this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2026
383 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
88987 readers
2870 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I mean more like "Meta to pay just 10% of original fine" - So people get an idea of how their judiciary system really works.
Even that would be clickbait though, because $219.5 billion isn't the "original fine", its the jury guidance. Its part of the sausage making of the justice system. The jury has a range of the fine per incident they can choose from to suggest a judgment. The judge then uses that jury guidance with additional info to determine the actual judgement. In this case $25 billion is the "original fine".
You're technically correct, but I still disagree with you on this. My reasoning is that I think the real story here is that meta has wormed its way out of being punished adequately, again.
This is where it becomes subjective. For some,Meta being "punished adequately" would mean the complete liquidation of the company and charges for executives in front of the International Criminal Court in the Hague for crimes against humanity.
A $25 billion award would be 41% of Meta's annual profit. That is substantial!
At least it's not just a slap on the wrist, but I like the sound of the first paragraph!
"You're correct but you weren't negative enough so I disagree"