That is the setting I see and it is the one I have been bound to. As Lavrinthi of Tartarus, I have been ‘summoned’ to represent a certain mr. Morningstar in docket 0520260819-666/05 in this to unravel the settings of what is seen as sourced by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5r7vr7q1o) where we learn ‘Meta hooked children on Facebook and Instagram, US court hears’ and the evidence presented (as I have seen it, is rather flimsy) but to unravel this I need to ask questions. So whilst some will argue that this is on Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California. I merely giggle, soon she’ll be dead and she becomes food for the pits of tartarus. She gets a chance to prove herself gains peers and that is when the dual opportunity ends. The first choice will be the Biden, the trident or the the xiphos and shield A rule my grandfather set in motion and he is after all Lord Hades of Tartarus. She might want ‘hide’ behind the armor of the law, but the rules of tartarus are simple. Win and survive or lose and become food for the winners (quite literally). It is a solution that has been in play for over 5000 years and if you are good enough, you become one of the winners and serve in on of 5 phalanxes of Tartarus. But that is later, first you must survive 20 fights and as you are made a kappa, you get assigned patrol duty and a much better weapon. At present we need to see the evidence (as little as there is).
So when we are told “Meta found “millions” of 11 and 12-year-olds were on Instagram and “did little to keep them off” as the trial opened on Tuesday.” So where are these ‘children’ from? What is the law on these kids being on Facebook and/or Instagram? What exactly is ‘keeping them off’? Are there clear legal settings? The article does not bare that out. It is written to tell the story that regardless Meta is guilty. So what exactly is “social media addiction” you see, parenting is also a need and most kids do not have it because both parents are up to their eyelids in work, they seemingly have no time for parenting. Which is a first setting. Then we get that the United States and several other nations are whining doubt the freedom of speech, but never about the accountability of the spoken word. They tend to go hand in hand. As such we are given “Meta has put forward in at other litigation this year – that social media addiction does not exist” If there is, it must be proven and that is where the trough goes leaking all over the floor. You see, Is this addition clearly described in the ‘The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition’? If not, what evidence is there? So, whilst we take notice on ““There can be no dispute that Meta has recognised people struggle, or can struggle, with their use of social media, and has come up with tools to try and address that,” Schmidt said.” But what is a struggle? And whilst we see and take notice of “The trial stems from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states, including California and New York. They claim there have been numerous violations of federal and state privacy laws for children.” My question becomes “What violation and what laws were broken?” You see, nearly all children lie (around 99%) they do so out of peer pressure and peer pressure through influencers, to being to a group and they want to belong, especially as the parents are often no where to be found, but that is my take on this and I am not a parent. So when we get to the greed driven stage we see “The states seeking billions of dollars from Meta and are demanding it make changes to Instagram and Facebook, including ending “like” counts and infinite scroll.” So what exactly are these ‘like counts’ and infinite scrolls? There is a like setting to nearly all stages (LinkedIn, BlueSky and Twitter have them too), so what is the problem? Social media is less then 30 years old, less than one generation and there are things that would required adjusting, but for that matter. How was this addressed in Microsoft products? “The “like” feature in Microsoft ecosystem applications lets users quickly react to, endorse, or acknowledge messages, comments, and files without sending a full reply. It is available across tools like Teams, Outlook, and Word”, it seems to be all over the IT and internet field. What makes Facebook stand out? It is a part of social media, deal with this. And it is not merely Microsoft, Google has this too. So either show the whole field or that setting is merely discriminatory. So as I go into my usual ‘funny’ setting of “I hate discrimination and Xbox users” you might get the point. And this case is seemingly set to over 3 years as we were given “a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states” so which states? And more important what “state privacy laws for children” were broken? There is a lacking summary and I get that this is not the setting people like Megan O’Neill might like, because if it was all good then we would see this broken down here. I reckon that there are sides that she is ‘unhappy’ with because she might lose at that point. So when we get to this we see “In her opening arguments Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California, relied heavily on information found in millions of documents provided in the case from Meta. They included internal research, employee emails, and chat logs that went all the way up to Zuckerberg.” So the simple question becomes. Who tested these millions of documents? You see when we see “internal research, employee emails, and chat logs” there is the setting of verification and validation. And as I wonder if she read them all, she shouldn’t be using statements like ‘millions’ and how many times did Mark Zuckerberg papers interact with these papers? A mention of his name doesn’t do the legal settings. Which is why as Lavrinthi of Tartarus I can see beyond the light of name calling and Auntie Aphrodite always says “People note that personal growth and confidence are often internal psychological shifts rather than strict proof of divine contact.” (It was something about yearning) which makes sense. As such I see the evidence stack against Megan O’Neill’s statements. So what is in a chat log? Were all the people verified and validated? Because who will see me as Lavrinthi the speaker for mr. Morningstar and not ‘some’ cook? Baking the preserved nature of non-data driven academic essays (an eloquent way of stating fiction)?
So then we get the ‘good’ stuff. We are given “One piece of internal research on Instagram stated: “Teens have an addict’s narrative about use.”” Merely one piece of internal research? There are allegedly millions of documents and you only have one piece of research? So was it merely one piece or one peace of research showing what YOU needed? Then we get “Despite Meta’s awareness of potentially negative impacts, O’Neill argued that Meta targeted young people as users of Facebook and Instagram. Meta, she said, went out of its way to “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids”.” So what is potential impacts?
Negative of not, Meta is a business and it needs evidence showing that impacts are negative. Which is a loaded setting as plenty of youthful adults are inclined to lie, as such the data becomes a wisp of claimed settings. So whilst we get that “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids” was it a lie? Where is the proof that there was danger to children? I don’t know if either is true, but the BBC is not giving us those details are they? Neither are others (as far as I can tell) so that is the stage were it all goes dark and that is when (as I personally see it) that O’Neill needs to really on a warped sense of needs whilst trying to get favour for children and let the dice fall where they may.
And when we get to “O’Neill outlined to the jury how Meta’s business model could be summed up. “Hook the users; hold them for as long as they can; harvest their data; hide the truth from the public when making public statements,” she said.” My question to that ‘defense’ would be “Show evidence of ‘hold them for as long as they can’” Pretty please? Users can quite Facebook any moment of the day, I did that 2 years ago when Facebook made a turn for the filtering of data. I merely gave up. They could too and this raises the stage of ‘hold them for as long as they can’ as trivial and untrue, because it is not up to Meta, it is up to the user and O’Neil cannot prove any of that, she can merely imply and hope it is enough for a jury. It is what you can prove that sets the court right and by my reasoning she failed to make the case, they can merely let this ride on and on and hope to get as much coins out if it as they can. And as I see it, Meta is merely being used to get a few cats and turn them into fat cats. As I see it, it is not evidence, merely wasting the courts time (as I personally see it).
So have a nice day and consider if you are a parent if you are watching or talking to your children about social media and about personal safety in these spaces, which any parent really needs to do.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 