this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
422 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
87627 readers
4140 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That story contains a list of features agreed on in the settlement ( https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.401490/gov.uscourts.cand.401490.3447.1.pdf ). I'm seeing a lot of disinfo here about what this lawsuit was about.
So, more powergrabs by the state to force these invasive anti-features down everyone's throats.
I really despise the suckers falling for thin pretexts of "child safety" & "mental health" as excuses to assault our liberties and the free flow of information with measures enabling authorities to more closely track & control our activities on information systems of all things.
While I appreciate that they intend to block extreme makeup or cosmetic surgery filters, I don't see anything about blocking AI-generated content that could be similarly harmful.
There's this:
This means suppressing looksmaxxing, or ana-mia, but also discussions of mental health, or trans issues. Suppressing deviant ideas is certainly the main point. If that will help with anorexia and such issues is doubtful, as far as I know.
Oof, suppressing discussion of trans issues and mental health will go very badly for some teenagers
In other words they want age verification laws so they can make their dangerous addictive product less addictive for teens specifically?
Not really.
Say, which features would you like for yourself? One could include them in Fediverse clients.
100% the non algorithmic feed, they word it as only being available to teens. I want that, and I'm old.
Lemmy already has that. Or are you looking for non-personalized recommendations?
that's why I'm here :) was talking about social media in general, fb insta etc. any auto recommendation I'd want to throw out. of course popular, hot new most comment etc are fine when there's an option
No! Algorithm bad because reasons.
Sorting by hot or active is an algorithm. Hell, sorting by post recency is too.
No infinite scrolling is a big one, making one have to manually go to the next page of content helps add natural break points.
I think it should be possible to change the behavior of scrolling globally via browser plugin. Maybe there is already a plugin? I made a note to look into it. No promises.
Using an app that lets me block apps on my device with built-in safety features to stop me from cheating, I’ve finally got a hold of my social media usage (and going away from Instagram and Reddit, that helped too). Thing is, I’m a grown-ass adult, and it still was that hard for me to do it. Two hours a day is still so much fucking time. And across two services, too, there is three more social media channels they can spend 2 hours each on and suddenly you spent 8 hours a day online. This agreement is shit.
The self-control issues you wrote about seem a you problem. I don't imagine any agreement out there fixing that unless we assume we can't treat you like an autonomous adult making grown-ass choices when you know what you're getting into, so an authority must step in to stop you from yourself. Surrendering that to authority frankly goes against the social contract that respects individuals' basic liberties.
I mean, we don’t allow some substances to be consumed by certain age groups, or people altogether. But that is only the most glaring flaw in your argument, I’m sure if I wouldn’t half-ass my answer like you did, I could find more.
And this gist of the article is that a lot of that would violate the First Amendment if the government forced Meta to do it, and putting it in a settlement instead of a law and making it an "industry standard" is just a way for the government to get around that.
Am I reading this incorrectly or is Meta mandated by the settlement to lobby for age assurance legistaltion?
I think it's more the states/governments that are expected to force the same onto Meta's competitors.
Wait...so we... w-w-w-won?
We did not.