You'll never catch me alive COPPA - Facebook's profiteering of children lawsuit unsealed

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

I bet shit like this is what lead to the early developments of parents thinking gaming is toxic. All because they couldn't keep their child from typing in their credit card numbers. Would that be considered identity theft?

Nah, that has always been around, since way before the internet

[yian88]

The majority of people still use facebook, if you ask random facebook users they have no idea about all the uncovers made past years and all the scandals and all the privacy issues, for them is better than never when in fact... if you look facebook is garbage even without all the issues the platform hasnt improved at all in past 5 years all other platforms improved usability, safety, UI, features, facebook is the exact same garbage since forever.

[Trik'Stari]

10 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Its all very easy to say that Parents should look after their children more and not use video games to babysit, but in this day and age when kids are getting tablets, its hard when companies themselves are taking advantage of the kids. Maybe not everyone has time to go out and buy gift cards to stop this, or they are unavailable for the video game. 

 

Its kind of sickening that companies are directly targeting kids like this full stop. Inexcusable.

Here's a thought.

 

Don't give your kids a tablet or cell phone until they're able to purchase one on their own.

[Guest]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Here's a thought.

 

Don't give your kids a tablet or cell phone until they're able to purchase on on their own.

These days the school does that ae. “Smart Schools”

[D13H4RD]

Ladies and Gentlemen

 

This is why;

 

• I use Facebook less and less
• I don't use my credit card on Steam/Facebook/Google Play/iTunes 

[williamcll]

The best way to avoid over/accidental spending is use a debit card that does not directly take money from the bank account.

[TempestCatto]

11 minutes ago, williamcll said:

The best way to avoid over/accidental spending is use a debit card that does not directly take money from the bank account.

That would be called a credit card, and part of identity security is having two credit cards. One only for online purchases, and one you use in real stores. Never use your debit unless you have no other option. I learned that at a seminar.

[Undated]

11 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Here's a thought.

 

Don't give your kids a tablet or cell phone until they're able to purchase one on their own.

I’m a fourteen year old that can’t afford a phone or the pc my parents funded. I use both to learn about things and I think it’s quite handy to have a phone for an emergency. If you are with your friends for example, unless you want you’re parents to take time out of work that supports the family in order to hover over you while you talk with your friends then you wouldn’t have a handy phone to call someone in an emergency.

 

The key is to educate kids about the devices the year are using, not to ban it because it has some possible negative effects.

[LAwLz]

I think the most horrid thing about this story is this part from another news outlet:

Quote

The judge agreed with Facebook’s request to keep some of the records sealed, saying certain records contained information that would cause the social media giant harm, outweighing the public benefit.

 

So some of the documents regarding Facebook's handling of children on their platform would cause harm to Facebook if the public new about it. Why is that being kept from people? What is in the documents that remain hidden to protect Facebook?

 

 

Anyway, what I think a lot of people are missing is that Facebook has a legal obligation to protect minors. It is not legal to do whatever you want and then just blame it on the users. Imagine if someone used that argument for a child buying alcohol, or drugs, or weapons, or whatever.

"Well the parents shouldn't have given the kid money if they didn't want them buying beer lol!"

[williamcll]

21 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

That would be called a credit card, and part of identity security is having two credit cards. One only for online purchases, and one you use in real stores. Never use your debit unless you have no other option. I learned that at a seminar.

Why's that? 

[mr moose]

So there is room for "think of the children" arguments?

[Dylanc1500]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So there is room for "think of the children" arguments?

Always and never, depending on which side of the boat you are rocking.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So there is room for "think of the children" arguments?

"We need to do this to protect children, even though it affects adults too" = No room for "think of the children" arguments.

 

"This company is doing harmful things towards children, that may be against the law which only applies to children, but we won't tell you what" = Yes, we should think of the children.

 

 

Think of it like this.

We shouldn't ban alcohol from being sold to adults because some is being resold to children. "Think of the children" is not a valid argument for a total ban because that would affect many law abiding citizens which does things responsibly (as in, not resell it, drink responsibly etc).

 

We should punish a store that is deliberately selling alcohol to children. That store is breaking the law. Banning it will not have negative consequences for other law abiding citizens.

 

 

That's my logic and rational at least, and you will find it very consistent with my other posts.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

"We need to do this to protect children, even though it affects adults too" = No room for "think of the children" arguments.

 

"This company is doing harmful things towards children, that may be against the law which only applies to children, but we won't tell you what" = Yes, we should think of the children.

 

 

Think of it like this.

We shouldn't ban alcohol from being sold to adults because some is being resold to children. "Think of the children" is not a valid argument for a total ban because that would affect many law abiding citizens which does things responsibly (as in, not resell it, drink responsibly etc).

 

We should punish a store that is deliberately selling alcohol to children. That store is breaking the law. Banning it will not have negative consequences for other law abiding citizens.

 

 

That's my logic and rational at least, and you will find it very consistent with my other posts.

I can use that logic to argue for a porn filter.  Seeing as companies are putting porn out there and making it easily accessible to children over the internet.  In fact some would argue seeing as you don't have to ask mum or dad for CC number it's easier for kids to watch violent porn than play games on facebook.

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I can use that logic to argue for a porn filter.  Seeing as companies are putting porn out there and making it easily accessible to children over the internet.  In fact some would argue seeing as you don't have to ask mum or dad for CC number it's easier for kids to watch violent porn than play games on facebook.

That still has very negative impact on the law abiding adults who use it responsibly by putting them at a security risk (putting in highly sensitive and private information into websites).

 

I am for "thinking of the children" when it does not have a negative impact on the law abiding adults.

Requiring inputting CC information to view porn does, so therefore I am against it.

 

If you can come up with a way which does not risk compromising the security or privacy of law abiding adults, which blocks children from watching porn then I will be for it. The changes suggested by various governments so far has however not met those criteria and therefore I have been against it.

 

 

Also, I think you're ignoring the fact that Facebook has been found guilty of breaking the law, but the public are not informed in what ways. If PornHub was found guilty of having internal strategies for exploiting children visiting their site for their own profits, and the court went "well we have evidence for it, but I think it's best that the public don't see this" then I would be demanding to see it too, just like I am in this thread.

 

On top of that, you're trying to rationalize a radical change on an entire industry because some sites are doing bad things.

I am not trying to champion something like blanket ban on all social media websites here. I am asking for punishment for the site who has done something wrong, and let other websites who have not been found guilty of anything continue to operate like they do now.

 

 

So no, that's why I don't think there is any hypocrisy in me wanting to know what the secret documents from Facebook contains, and me being against overly intrusive regulations on porn sites.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That still has very negative impact on the law abiding adults who use it responsibly by putting them at a security risk (putting in highly sensitive and private information into websites).

 

I am for "thinking of the children" when it does not have a negative impact on the law abiding adults.

Requiring inputting CC information to view porn does, so therefore I am against it.

 

If you can come up with a way which does not risk compromising the security or privacy of law abiding adults, which blocks children from watching porn then I will be for it. The changes suggested by various governments so far has however not met those criteria and therefore I have been against it.

 

 

Also, I think you're ignoring the fact that Facebook has been found guilty of breaking the law, but the public are not informed in what ways. If PornHub was found guilty of having internal strategies for exploiting children visiting their site for their own profits, and the court went "well we have evidence for it, but I think it's best that the public don't see this" then I would be demanding to see it too, just like I am in this thread.

 

On top of that, you're trying to rationalize a radical change on an entire industry because some sites are doing bad things.

I am not trying to champion something like blanket ban on all social media websites here. I am asking for punishment for the site who has done something wrong, and let other websites who have not been found guilty of anything continue to operate like they do now.

 

 

So no, that's why I don't think there is any hypocrisy in me wanting to know what the secret documents from Facebook contains, and me being against overly intrusive regulations on porn sites.

It is illegal to allow minors access to porn in most countries,  therefore laws have been broken either by the parents, the internet provider, the website offering said service or the government in failure to regulate.  Depends on where you draw the line and as before which side of the fence you sit.   In it's current state because you have issues deciding who should be responsible and how then "think of the children" doesn't apply.

 

Either it applies or it doesn't, part of the consequences of living in a community means we don't all get what we want, sometimes you lose.

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is illegal to allow minors access to porn in most countries,  therefore laws have been broken either by the parents, the internet provider, the website offering said service or the government in failure to regulate.  Depends on where you draw the line and as before which side of the fence you sit.   In it's current state because you have issues deciding who should be responsible and how then "think of the children" doesn't apply.

 

Either it applies or it doesn't, part of the consequences of living in a community means we don't all get what we want, sometimes you lose.

You're still ignoring all the other arguments I made as to why I do not think it is a comparable situation.

1) The proposed changes to the porn filter would have negative impacts on adults who are not breaking the law. Any law which has negative impacts on innocent people, in order to help others need to pass a much higher degree of scrutiny before being implemented. You need to weight benefit vs drawback. In this Facebook case the benefit is that the public gets informed about what Facebook are doing, and the drawback is that the criminal company Facebook, who has been found guilty, might take a hit to their public image if people knew what they were doing.

A ruling on an individual case which has a negative impact on a criminal is usually fine in my eyes. But a new regulation for an entire industry which has negative effects on law abiding people like for example myself is not.

The changes you propose has a negative or neutral impact on 99% of people and helps 1%.

The thing I suggest has a negative impact on 1% of people and has a neutral or positive effect for 99% of people.

 

2) The websites you say should be forced to implement a porn filter have not been found guilty of breaking the law in a court (unlike Facebook). Innocent until proven guilty.

 

3) There is a big difference between being passive and letting something happen, and actively having strategies and plans for something. Until documents are discovered which proves that let's say PornHub has internal documents on how to encourage minors to use the website, and refuse them help (which is what Facebook has been found having) then laws should not be passed to punish them for it.

If you want more alcohol analogies, car manufacturers not preventing someone from driving drunk, is very different from if VW was found to have documents detailing how they should encourage people to drive while drunk, because then they smash their cars and need to buy a new one.

 

4) We're still talking about a blanket change on an entire industry vs the punishment of one website. I think regulations for an entire industry needs far more scrutiny before being passed as a law and implemented, compared to one company doing something wrong and being punished for it.

Even if we did discover that VW had plans for encouraging drunk driving, I think only VW should be punished for it, not Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes too because "they might be doing bad things too but we have no evidence".

[mr moose]

Just now, LAwLz said:

You're still ignoring all the other arguments I made as to why I do not think it is a comparable situation.

1) The proposed changes to the porn filter would have negative impacts on adults who are not breaking the law. Any law which has negative impacts on innocent people, in order to help others need to pass a much higher degree of scrutiny before being implemented. You need to weight benefit vs drawback. In this Facebook case the benefit is that the public gets informed about what Facebook are doing, and the drawback is that the criminal company Facebook, who has been found guilty, might take a hit to their public image if people knew what they were doing.

A ruling on an individual case which has a negative impact on a criminal is usually fine in my eyes. But a new regulation for an entire industry which has negative effects on law abiding people like for example myself is not.

The changes you propose has a negative or neutral impact on 99% of people and helps 1%.

The thing I suggest has a negative impact on 1% of people and has a neutral or positive effect for 99% of people.

 

2) The websites you say should be forced to implement a porn filter have not been found guilty of breaking the law in a court (unlike Facebook). Innocent until proven guilty.

 

3) There is a big difference between being passive and letting something happen, and actively having strategies and plans for something. Until documents are discovered which proves that let's say PornHub has internal documents on how to encourage minors to use the website, and refuse them help (which is what Facebook has been found having) then laws should not be passed to punish them for it.

If you want more alcohol analogies, car manufacturers not preventing someone from driving drunk, is very different from if VW was found to have documents detailing how they should encourage people to drive while drunk, because then they smash their cars and need to buy a new one.

 

4) We're still talking about a blanket change on an entire industry vs the punishment of one website. I think regulations for an entire industry needs far more scrutiny before being passed as a law and implemented, compared to one company doing something wrong and being punished for it.

Even if we did discover that VW had plans for encouraging drunk driving, I think only VW should be punished for it, not Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes too because "they might be doing bad things too but we have no evidence".

I'm not ignoring them,   It just seems arse about to argue the costs to the community dictate whether they are worth saving or not.  Regardless of whether we all have to pay a price or only one company, that doesn't dictate the severity of the issue facing the children.

[LAwLz]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not ignoring them,   It just seems arse about to argue the costs to the community dictate whether they are worth saving or not.  Regardless of whether we all have to pay a price or only one company, that doesn't dictate the severity of the issue facing the children.

Well, that's where you and I differ, and why I think "think of the children" is generally a shitty argument.

Yes, I do think we should weight pros and cons of something against each other. "Think of the children" is often used to justify a "at any cost necessary" mentality where nothing except "saving children" matters.

 

You need to weight the benefits and drawbacks of changes even when they involve "protecting children".

 

I gave you 4 reasons why these discussions are different (a court protecting Facebook, and the porn filter debate) and you disregard everything in that because essentially "both involve children so therefore they need to be protected at any cost".

Just because we're talking about children doesn't mean we should throw rationality and logic out the window.

[TechyBen]

It's about who should and how should protection be provided. To some extent, society is responsible. And it's not wrong to lose somethings to protect against it. But banning say, alcohol to protect children, misses the point that adults should not be giving it to children, and those old enough to sneak out a bottle... should be asked how old they are if they can manage to do that, but not manage their alcohol consumption.

 

(As a related example, so as to remove some of the loaded bias to the discussion. Replace alcohol with anything we understand adults can manage or is safe for adults, but not for children)

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Well, that's where you and I differ, and why I think "think of the children" is generally a shitty argument.

Yes, I do think we should weight pros and cons of something against each other. "Think of the children" is often used to justify a "at any cost necessary" mentality where nothing except "saving children" matters.

 

You need to weight the benefits and drawbacks of changes even when they involve "protecting children".

 

I gave you 4 reasons why these discussions are different (a court protecting Facebook, and the porn filter debate) and you disregard everything in that because essentially "both involve children so therefore they need to be protected at any cost".

Just because we're talking about children doesn't mean we should throw rationality and logic out the window.

The situations are different, absolutely,  but the essence of the argument "think of the children" doesn't change.  Rationally speaking the consequences of any one chosen "fix" doesn't actually change the severity of the impact on children.   So while you can justify doing nothing because you feel the consequences outweigh the problem, that is only you and your personal appraisal of the situation.  You can't claim I am being illogical because I disagree with your reasoning, I don't mind having somethings taken from me if it results in a better community and safety of children. Mind you having spent a lot of time working with kids over the last 7 years I have a very different perspective of whats important.   

[Thaldor]

On 1/18/2019 at 8:17 PM, fasauceome said:

There are a number of ways this digital trickery could be achieved, I don't know the UI of the game but no matter what, it should make it abundantly clear that real dollars are spent. The fact that credit card info inside a game doesn't need to be re authenticated is a huge issue because Facebook would have to play dumb and act like kids would always be careful enough to tell the difference.

It's actually "industry accepted design feature", which is 110% bullshit and (IMO) makes every game that uses it applicable with gambling laws and taxes. Almost every game "hides" the use of real money behind another currency just because it makes it easier to forget that you are actually using real money. Although with that developers go around few holes that allow them easily reward players with this premium currency and make it seem like they would be giving away something more valuable even if the whole garbage could be avoided with more intelligent designing and morally better monetization, but that would be too hard and demands trying and failing. It's excatly the same as casinos use chips in playing tables and tokens in machines, it's not to make things easier (it's just a side-effect) but to get people forget that the 1000-chip is actually worth 100$.

[jagdtigger]

22 hours ago, williamcll said:

Why's that? 

Because usually that second one is virtual, and it is linked to a separate account number which only has money if you transfer some onto it. This way if a store gets rekt the hackers cant empty your real card.

[Jumper118]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

It is illegal to allow minors access to porn in most countries,  therefore laws have been broken either by the parents, the internet provider, the website offering said service or the government in failure to regulate.  Depends on where you draw the line and as before which side of the fence you sit.   In it's current state because you have issues deciding who should be responsible and how then "think of the children" doesn't apply.

 

Either it applies or it doesn't, part of the consequences of living in a community means we don't all get what we want, sometimes you lose.

Parents are 100% responsible for there children. Its is your job as a parent to raise your child, not the governments. If you let your child watch porn and gamble all your money away, you have failed totally and if you lost your whole life saving in fifa you should have to pay all of it. Even if it means you are homeless.  

[LAwLz]

48 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

Parents are 100% responsible for there children. Its is your job as a parent to raise your child, not the governments. If you let your child watch porn and gamble all your money away, you have failed totally and if you lost your whole life saving in fifa you should have to pay all of it. Even if it means you are homeless.  

I don't really agree. I think some of the responsibility falls on companies too. For example if a store sells alcohol to minors, then I think that store should be punished. Especially if the people in the store are instructed on how they should sell and handle those customers to make sure they for example buy again.

 

I do however think that only that store should be punished, not that we should implement a system where we can track every flash/can/box/glass of booze bought through GPS tags and monitor who gives what to who, just so that we can catch some people reselling it to minors. Protecting children has to be put in relation to other costs too.