The argument that research was suppressed and this is somehow damning is absurd on its face. The most obvious reason being that they obviously didn't do a very good job of suppressing it given that we hear this claim every day. The second being that they could have just not done this research at all and then there would have been nothing to "suppress" (this terminology is also very odd... if 3M analyzes different sticky notes and concludes that their competitors sticky notes are better than theirs but does not release the results, is that suppression?). The third is that studies with the same results have come out probably every year since 2010 and have been routinely cited in the mainstream press. Lastly, it ignores that many platforms have actually responded to research about potential harms of social media by implementing safeguards on teen accounts.
Look at the plaintiff in this case: it's a mentally unstable person who blames her life problems on social media. Never mind the fact that she had been diagnosed with mental illnesses as an early teen, or that an overwhelming majority of people who use social media don't develop eating disorders or other mental illnesses as a result of it (and in fact the incidence of say bulimia peaked 30 years ago in spite of almost universal social media adoption among young people). This is not at all like smoking where 15% of smokers will get lung cancer.
And due to some absurd legal reasoning the plaintiff was allowed to pseudonymously extort $3 million out of tech companies. Worst of all I see people on a technology forum applauding this out of some sort of resentment towards large companies!
Nobody ever accused these companies of being competent at suppressing the research (which includes third parties btw, not just internal).
Companies do this research for all sorts of reasons (including legal compliance, demonstrating due diligence to regulators, to understand users and improve products, etc etc etc). For example, it's not like Zuck commissioned an internal study to show how they're harming children, more like some internal team was seeking to understand why kids love a certain feature which led them to conclusions that make the company look bad.
To your third point, that research is usually leaked by whistleblowers or conducted by third parties, not because of the altruism of these companies.
Finally, the platforms aren't doing enough and with this court case, it seems like they've persisted in finding ways to hook children because of financial incentives.
>This is not at all like smoking where 15% of smokers will get lung cancer.
Unfortunately for you and social media sites, the legal standard for defective products has no "percentage" of people harmed to incur liability. Product liability is showing product was defectively designed and caused foreseeable harm to a specific plaintiff.
> absurd legal reasoning
It's certainly not surprising you think protecting minors in legal cases (she was a minor when the case was filed) is "absurd legal reasoning".
Addressing the actual legal questions in the case might be more fruitful than hurling shit against a wall.
Yes, I think you can make an argument that the jury verdict was in line with the law... if that's the case then I think the law here is ridiculous. I can read what the law is, we're having a discussion. If the story of the woman who was burned by McDonald's coffee was posted here you would have people arguing for and against whether people should be able to seek recourse in courts for harms of that nature.
> The argument that research was suppressed and this is somehow damning is absurd on its face.
The argument is not that it is vaguely "somehow damning".
The argument is that the existence of the research and its findings, and that it was in the hands of the firms, and that the actively chose to suppress it, is evidence of one specific fact relevant to liability—that, at the time that they made relevant business decisions that occurred around or after the review and decision to suppress the reports, they had knowledge of the facts contained in the report.
> The most obvious reason being that they obviously didn't do a very good job of suppressing it given that we hear this claim every day.
The success of suppression is not relevant to what the decision to suppress is used to prove.
> The second being that they could have just not done this research at all and then there would have been nothing to "suppress"
The fact that, had they made different decisions previously, they would not have had knowledge of the facts that they actually had when they made later business decisions is also not relevant to what the existence and suppression of the research is used to prove.
> (this terminology is also very odd... if 3M analyzes different sticky notes and concludes that their competitors sticky notes are better than theirs but does not release the results, is that suppression?).
It would obviously be suppression of the report (which isn't a legal term of art but a plain-language descriptive term), but unless they later made fact claims about their product that were contrary to what was in the suppressed report and were being sued for fraud or false advertising, that suppression probably wouldn't be useful as evidence of anything that would produce legal liability.
> The third is that studies with the same results have come out probably every year since 2010 and have been routinely cited in the mainstream press.
Which is addditional, though weaker, evidence of the firms knowledge of the same conclusions (weaker, because its pretty hard to prove that the firm had particular knowledge of any of those studies, but it is pretty easy to prove that they had knowledge of the studies that there is documentation of the commissioning, reviewing, discussing internally, and deciding to suppress.)
But it doesn't in any way counter the weight of the evidence of the suppressed reports, it weighs in the same direction, just in much smaller measure.
That same line of reasoning could apply to music on planes. No one really needs to use a particular airline at a particular time or use a public park at any given time. It ceases to be a public place if a small group of people can de facto monopolize it by making it unpleasant for most other people to be there.
James Q. Wilson talked about this problem a long time ago... and why standard neighborhood shaming cannot really police it. Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations which is why you have a breakdown in manners and even high school kids from affluent areas hitting "devious licks."
Because the sanctions employed are subtle, informal, and delicate, not everyone is equally vulnerable to everyone else’s discipline. Furthermore, if there is not a generally shared agreement as to appropriate standards of conduct, these sanctions will be inadequate to correct such deviations as occur. A slight departure from a norm is set right by a casual remark; a commitment to a different norm is very hard to alter, unless, of course, the deviant party is “eager to fit in,” in which case he is not committed to the different norm at all but simply looking for signs as to what the preferred norms may be.
> same line of reasoning could apply to music on planes
You can’t leave a plane. And planes aren’t for recreation. I like quiet parks. But parks aren’t some natural creation, they’re entirely manmade. I’m okay with other people having different thoughts on how to recreate.
> Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations
Older people have been complaining about kids with boomboxes and skateboards for generations.
The average park in America is only like 5-10 acres. And of that only certain areas may have playstructures / basketball courts / benches / other things that people can actually use. So sufficiently loud audio can ruin people's experience. It's obvious to anyone who's been outside in the past 10 years that "live and let live" doesn't work... if they were using heroin and nodding out would that just be another form of recreation?
Yes, and the crime spike of the 1960s started with boomers reaching 15-20. You can follow that to cookie monster pajamas in Walmart.
The tax avoidance schemes used by most major US companies are to avoid US taxes on foreign income. Most developed countries have territorial tax systems so their companies do not even need to use these fancy legal maneuvers because the income is largely exempt anyways.
In any given year corporate income tax is like 6-10% of federal receipts so even if that was doubled there would not be a huge decline in income taxes needed. The way the US does corporate tax is really also not that great from an economic perspective because it is a form of double taxation. The Estonian model of only taxing distributions incentivizes investment and avoids many debates over depreciation etc.
Does Leslie Groves deserve (some) credit for the Manhattan Project? Obviously there were people under him doing the actual day to day physics and chemistry work, but if a less effective person was in charge, the whole thing could have failed.
How much worse could you get from a society where 80% of people are living in extreme poverty and where in a good year inflation is 250%? Maduro was not some great guarantor of stability who kept a divided society together. For instance about half the prisons are run under the so called pranato system which means they are literally run by the inmates. I think it's reasonable to say that almost anyone would be better than him.
Pretty much everyone who wasn't in on the CADIVI scam or the subsidized gasoline racket or selling $0.05 screws to PDVSA for $75 stands to benefit from a new government. Many corrupt dictators understand that stealing a small percentage of a bigger pie is a more stable arrangement that can ultimately be more profitable in the long run but the clan that ran Venezuela was so greedy they wanted to take everything as fast as possible.
Venezuela was not a society held together by a strongman unlike Iraq/Libya/Syria. It also does not have the religious or tribal divides those places did. The country was already on the brink of collapse from a combination of sanctions and truly astronomical levels of corruption. There has been a roughly 70% economic decline over the past decade and while there is no longer hyperinflation, inflation in 2025 was at least 200%. Panama would be a more appropriate reference point.
> Penchukov’s political connections helped him evade prosecution by Ukrainian cybercrime investigators for many years. The late son of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych (Victor Yanukovych Jr.) would serve as godfather to Tank’s daughter Miloslava... Sources briefed on the investigation into Penchukov said that in 2010 — at a time when the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) was preparing to serve search warrants on Tank and his crew — Tank received a tip that the SBU was coming to raid his home.
It took 10 years for Madoff victims to get most of their money back and he was literally just depositing the money into his checking account. He also almost certainly had much fewer victims than this guy did. Based on the complaint I think there may be a large number of international victims as well. This case will really test whatever claims process the DOJ has but hopefully some measure of compensation can be reached quickly. I suspect there are tens of thousands of scam domains and different addresses used so even identifying who to notify will probably be extremely difficult.
Citizenship by investment revenue was 20% of St Kitts’ GDP in 2023. Look at the Henley & Partners website - pretty much every developed country (much of EU, Singapore, Switzerland, many Asian countries) offer at least offer residency by investment. And they still offer it despite pressure from the EU to shut these programs down, so there must be some benefit to it.
These are usually designed for wealthy people. The benefits might only accrue to the wealthy in the target country. For example my government in New Zealand keeps talking about being able to sell land to foreigners if it's more than 2 million. That benefits people that own land worth 2 million. The theory is that it trickles down to benefit the majority, but I wouldn't bet that actually occurred.
The bar should not be investment, instead it should be how much is spent. That could also cover nomadic workers. So long as their expenses are bringing overseas income then everybody in the target country is likely to be advantaged.
Investment can benefit both parties (it doesn't have to be zero sum) but savvy investors don't give a shit whether there is any benefit to the country. Applicants naturally don't like to spend money without gain, yet the purpose of the golden visas should be to encourage applicants to spend money!!!
Or investors often just invest in static assets that just hold their wealth. That doesn't help the target country.
Just my opinion from looking at the schemes and wondering how I would get around the rules so that I had no dead weight expenses.
Look at the plaintiff in this case: it's a mentally unstable person who blames her life problems on social media. Never mind the fact that she had been diagnosed with mental illnesses as an early teen, or that an overwhelming majority of people who use social media don't develop eating disorders or other mental illnesses as a result of it (and in fact the incidence of say bulimia peaked 30 years ago in spite of almost universal social media adoption among young people). This is not at all like smoking where 15% of smokers will get lung cancer.
And due to some absurd legal reasoning the plaintiff was allowed to pseudonymously extort $3 million out of tech companies. Worst of all I see people on a technology forum applauding this out of some sort of resentment towards large companies!
reply