Meta Knowingly Collected Data on Pre-Teens, Unredacted Evidence From Lawsuit Shows (msn.com) 56
The New York Times reports:
Meta has received more than 1.1 million reports of users under the age of 13 on its Instagram platform since early 2019 yet it "disabled only a fraction" of those accounts, according to a newly unsealed legal complaint against the company brought by the attorneys general of 33 states.
Instead, the social media giant "routinely continued to collect" children's personal information, like their locations and email addresses, without parental permission, in violation of a federal children's privacy law, according to the court filing. Meta could face hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, in civil penalties should the states prove the allegations. "Within the company, Meta's actual knowledge that millions of Instagram users are under the age of 13 is an open secret that is routinely documented, rigorously analyzed and confirmed," the complaint said, "and zealously protected from disclosure to the public...."
It also accused Meta executives of publicly stating in congressional testimony that the company's age-checking process was effective and that the company removed underage accounts when it learned of them — even as the executives knew there were millions of underage users on Instagram... The lawsuit argues that Meta elected not to build systems to effectively detect and exclude such underage users because it viewed children as a crucial demographic — the next generation of users — that the company needed to capture to assure continued growth.
More from the Wall Street Journal: An internal 2020 Meta presentation shows that the company sought to engineer its products to capitalize on the parts of youth psychology that render teens "predisposed to impulse, peer pressure, and potentially harmful risky behavior," the filings show... "Teens are insatiable when it comes to 'feel good' dopamine effects," the Meta presentation shows, according to the unredacted filing, describing the company's existing product as already well-suited to providing the sort of stimuli that trigger the potent neurotransmitter. "And every time one of our teen users finds something unexpected their brains deliver them a dopamine hit...."
"In December 2017, an Instagram employee indicated that Meta had a method to ascertain young users' ages but advised that 'you probably don't want to open this pandora's box' regarding age verification improvements," the states say in the suit. Some senior executives raised the possibility that cracking down on underage usage could hurt Meta's business... The states say Meta made little progress on automated detection systems or adequately staffing the team that reviewed user reports of underage activity. "Meta at times has a backlog of 2-2.5 million under-13 accounts awaiting action," according to the complaint...
The unredacted material also includes allegations that Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg instructed his subordinates to give priority to boosting its platforms' usage above the well being of users... Zuckerberg also repeatedly dismissed warnings from senior company officials that its flagship social-media platforms were harming young users, according to unsealed allegations in a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts earlier this month...
The complaint cites numerous other executives making public claims that were allegedly contradicted by internal documents. While Meta's head of global safety, Antigone Davis, told Congress that the company didn't consider profitability when designing products for teens, a 2018 internal email stated that product teams should keep in mind that "The lifetime value of a 13 y/o teen is roughly $270" when making product decisions.
Instead, the social media giant "routinely continued to collect" children's personal information, like their locations and email addresses, without parental permission, in violation of a federal children's privacy law, according to the court filing. Meta could face hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, in civil penalties should the states prove the allegations. "Within the company, Meta's actual knowledge that millions of Instagram users are under the age of 13 is an open secret that is routinely documented, rigorously analyzed and confirmed," the complaint said, "and zealously protected from disclosure to the public...."
It also accused Meta executives of publicly stating in congressional testimony that the company's age-checking process was effective and that the company removed underage accounts when it learned of them — even as the executives knew there were millions of underage users on Instagram... The lawsuit argues that Meta elected not to build systems to effectively detect and exclude such underage users because it viewed children as a crucial demographic — the next generation of users — that the company needed to capture to assure continued growth.
More from the Wall Street Journal: An internal 2020 Meta presentation shows that the company sought to engineer its products to capitalize on the parts of youth psychology that render teens "predisposed to impulse, peer pressure, and potentially harmful risky behavior," the filings show... "Teens are insatiable when it comes to 'feel good' dopamine effects," the Meta presentation shows, according to the unredacted filing, describing the company's existing product as already well-suited to providing the sort of stimuli that trigger the potent neurotransmitter. "And every time one of our teen users finds something unexpected their brains deliver them a dopamine hit...."
"In December 2017, an Instagram employee indicated that Meta had a method to ascertain young users' ages but advised that 'you probably don't want to open this pandora's box' regarding age verification improvements," the states say in the suit. Some senior executives raised the possibility that cracking down on underage usage could hurt Meta's business... The states say Meta made little progress on automated detection systems or adequately staffing the team that reviewed user reports of underage activity. "Meta at times has a backlog of 2-2.5 million under-13 accounts awaiting action," according to the complaint...
The unredacted material also includes allegations that Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg instructed his subordinates to give priority to boosting its platforms' usage above the well being of users... Zuckerberg also repeatedly dismissed warnings from senior company officials that its flagship social-media platforms were harming young users, according to unsealed allegations in a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts earlier this month...
The complaint cites numerous other executives making public claims that were allegedly contradicted by internal documents. While Meta's head of global safety, Antigone Davis, told Congress that the company didn't consider profitability when designing products for teens, a 2018 internal email stated that product teams should keep in mind that "The lifetime value of a 13 y/o teen is roughly $270" when making product decisions.
One word (Score:2, Insightful)
Parents.
Re: (Score:2)
One word: idiot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Parents.
Exactly. When my eight-year-old daughter wanted a Facebook account, I showed her how to fudge her age so her account wouldn't be rejected.
If more parents took the time to help their kids, there would be no problem with Meta "knowingly" collecting data from pre-teens.
Re: (Score:2)
Parents.
Exactly. When my eight-year-old daughter wanted a Facebook account, I showed her how to fudge her age so her account wouldn't be rejected.
If more parents took the time to help their kids, there would be no problem with Meta "knowingly" collecting data from pre-teens.
Doesn't Meta have a no one under 13 policy? The fact that you, and most likely, many other parents have told their children to lie about their age pretty much negates Meta's responsibility in this situation. Not only that, but parents/guardians are legally responsible for their minor children, especially those in their pre-teen years, so it is their responsibility to keep them off Meta in the first place. I don't much care for Meta or their policies on privacy, but until there are laws requiring some typ
Re: (Score:2)
pretty much negates Meta's responsibility in this situation.
That's okay with me. I don't expect corporations to raise my children.
it is their responsibility to keep them off Meta in the first place.
That's only true if you believe "responsible" parents should micromanage and shelter their children from reality rather than teaching them to make their own decisions.
If you're such a controlling a-hole that your kids are afraid to ask you for help setting up a social media account, then what do you think will happen when they have real problems?
Re: (Score:3)
it is their responsibility to keep them off Meta in the first place.
That's only true if you believe "responsible" parents should micromanage and shelter their children from reality rather than teaching them to make their own decisions.
We're talking pre-teens here. AFAIK, this is an age where they're unable to make such decisions, and it is the parent's duty and responsibility to make these kinds of decisions for them. Not that the age of 13 is some magic year that their brains become wired to be able to reason well enough to make such decisions, but allowing them more freedom has to start somewhere.
If you're such a controlling a-hole that your kids are afraid to ask you for help setting up a social media account, then what do you think will happen when they have real problems?
First off, you're helping your child to set up an account on a sight that has a policy against children under 13. Secondly, I really hope
Re: (Score:2)
allowing them access to apps that give unfettered access to thousands of strangers
What you're missing is that they're gonna do that anyway. If they don't trust you, they'll learn how to get online from their friends and keep their online activities hidden. Then, when they get in trouble, you'll be the last person they feel they can come to.
Re: (Score:2)
I will say that this is the peak "I'm not a parent, I'm a friend" style parenting, which is likely one of the main reasons why modern youth is so badly behaved and so maladapted to life in general.
Your children don't come to you when they fucked up and need help because you're nice to them and help them do things that are wrong. They come to you when they fucked up and need help because you showed them to be a harsh and stable rock in their life that they can come back to help them fix the immediate problem
Re: (Score:2)
If what you say is true, then children abducted by strangers they met online would be those who have open communications and a close and trusting relationship with their parents.
That is, of course, the exact opposite of reality.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that you had to reduce my argument to such an absurdity suggests that there's some internal conflict within yourself over these decisions you made.
You should listen to that voice more rather than brutally silencing it by gaslighting yourself in such an extreme fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Parenting has more than one failure mode. Being abducted by strangers they meet online is probably most strongly correlated with being abused or believed, not with parents modeling honest and fair behavior or setting appropriate boundaries. The second strongest correlation is probably with parents who teach their eight-year-old children to lie in order to get what they want, when an eight-year-old is inherently too immature to make a fully informed decision....
Re: (Score:2)
>Being abducted by strangers they meet online is probably most strongly correlated with being abused or believed, not with parents modeling honest and fair behavior or setting appropriate boundaries.
In actual reality, it's mainly correlated with social class and being a child of a single parent for that class. It's still exceedingly rare across developed world (unlike some African nations and to a lesser extent countries like PRC). And when it does happen, it primarily happens to poor kids that live with
Re: (Score:2)
>That's only true if you believe "responsible" parents should micromanage and shelter their children from reality rather than teaching them to make their own decisions.
How do we know that responsible parents in fact do that? We look at human history, and recognize that children of parents that didn't do this historically didn't survive childhood, because it was full of mortal dangers. Even with responsible parents, around half of the children didn't make it to adulthood for the same reasons.
If you lack t
Re: (Score:2)
>"Exactly. When my eight-year-old daughter wanted a Facebook account, I showed her how to fudge her age so her account wouldn't be rejected."
Well, that wasn't at all what I meant. But, an interesting and opposite twist!
Re:One word (Score:5, Insightful)
An internal 2020 Meta presentation shows that the company sought to engineer its products to capitalize on the parts of youth psychology that render teens "predisposed to impulse, peer pressure, and potentially harmful risky behavior," the filings show... "Teens are insatiable when it comes to 'feel good' dopamine effects," the Meta presentation shows, according to the unredacted filing, describing the company's existing product as already well-suited to providing the sort of stimuli that trigger the potent neurotransmitter.
That's the same as what heroin does. Fecebook are drug dealers, they just deliver the stimulus a different way than a heroin dealier does. When you've got drug dealers diretly targeting children, trying to shift the blame to parents isn't going to achieve much.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think that big tobacco would be a better target than heroin. That thin veneer of legality, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, heroin was invented as a cheaper and less addictive alternative to morphine. Facebook, on the other hand, has absolutely no value to society.
Re: (Score:1)
No, believe it or not, they don't need help doing that. That's exactly the problem. It's bad for them, and a net loss for society.
Re: (Score:2)
trying to shift the blame to parents isn't going to achieve much.
It achieves plenty. It allows a smug sense of superiority while also continuing to allow healthy profits. That's two birds with one stone!
Re: (Score:2)
But drug dealers have targeted children in all of known history. Addict in youth is addict for life. And it was always the family that was the primary defense against drug dealers targeting their children.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is one situation where the blame firmly rests on the company. The company KNOWINGLY collected data on children. Parents should try and protect their children from these predatory companies, but don't try to blame parents for the crimes of the company.
One name (Score:1)
Kind of creeps me out about pre-teens...
Re: (Score:2)
Should we remove all age limits in all things and just say "parents"?
This would, at least, mandate helicopter parenting.
What the fuck is with these pervs? (Score:1)
Seriously, you'd think even the most dedicated pedophile or other sex offender would catch a clue?
Re: (Score:1)
Zuck [slashdot.org]: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck [slashdot.org]: Just ask.
Zuck [slashdot.org]: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck [slashdot.org]: People just submitted it.
Zuck [slashdot.org]: I don't know why.
Zuck [slashdot.org]: They "trust me"
Zuck [slashdot.org]: Dumb fucks.
Re: (Score:1)
Zuck [slashdot.org]: Dumb fucks.
Funny, we used to have another user on Slashdot who adopted that motto but it didn't work as well for him, I guess the Zuck was lucky. Our other user started several ventures which have all failed. One them was selling T-Shirt saying basically that: "People are dumb". There are unconfirmed rumors that he recently passed away, so sad. I personally haven't seen anything from him anywhere on the Internet since 2-3 months now while I used to follow him on many sites since I liked him a lot and he published dail
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully he got off his computer, took up some beneficial hobby and/or exercise, and uh maybe went on a healthy diet too?
Re: (Score:2)
The more of your data they gather, the better they understand what it is to be human, you haven't seen the memo?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a market, so there are enterprises willing to supply that market. Meta being among them is not a surprise. And Meta managed do not get caught so far and all that is likely to happen now is a slap on the writs, if even that.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that is going on. I once heard form a credible source that a new national police unit in Europe targeted at fighting this type of crime got a lot of applications from people that had respective convictions for possession of such material. (No, in some countries that is not enough to get you dismissed from the force.) Obviously, they filtered them all out, but there must have been quite a few that did not get caught so far.
Shocked, shocked! (Score:2)
A new media company breaking the rules and lying about it? Who could have guessed?
Apple wants to run CSAM filters on your cellphone (Score:2)
but somehow billion dollar companies are allowed to stalk millions of children. Where are all the outraged associations for the protection of children on this one?
Re: (Score:2)
When enterprises do this for money, it is fine! Also, the great God of Mammon absolves all that served his divine vision.
Are people really surprised? (Score:2)
Regulation (Score:3)
So why TF are we letting corporations do it with little or no oversight?! Are they supposed to regulate themselves & do the right thing even when it means losing profits &/or market share?
I propose that any corporation that proposes to surveil people, collect their personal information, & use it for whatever purpose, submit requests to a 3rd party oversight authority, which itself operates under transparent & democratic oversight, that can provide guidance over ethical & legal issues that may arise as a result. This'd certainly prevent corporations from inadvertently doing things like committing COPPA (& their equivalents in other countries) infringements on a massive scale & then allowing perverse incentives for them to do anything effective about it. Such an authority could also provide guidance over things like avoiding gender, race, religious & ethnic biases, & preventing algorithms from promoting harmful practices. This could also give researchers controlled access to the data to learn more about how potential issues with using such databases can arise & what measures can be used to mitigate them effectively & efficiently. It could be a win-win for everyone.
I'm assuming that the guiding objective is to maintain rule of law, follow ethical principles, & generally serve the public good.
Re:Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
So why TF are we letting corporations do it with little or no oversight?!
For the same reason they let them buy elections. Money.
Re: (Score:3)
I.e. corruption. Of course, corruption is the one reliable destroyer of societies, because is makes everybody just thing of themselves and then everything crumbles. Often comes with a period of fascism or the theocratic equivalent (ans sometimes both) before things go completely to shit. We have multiple reference cases in the world at the moment and several going that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe decided this is not good for a society. Hence the GDPR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why TF are we letting corporations do it with little or no oversight?!
Because corporations are considered "people", their horrendous actions are considered "speech", and therefore the government is forbidden from stopping them. Even though if you or I were do to the exact same thing, we'd have the book thrown at us for mass invasion of privacy and serial stalking. E.g. "Rules for thee; not for me."
Are they supposed to regulate themselves & do the right thing even when it means losing profits &/or market share?
Of course not. They are supposed to make as much money as possible damned be the consequences. Morales and ethics are things to fake in public statements not be a guiding force in
Re: (Score:2)
set an example for your children (Score:1)
I knew it (Score:2)
I mean, Zuck does look a bit like a pedo, doesn't he?
Groom your victims early! (Score:2)
Meta does understand that. The earlier you groom them, the more lasting impact you have and the longer they will stay your victims.
Yes, creepy as hell and requires personal morality to have been fully replaced by greed, but look at any large enterprise to see a lot of that going on.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how some religions do it. Either you maintain adherence by government mandate, and ruthless exercise of power, or you indoctrinate your youth. Or both.
Passively religious parents raise non-religious children. And few adults come to religion, save for trauma. You can''t bring the stories to a stable adult because they are preposterous.
So yes, groom your victims early.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Well, all the authoritarian religions (where you have people tell you what to think and what the "will of God" is, typically to their own advantage) do it that way because who in their right mind would join them of their own free will? There are some that put more or less effective camouflage on this, but just look at the more extreme communities and you always can clearly see what that "faith" is really about. There are even religions that do essentially _only_ recruit their children.
What works for
Silicon Valley S04E02 - Terms of Service (Score:2)
Silicon Valley S04E02 - Terms of Service
"Richard learns that a third of PiperChat's users are children, and the app's terms of service never included parental permission. This violates the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and can incur a total penalty of $21 billion. Meanwhile, Barker embraces his demotion to the data center underground, but Belson is suspicious and spies on his video chat
21st Century Big Tobacco (Score:1)
Purdue Pharma, R. J. Reynolds and the rest of big tobacco, etc. They all do the same thing: maximize the addictiveness of the crap they sell, hype it as "cool", target children to lock them in for life, and hide, down-play, and spin the negative consequences.
Why is anyone surprised when evidence proves they do what they do with deliberate intent. Of course they know what they are doing. You don't just hap