They got done on not publishing data that, from my quick skim, would not come from human review. e.g. targeting data etc.
I can only assume Meta feels the risk/costs of fines are less than the bennefit of not disclosing who pays them big dollars for targeting certain demographics. I.e not provide ammunition for law makers to come after them in more costly area.
This is more a "they don't want the public to know" than law makers. If law makers want that data, they can subpoena it. Companies don't have any sort of privacy rights to prevent governments from pulling their data.
What would happen if meta defied a subpoena? IDK TBH. Perhaps a total shutdown until they comply? IDK if a company has ever defied a congressional subpoena.
This case was about civil liability so the rules are all a little different. Not giving data during discovery generally means adverse inferences are made by the court (IE, this data is so bad that we have no choice but to believe what the plaintiff is saying about it).
Defying subpoenas, though, generally results in contempt and fines. For an individual, that'd mean jail time.
I don’t think this is wise advice. Something can bring joy for a while but may ultimately bring negative emotions if it becomes too large a part of one’s life. e.g. if it excludes exercise, spending time outdoors, in person human interactions etc. It may also rewrite your dopamine and serotonin
reward pathways which can be hard to reverse.
This is a bullshit and untenable position. This “one specific feature” takes out the core feature. Shameful, deceitful and reputation tarnishing position.
Similar to Pear Therapeutics that SPAC merge announced at $1.6B on about $500k revenue 12 months to date. Professional Analysts put stock target at twice first listing price. Had been around 10 years. Products in market for years. Market cap now $235M.Trading at or below cash.
Wow, that reminds me of Agillion, a dot-bomb which got $40 million of VC investment and $20 million in loans and had "hundreds of dollars" in sales. Plus $200k the founder(s) paid for the code in the bankruptcy.
I can only assume Meta feels the risk/costs of fines are less than the bennefit of not disclosing who pays them big dollars for targeting certain demographics. I.e not provide ammunition for law makers to come after them in more costly area.