Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (26) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: Instagram and Meta knew
Date: 02/26/24 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 5
If a parent is knowingly trafficking their child? Absolutely. The question to ask is why isn't that a prominent part of their Terms of Service?

It is part of their TOS. The issue is that the behavior described in the Times article isn't "knowingly trafficking their child." Parents posting pictures of their kids is permissible under the ToS - in fact, I suspect that literally millions of parents do that all the time. What's squicky about the instances described in the Times article are the interactions and discussions and transactions surrounding that content - but again, nothing illegal or "trafficking" about them, and probably nothing that violates the ToS.

I suspect the main reason these accounts aren't a violation of ToS is because they aren't actually the accounts of minors - they're nominally the accounts of the parents. And many of the most sickening quotes from the Times piece weren't on IG or FB, but on Telegram and other less monitored sites. If the creeps aren't doing the creepy stuff on IG or FB, it's not a violation of their ToS - and if they're interacting only with adults, and not the minors themselves, then there's probably very little that's a violation of their ToS.

They're already doing this and have been for years, often at the behest of the federal government. How much reach did you get if you posted in 2021 that COVID-19 started in a lab?

Right - and conservatives have been complaining that they shouldn't be doing this for years.

Do you agree with that position? That the tech companies shouldn't get to decide for themselves what they want on their site, and ban/demonetize the things they determine they want to get rid of?
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (26) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community