his couch. This is hardly a fine. It should be 10% of income. That will make them obey fast.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

...But not X/Grok for actually creating CSAM?

I'll take the win against Zuck, maybe the Elongated Muskrat should be worried?

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 27 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Were they part of the case? Did this trial start before that even happened?

Your sentiment makes sense. But what you wrote is illogical when you consider the timelines.

AFAIK, lawsuits about grok were just filed in the past few weeks.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly. Justice is not fast food. It takes more than a few weeks or even months to go through the steps.

Yup. If that case is over within two years it's because of shenanigans

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's entirely likely several teams of lawyers were waiting for this ruling to create precedent.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Jury trials do not create precedent. Think about it. You're a judge or lawyer. Are you going to leave something as incredibly consequential as precedent up to 12 untrained hill folk?

NOTE TO SELF to get out of jury duty next time wear butt flap overalls

[–] Davel23@fedia.io 6 points 9 hours ago

I love seeing Meta take it in the ass, but this seems like it could be a building block for future age/ID verification laws.