Meta: Difference between revisions
SinexTitan (talk | contribs) blue link |
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
====The Linux Ban==== | ====The Linux Ban==== | ||
On January 19th 2025, Meta updated their internal policies to recognize the | 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 | 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> | ||