Meta: Difference between revisions
m wp-link FB, also bold-fmt |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
| 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 | 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==== | ||
| 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 |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== | ||