Meta has received more than 1.1 million reports of users under the age of 13 on its Instagram platform since early 2019 yet it “disabled only a fraction” of those accounts, according to a newly unsealed legal complaint against the company brought by the attorneys general of 33 states.
Instead, the social media giant “routinely continued to collect” children’s personal information, like their locations and email addresses, without parental permission, in violation of a federal children’s privacy law, according to the court filing. Meta could face hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, in civil penalties should the states prove the allegations.
Why the hostility? My point is that ‘just a fraction’ is a useless metric and we should focus on specifics.
They should be sharing what number of the accounts are banned so we have a clearer picture of the issue.
“Just a fraction” implies it’s a small fraction, usually less than half, and certainly not 99/100. You’re choosing to be dismissive to a ridiculous degree, and implied that just because a reporter said it that it should be dismissed, when their presentation indicates otherwise. If you want to be needlessly ignorant about it, I cannot stop you.
What is a small fraction? Lol, it’s crazy watching you insult me while defending people who just want to take advantage of your ignorance.
If they have enough information to determine it’s a ‘small fraction,’ they should just share that fraction so everyone has a better idea of what’s going on.
Banning ‘less than half’ of accounts reported is completely reasonable, considering how many fake reports are generated. But we don’t know what ‘fraction’ of the accounts were banned because the people who filed the report purposefully used vague language.
If that doesn’t set off alarm bells in your head, it’s because you’re easily manipulated. Sorry you’re so proud to defend it.