Discussion
Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms
sharkjacobs: > The New Mexico attorney general’s office created multiple fake Facebook and Instagram profiles posing as children as part of its investigation into Meta. Those test accounts encountered sexually suggestive content and requests to share pornographic content, the suit alleges.> The fake child accounts were allegedly contacted and solicited for sex by the three New Mexico adult men who were arrested in May of 2024. Two of the three men were arrested at a motel, where they allegedly believed they would be meeting up with a 12-year-old girl, based on their conversations with the decoy accounts.and> “The product is very good at connecting people with interests, and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls,” Bejar said.This is what it's about right? The article doesn't make it seem like encryption is meaningfully part of this case at all.> Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.There's no indication that that decision, or the announcement, are directly related to the trial, just they just happened at the same time? It's a link drawn by CNN, without presenting any clear connection
johnea: Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts)They very much want to push this liability off onto someone else...As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.
tzs: > Another poster child for Meta's lobbying (bribery) to encourage OS level age verification. (numerous recent references in HN posts)The references I saw showed Meta had lobbied for some of the laws that require age verification be done by the site or by third party ID services. They did not show that Meta lobbied for any of the OS bills.Some showed that Meta had lobbied in some of the states with those bills, but they just showed Meta's total lobbying budget for those states.
Aurornis: > As far as end-to-end encryption, on SM sites (social media or SadoMasochism, however you want to read it) I don't really see the need.You don't see any benefit to allowing people to encrypt their private communications in a way that can't be accessed by the company?It's weird to see tech news commenters swing from being pro-privacy to anti-privacy when the topic of social media sites come up.
Retric: I generally support e2e encryption for 1 v 1 communication between associates.But the point of social media is connecting with people in a wider context. Social media just seems at odds with e2ee as a concept even if technically you can implement such systems you’re losing a great deal of the value the platform can provide. HN as a platform only works because anyone can moderate posts.
Aurornis: Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption:> The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversation — could make it harder for law enforcement to catch predators. Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.The New York case has explicitly gone after their support of end-to-end encryption as a target: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warn...
gzread: Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security?We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
cristoperb: > We all know Meta can still read E2EE chatsThat can't be true, otherwise in what sense is it E2EE?
interestpiqued: I mean you can read it in your app and they're not just stored on your phone. E2E just means in transport from what I understand.
gzread: In the sense that calling it E2EE gives people a warm fuzzy feeling and makes people send more sensitive information over the platform.Has anyone actually audited it?
themafia: > Many will cheer for any case that hurts MetaAbsolutely. Particularly where they've been found to be guilty.> but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryptionWhy _social media_ companies are backtracking. I'm extremely nonplussed by this outcome.> concerns that allowing teensYes, because that's what we all had in mind when considering the victims and perpetrators of these crimes.
kstrauser: You were downvoted, but right. Meta wants to be able to say, "hey, the OS said she was 18!" and not get in trouble for it.Online child exploitation should be a strict liability offense.
idle_zealot: How does this apply to, say, Signal?
gzread: That's why Signal uses phone numbers as identifiers. You can't talk to people you don't know. And if you do spam random numbers, they'll report you to the police and you can be tracked down based on your identifier, which does not leak your chats between you and people you actually know.
gzread: Meta has a way to read your E2EE messages. I don't know what it is, but if they didn't then they wouldn't do it.There's a difference between E2EE between friends who want to remain secure, and E2EE between strangers in an attempt for the platform to avoid legal liability for spam.
pylua: I’m actually okay with not letting under age people use e2e. I’m not okay with blocking everyone. I have 2 kids.
fourside: I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.
SAI_Peregrinus: E2EE means end-to-end, where the ends are the participants in the chat. They can read it on your phone, but not on their servers. They need their app to separately transmit the plaintext to their servers to read it.
throwaway173738: Which is technically possible.
hsbauauvhabzb: The problem is all these ‘for the children’ arguments contain collateral damage.
babelfish: Probably their auditors? Lying about this would be tantamount to (very serious) securities fraud. Not sure what you're basing on your allegations on besides "trust me bro"
kelseyfrog: Not providing your age to use services is like walking around with a bag over your head. It's cringe. Go around like that and see how many establishments let you in.
whatshisface: I'm not comfortable with the idea that children's private messages would be exposed to thousands of social media workers and government employees.
skybrian: Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.
throwaway27727: Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. They take a look at the birthdate and wave me forward.
kelseyfrog: > Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name.What are you talking about. Have you really never rented a car before?
pylua: It does seem like it could potentially be used to enforce mass surveillance over the people of the United States
triceratops: I have kids. I don't want creeps and predators spying on their conversations with friends.
pylua: That's true, I didn't consider that
deepsun: I cheer any decision that holds any private web property (like Facebook) accountable for it's user actions.It helps to reduce hegemony of large social platforms and promotes privately owned websites. For example, I know everyone who has permissions to post on my website (or pre-moderate strangers comments), and is ready to take responsibility for their posts, what my website publishes.Currently the legal stance seems strange to me -- large media platforms are allowed to store, distribute, rank and sell strangers data, while at the same time they claim they are not responsible for it.
simmerup: Alphabet can grep your emails, Amazon has literal microphones and cameras in most peoples housesThat ship has sailed
noosphr: You just need to provide the government with your name and address and the name and address of the counter party every time you send an encrypted message.If you don't support this you're obviously a pedo nazi terrorist.
triceratops: And many don't. Bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies.
kelseyfrog: We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too.It honestly looks like an emotional panic. People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves.
jMyles: https://web.archive.org/web/20210522003136/https://blog.nucy...
mjevans: The correct nuance here is...* Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent)* Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice)In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus.Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that without supervision / some setting that the user agent is operated by a child intend to allow their children to interact with strangers. This tends to work out better in more controlled and limited circumstances where the adults involved have the resources to provide suitable supervision.At the same time, any requirements should apply only to commercial products. Community (gratis / not for profit) efforts presumably reflect the needs of a given community.
kelseyfrog: > Classifying accounts as child accountsIt's ok to drive Dad's truck unless he catches you and tells you no.
pylua: Yes google analyzes everything you upload to it and if it finds a violation will report to the proper gov agencies.It is actually terrifying . If you write something out of context or upload an image out of context you can be in big trouble.
