Meta - Revision history

Rudxain: wp-link FB, also bold-fmt

2026-04-26T02:21:54Z

wp-link FB, also bold-fmt

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 26 April 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	}}		}}

	[[wikipedia:Meta_Platforms\|'''Meta Platforms, Inc.''']], formerly known as Facebook, is a multinational technology conglomerate primarily known for its social media platforms, including Facebook, [[Instagram]], [[WhatsApp]], and Messenger. Founded in 2004 by [[Mark Zuckerberg]], Facebook quickly grew into one of the largest social networks in the world. Over the years, the company has expanded its business model, incorporating advertising, data collection, and virtual reality products, with a focus on connecting users globally.		[[wikipedia:Meta_Platforms\|'''Meta Platforms, Inc.''']], formerly known as '''Facebook''', is a multinational technology conglomerate primarily known for its social media platforms, including [[wikipedia:Facebook\|Facebook]], [[Instagram]], [[WhatsApp]], and Messenger. Founded in 2004 by [[Mark Zuckerberg]], Facebook quickly grew into one of the largest social networks in the world. Over the years, the company has expanded its business model, incorporating advertising, data collection, and virtual reality products, with a focus on connecting users globally.

	In 2021, Facebook rebranded itself as Meta, signaling its shift toward a broader vision focused on the "metaverse" – a virtual-reality, interconnected digital world. Meta has faced ongoing scrutiny over issues related to consumer privacy, data security, content moderation, and its role in spreading misinformation. The company has been involved in several high-profile regulatory and legal challenges, particularly regarding its handling of user data and its impact on user well-being.		In 2021, Facebook rebranded itself as Meta, signaling its shift toward a broader vision focused on the "metaverse" – a virtual-reality, interconnected digital world. Meta has faced ongoing scrutiny over issues related to consumer privacy, data security, content moderation, and its role in spreading misinformation. The company has been involved in several high-profile regulatory and legal challenges, particularly regarding its handling of user data and its impact on user well-being.

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* The Linux Ban */ hmmm not so sure it was an error, Meta, the lizard rlly needs to stop pushing age verification for me to think that

2026-04-17T15:17:08Z

The Linux Ban: hmmm not so sure it was an error, Meta, the lizard rlly needs to stop pushing age verification for me to think that

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 17 April 2026
Line 37:		Line 37:
	====The Linux Ban====		====The Linux Ban====
	On January 19th 2025, Meta updated their internal policies to recognize the {{Wplink\|free and open-source software}} and operating system Linux as a "cybersecurity threat".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|date=19 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook ban \|url=https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127#sitenews \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=distrowatch.com \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260220124234/https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127 \|archive-date=20 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Tyson \|first=Mark \|date=17 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook flags Linux topics as 'cybersecurity threats' — posts and users being blocked \|url=https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Tom's Hardware \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260212074620/https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|archive-date=12 Feb 2026}}</ref> As part of this, many Facebook users had their accounts either locked or muted for merely mentioning Linux, most notably the Linux distribution tracking site, DistroWatch. DistroWatch claims they appealed the decision the next day and had it affirmed to them that "Linux-related material is staying on the cybersecurity filter" alongside the personal account the appeal was sent from being locked.<ref name=":1" /> This quickly gained media attention with many calling this out as irony given Meta's infrastructure mostly runs on Linux.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Proven \|first=Liam \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Meta blocked Distrowatch links on Facebook while running Linux servers \|url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Register \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211053417/https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref>		On January 19th 2025, Meta updated their internal policies to recognize the {{Wplink\|free and open-source software}} and operating system Linux as a "cybersecurity threat".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|date=19 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook ban \|url=https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127#sitenews \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=distrowatch.com \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260220124234/https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127 \|archive-date=20 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Tyson \|first=Mark \|date=17 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook flags Linux topics as 'cybersecurity threats' — posts and users being blocked \|url=https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Tom's Hardware \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260212074620/https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|archive-date=12 Feb 2026}}</ref> As part of this, many Facebook users had their accounts either locked or muted for merely mentioning Linux, most notably the Linux distribution tracking site, DistroWatch. DistroWatch claims they appealed the decision the next day and had it affirmed to them that "Linux-related material is staying on the cybersecurity filter" alongside the personal account the appeal was sent from being locked.<ref name=":1" /> This quickly gained media attention with many calling this out as irony given Meta's infrastructure mostly runs on Linux.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Proven \|first=Liam \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Meta blocked Distrowatch links on Facebook while running Linux servers \|url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Register \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211053417/https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref>
	9 days later on 28 January, PCMAG posted a comment provided to them by Meta ~~directly confirming~~ this was an error following Distrowatch's account being reinstated and the blocking of any Linux related content being lifted.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kan \|first=Michael \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook Accidentally Blocks Users From Posting About Linux \|url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=PCMag \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251122144657/https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|archive-date=22 Nov 2025}}</ref>		9 days later on 28 January, PCMAG posted a comment provided to them by Meta where they claimed this was an error following Distrowatch's account being reinstated and the blocking of any Linux related content being lifted.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kan \|first=Michael \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook Accidentally Blocks Users From Posting About Linux \|url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=PCMag \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251122144657/https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|archive-date=22 Nov 2025}}</ref>

	====Tracking pixel====		====Tracking pixel====

Derpus: /* Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026) - Link mentions of Google to consumerrights.wiki page */

2026-03-26T08:05:36Z

Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026) - Link mentions of Google to consumerrights.wiki page

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 26 March 2026
Line 141:		Line 141:
	===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===		===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===
	====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====		====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====
	Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS News}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|last2=Mac \|first2=Ryan \|last3=Tan \|first3=Eli \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>		Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS News}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and [[Google]] were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged [[Google]] $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|last2=Mac \|first2=Ryan \|last3=Tan \|first3=Eli \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

	==External links==		==External links==

136.60.205.189: /* Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026) - Add 2 author names to New York Times source */

2026-03-26T07:57:53Z

Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026) - Add 2 author names to New York Times source

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:57, 26 March 2026
Line 141:		Line 141:
	===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===		===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===
	====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====		====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====
	Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS News}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>		Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS News}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|last2=Mac \|first2=Ryan \|last3=Tan \|first3=Eli \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

	==External links==		==External links==

136.60.205.189: /* Update website name of PBS source */

2026-03-26T07:52:20Z

Update website name of PBS source

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:52, 26 March 2026
Line 141:		Line 141:
	===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===		===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===
	====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====		====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====
	Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>		Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS News}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

	==External links==		==External links==

136.60.205.189: /* Change wording of damages paid */

2026-03-26T07:10:15Z

Change wording of damages paid

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:10, 26 March 2026
Line 140:		Line 140:

	===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===		===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===

	====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====		====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====
	Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million in damages, and Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>		Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

	==External links==		==External links==

SinexTitan: blue link

2026-03-26T06:31:15Z

blue link

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:31, 26 March 2026
Line 36:		Line 36:

	====The Linux Ban====		====The Linux Ban====
	On January 19th 2025, Meta updated their internal policies to recognize the [[free and open source software]] and operating system Linux as a "cybersecurity threat".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|date=19 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook ban \|url=https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127#sitenews \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=distrowatch.com \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260220124234/https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127 \|archive-date=20 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Tyson \|first=Mark \|date=17 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook flags Linux topics as 'cybersecurity threats' — posts and users being blocked \|url=https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Tom's Hardware \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260212074620/https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|archive-date=12 Feb 2026}}</ref> As part of this, many Facebook users had their accounts either locked or muted for merely mentioning Linux, most notably the Linux distribution tracking site, DistroWatch. DistroWatch claims they appealed the decision the next day and had it affirmed to them that "Linux-related material is staying on the cybersecurity filter" alongside the personal account the appeal was sent from being locked.<ref name=":1" /> This quickly gained media attention with many calling this out as irony given Meta's infrastructure mostly runs on Linux.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Proven \|first=Liam \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Meta blocked Distrowatch links on Facebook while running Linux servers \|url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Register \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211053417/https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref>		On January 19th 2025, Meta updated their internal policies to recognize the {{Wplink\|free and open-source software}} and operating system Linux as a "cybersecurity threat".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|date=19 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook ban \|url=https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127#sitenews \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=distrowatch.com \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260220124234/https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20250127 \|archive-date=20 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Tyson \|first=Mark \|date=17 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook flags Linux topics as 'cybersecurity threats' — posts and users being blocked \|url=https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Tom's Hardware \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260212074620/https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked \|archive-date=12 Feb 2026}}</ref> As part of this, many Facebook users had their accounts either locked or muted for merely mentioning Linux, most notably the Linux distribution tracking site, DistroWatch. DistroWatch claims they appealed the decision the next day and had it affirmed to them that "Linux-related material is staying on the cybersecurity filter" alongside the personal account the appeal was sent from being locked.<ref name=":1" /> This quickly gained media attention with many calling this out as irony given Meta's infrastructure mostly runs on Linux.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Proven \|first=Liam \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Meta blocked Distrowatch links on Facebook while running Linux servers \|url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Register \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211053417/https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/28/facebook_blocks_distrowatch/ \|archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref>
	9 days later on January ~~28th~~, PCMAG posted A comment to them by Meta directly confirming this was an error following Distrowatch's account being reinstated and the blocking of any Linux related content being lifted.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kan \|first=Michael \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook Accidentally Blocks Users From Posting About Linux \|url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=PCMag \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251122144657/https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|archive-date=22 Nov 2025}}</ref>		9 days later on 28 January, PCMAG posted a comment provided to them by Meta directly confirming this was an error following Distrowatch's account being reinstated and the blocking of any Linux related content being lifted.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kan \|first=Michael \|date=28 Jan 2025 \|title=Facebook Accidentally Blocks Users From Posting About Linux \|url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=PCMag \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251122144657/https://www.pcmag.com/news/facebook-accidentally-blocks-users-from-posting-about-linux \|archive-date=22 Nov 2025}}</ref>

	====Tracking pixel====		====Tracking pixel====
Line 139:		Line 139:
	The Commission determined that this binary choice violates DMA regulations, which require "gatekeeper" platforms to offer equivalent alternatives for users who decline personal data collection. The DMA mandates that large tech companies must obtain explicit consent before combining users' personal data across services, and cannot make service access conditional upon such consent.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hart \|first=Robert \|date=1 Jul 2024 \|title=Meta’s Ad-Free Subscriptions For Instagram And Facebook Break Europe’s Tech Rules—Possibly Drawing Billions In Fines, EU Says \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Forbes \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251017110205/https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|archive-date=17 Oct 2025}}</ref>		The Commission determined that this binary choice violates DMA regulations, which require "gatekeeper" platforms to offer equivalent alternatives for users who decline personal data collection. The DMA mandates that large tech companies must obtain explicit consent before combining users' personal data across services, and cannot make service access conditional upon such consent.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hart \|first=Robert \|date=1 Jul 2024 \|title=Meta’s Ad-Free Subscriptions For Instagram And Facebook Break Europe’s Tech Rules—Possibly Drawing Billions In Fines, EU Says \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Forbes \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251017110205/https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|archive-date=17 Oct 2025}}</ref>

	=== Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials ===		===Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials===

	==== Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026) ====		====Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026)====
	Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million in damages, and Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>		Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million in damages, and Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

136.60.205.189: /* Meta and Google's YouTube Guilty of Addiction Neglect in Lawsuit*/

2026-03-26T06:18:35Z

Meta and Google's YouTube Guilty of Addiction Neglect in Lawsuit

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 26 March 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:

	====Local Mess (June 2025)====		====Local Mess (June 2025)====
	A study by Dutch researchers revealed that Meta used a local connection from the user's browser to their apps using WebRTC to communicate from the Facebook tracking pixel (a script website providers integrate into their websites) with Meta apps installed on the device to track the user and circumvent measures to prevent the user's data from leaking. This even works when the user is using the browser's incognito mode. Meta used this technique since at least 2024, Yandex used it as far back as 2017. The day the study was published, the corresponding code disappeared from the Facebook tracking pixel.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Girish \|first=Aniketh \|date=2025~~-06-03~~ \|title=Disclosure: Covert Web-to-App Tracking via Localhost on Android \|url=https://localmess.github.io/ ~~\|access-date=2025-06-04 \|website=Local Mess (Github)~~ \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260116094503/https://localmess.github.io/ \|archive-date=16 Jan 2026}}</ref><!-- FIXME: The study has more than one author, not sure how to add more than one using the form provided by the Wiki -->		A study by Dutch researchers revealed that Meta used a local connection from the user's browser to their apps using WebRTC to communicate from the Facebook tracking pixel (a script website providers integrate into their websites) with Meta apps installed on the device to track the user and circumvent measures to prevent the user's data from leaking. This even works when the user is using the browser's incognito mode. Meta used this technique since at least 2024, Yandex used it as far back as 2017. The day the study was published, the corresponding code disappeared from the Facebook tracking pixel.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Girish \|first=Aniketh \|date=3 Jun 2025 \|title=Disclosure: Covert Web-to-App Tracking via Localhost on Android \|url=https://localmess.github.io/ \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260116094503/https://localmess.github.io/ \|archive-date=16 Jan 2026 \|access-date=4 Jun 2025 \|website=Local Mess (Github)}}</ref><!-- FIXME: The study has more than one author, not sure how to add more than one using the form provided by the Wiki -->

	====The Linux Ban====		====The Linux Ban====
Line 56:		Line 56:

	====Funds "anti-bigtech" groups====		====Funds "anti-bigtech" groups====
	The [[Digital Childhood Alliance]] has received funding from Meta, according to reporting by multiple sources.<ref>{{Cite news \|last=Birnbaum \|first=Emily \|date=~~July~~ 25, 2025 \|title=Meta Clashes With Apple, Google Over Child Age Check Legislation \|url=https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2025/07/25/833246.htm \|url-status=live}}</ref>		The [[Digital Childhood Alliance]] has received funding from Meta, according to reporting by multiple sources.<ref>{{Cite news \|last=Birnbaum \|first=Emily \|date=25 Jul 2025 \|title=Meta Clashes With Apple, Google Over Child Age Check Legislation \|url=https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2025/07/25/833246.htm \|url-status=live}}</ref>

	===Meta Oculus VR===		===Meta Oculus VR===
Line 138:		Line 138:

	The Commission determined that this binary choice violates DMA regulations, which require "gatekeeper" platforms to offer equivalent alternatives for users who decline personal data collection. The DMA mandates that large tech companies must obtain explicit consent before combining users' personal data across services, and cannot make service access conditional upon such consent.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hart \|first=Robert \|date=1 Jul 2024 \|title=Meta’s Ad-Free Subscriptions For Instagram And Facebook Break Europe’s Tech Rules—Possibly Drawing Billions In Fines, EU Says \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Forbes \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251017110205/https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|archive-date=17 Oct 2025}}</ref>		The Commission determined that this binary choice violates DMA regulations, which require "gatekeeper" platforms to offer equivalent alternatives for users who decline personal data collection. The DMA mandates that large tech companies must obtain explicit consent before combining users' personal data across services, and cannot make service access conditional upon such consent.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hart \|first=Robert \|date=1 Jul 2024 \|title=Meta’s Ad-Free Subscriptions For Instagram And Facebook Break Europe’s Tech Rules—Possibly Drawing Billions In Fines, EU Says \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Forbes \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251017110205/https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|archive-date=17 Oct 2025}}</ref>

			=== Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials ===

			==== Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026) ====
			Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Huamani \|first=Kaitlyn \|last2=Ortutay \|first2=Barbara \|date=9 Feb 2026 \|title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins \|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins \|url-status=live \|access-date=25 Mar 2026 \|website=PBS}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Allyn \|first=Bobby \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial \|url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million in damages, and Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Kang \|first=Cecilia \|date=25 Mar 2026 \|title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Mar 2026 \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

	==External links==		==External links==

Rudxain: link Forced account

2026-03-16T09:00:14Z

link Forced account

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 16 March 2026
Line 63:		Line 63:
	In 2014, Meta acquired Oculus VR for approximately $2 billion, which was known for developing the Oculus Rift and other virtual-reality (VR) products. Before the acquisition, users could create and use Oculus accounts to access their VR content. This allowed users more control over their privacy and data without needing to use Facebook.		In 2014, Meta acquired Oculus VR for approximately $2 billion, which was known for developing the Oculus Rift and other virtual-reality (VR) products. Before the acquisition, users could create and use Oculus accounts to access their VR content. This allowed users more control over their privacy and data without needing to use Facebook.

	After Oculus VR was purchased by Meta in October 2020, Oculus Quest and Rift S users were required to sign in with a Facebook account in order to continue to use their purchased VR headsets.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Robertson \|first=Adi \|date=20 Aug 2020 \|title=Facebook is making Oculus’ worst feature unavoidable \|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/19/21375118/oculus-facebook-account-login-data-privacy-controversy-developers-competition \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Verge \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260217195431/https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/19/21375118/oculus-facebook-account-login-data-privacy-controversy-developers-competition \|archive-date=17 Feb 2026}}</ref> This forced integration of Facebook accounts with Oculus devices created several issues for users, particularly those who preferred to keep their VR experience separate from social media.		After Oculus VR was purchased by Meta in October 2020, Oculus Quest and Rift S users were [[Forced account\|required to sign in]] with a Facebook account in order to continue to use their purchased VR headsets.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Robertson \|first=Adi \|date=20 Aug 2020 \|title=Facebook is making Oculus’ worst feature unavoidable \|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/19/21375118/oculus-facebook-account-login-data-privacy-controversy-developers-competition \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Verge \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260217195431/https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/19/21375118/oculus-facebook-account-login-data-privacy-controversy-developers-competition \|archive-date=17 Feb 2026}}</ref> This forced integration of Facebook accounts with Oculus devices created several issues for users, particularly those who preferred to keep their VR experience separate from social media.

	Because Oculus headsets were now tied to Facebook accounts, users who had their Facebook profiles suspended for any reason found themselves unable to access their purchased content, including games and apps, and unable to use their devices.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Robertson \|first=Adi \|date=15 Oct 2020 \|title=Facebook is accidentally locking some users out of their new Oculus headsets \|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21518194/oculus-quest-2-headset-facebook-account-suspension-problems \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Verge \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260129053001/https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21518194/oculus-quest-2-headset-facebook-account-suspension-problems \|archive-date=29 Jan 2026}}</ref> Meta offered no options for Oculus VR users aside from going through Facebook's moderation process to attempt to regain access to their accounts.		Because Oculus headsets were now tied to Facebook accounts, users who had their Facebook profiles suspended for any reason found themselves unable to access their purchased content, including games and apps, and unable to use their devices.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Robertson \|first=Adi \|date=15 Oct 2020 \|title=Facebook is accidentally locking some users out of their new Oculus headsets \|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21518194/oculus-quest-2-headset-facebook-account-suspension-problems \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=The Verge \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260129053001/https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21518194/oculus-quest-2-headset-facebook-account-suspension-problems \|archive-date=29 Jan 2026}}</ref> Meta offered no options for Oculus VR users aside from going through Facebook's moderation process to attempt to regain access to their accounts.

Rudxain: Add "External links" section, with some refs from the Talk page

2026-03-15T11:43:31Z

Add "External links" section, with some refs from the Talk page

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:43, 15 March 2026
Line 138:		Line 138:

	The Commission determined that this binary choice violates DMA regulations, which require "gatekeeper" platforms to offer equivalent alternatives for users who decline personal data collection. The DMA mandates that large tech companies must obtain explicit consent before combining users' personal data across services, and cannot make service access conditional upon such consent.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hart \|first=Robert \|date=1 Jul 2024 \|title=Meta’s Ad-Free Subscriptions For Instagram And Facebook Break Europe’s Tech Rules—Possibly Drawing Billions In Fines, EU Says \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Forbes \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251017110205/https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|archive-date=17 Oct 2025}}</ref>		The Commission determined that this binary choice violates DMA regulations, which require "gatekeeper" platforms to offer equivalent alternatives for users who decline personal data collection. The DMA mandates that large tech companies must obtain explicit consent before combining users' personal data across services, and cannot make service access conditional upon such consent.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hart \|first=Robert \|date=1 Jul 2024 \|title=Meta’s Ad-Free Subscriptions For Instagram And Facebook Break Europe’s Tech Rules—Possibly Drawing Billions In Fines, EU Says \|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=26 Apr 2025 \|website=Forbes \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251017110205/https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/07/01/metas-ad-free-subscriptions-for-instagram-and-facebook-break-europes-tech-rules-possibly-drawing-billions-in-fines-eu-says/ \|archive-date=17 Oct 2025}}</ref>

			==External links==
			*[https://salimvirani.com/facebook "Get your loved ones off Facebook"], by Salim Virani, published 2015, updated 2017
			*[https://stallman.org/facebook.html "Reasons not to be used by Facebook"], by Richard M. Stallman

	==References==		==References==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}
	[[Category:Meta]]		[[Category:Meta]]