this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
41 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

1232 readers
350 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The states' filings are sealed, but at a court hearing in June they said they were calculating the penalties by multiplying the number of violations by fine amounts set by state law. The number of violations is based on the estimated number of teens and young users affected by Meta's actions, the states said.

Twenty-nine states have sued Meta in ​federal court, most of them alleging the company violated the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting data from children without proper parental consent. ​The trial in August before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will address all claims brought under that law, plus the four states’ allegations that the company violated their ‌state laws ⁠protecting consumers by misleading them about the safety of their platforms.

Meta has denied the allegations, saying the attorneys general have no evidence it misled consumers about its platforms' alleged addictiveness because "social media addiction" is not an established psychiatric condition, and therefore statements that its platforms were not addictive could not be false.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DrPop@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Because there is no basis for social media addiction on the word of law, it's invalid? Is that what their lawyers are arguing?