3/26/2026 at 11:22:20 AM
by ColinWright
3/26/2026 at 7:54:27 PM
https://archive.ph/2026.03.26-194754/https://www.bbc.com/new...by mitchbob
3/26/2026 at 12:29:56 PM
I am biased: fully support the main ideas from Center Human Technology, books like Privacy is Power and Surveillance Capitalism, etc.This verdict is a good thing for society. I am not anti-big tech, but big tech must accept responsibility for externalities created by profit first and screw over the public business models.
For me, this is a confusing/complex set of issues: I want to see humanity thrive and tech can play a positive role in that, but with the current ‘almost fascist’ collusion of our current regime with most big tech leaders, I am worried that we won’t get the kind of protective laws we need.
I appreciate this verdict!
by mark_l_watson
3/26/2026 at 2:22:56 PM
We know they are going to appeal this verdict. However, the entire problem is actually a parental skill issue.This is clearly a veiled excuse using 'protecting the children' (despite already having parental controls) to impose on everyone and rolling out more digital surveillance of everything much quicker.
When you talk about 'protective laws' do you not realize that this will extend far beyond social media platforms?
by rvz
3/26/2026 at 3:47:57 PM
We have plenty of protective laws. Most dangerously addictive substances and activities are heavily regulated. Children aren’t allowed in Casinos or allowed to buy weed. Social media is known to be addictive and destructive. It has to be for FB to make large profit.by danny_codes
3/26/2026 at 1:50:13 PM
I fear this is a move towards government control of social media. I'd rather have Mark Zuckerberg control my Facebook feed than OFCOM. If they could, they'd prevent any content they felt harmed their agenda and introduce mandatory algorithmic boosts to friendly newspapers or public service broadcasters.by spacebanana7