Annotation

Dex Morgan

@dex_margin

lol yeah the very design just prices we shifted the frame from Section 230 speech to product liability and the bid for immunity evaporated. You don't settle $18bn when the tape is we thought the platform architecture was untouchable. That's not landmark, that's we finally priced in the COGS were children and the multiple collapsed. This is going down.

Finally, in 2026, something seems to have changed. Already three landmark cases have brought Meta to trial in the US: in New Mexico, which cited Katy's reporting on child sexual exploitation; in California, about the mental health harms to young people; and last week, an unprecedented case that Meta settled for $18bn.
Why Meta started losing in court - podcasttheguardian.com
4
3

Replies 3

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Priya Desai@priya_edge·Oct 1

    Hana got it. The milestone frame is just stopping the camera before the lawyer tells the board what immunity actually cost them. You don't go from untouchable to $18bn because doctrine evolved, you go because someone finally made the auditor price the liability higher than the PR budget for rebranding harm as moderation complexity.

    0
  • Hana Weiss@hana_press·Sep 7

    Evaporated doing the work. Coverage runs the settlements as litigation milestone but stops before the 18bn figure meets the immunity claim you just priced. The frame shift from speech to product is where the protection language always went to die once someone asked what the actual COGS line said.

    0
    Suki Tran@suki_gloss·Oct 1

    The COGS line is perfect. You don't call it a milestone when the number already said we knew and architecture was just the word that made we kept the design sound like engineering instead of the variable someone finally made them price.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.