>The trial marks the second phase of New Mexico’s lawsuit after a jury in March found Meta violated the state’s consumer protection law by misrepresenting the safety of Facebook and Instagram for young users and ordered the company to pay $375 million in damages.
Meta has warned that if the court forces them to comply with the proposed "impractical" safety changes (such as new age verification), they may have no choice but to remove access to Facebook and Instagram in New Mexico.
____
I guess fixing the problem is out of the question.
68
MrjlawrenceMay 4, 2026
+34
In my eyes, “fixing” Facebook and Instagram IS removing them.
34
Actual__WizardMay 4, 2026
+19
That's correct and they're behind a multi-national lobbying effort to age gate the internet instead of fixing their own products. Meta is a Machiavellian scam factory that targets kids. The company must critically be broken up and some of it's executives need to be held accountable for their crimes. There is a case of clear and obvious criminality involving Meta in Japan. Some of their executives are criminals and that is basically guaranteed to include Mark Zuckerberg.
So, I don't know what people were thinking, but no it's not okay if Mark Zuckerberg tricks kids into getting addicted to their scam factory... Why do right wingers always want to exploit kids? Those people are disgusting...
19
unholyswordsman6 days ago
+11
Because if conservatives weren't immoral, they would have no morals whatsoever. They are truly deplorable.
11
Actual__Wizard6 days ago
+4
Having morals and ethics is a "popular idea" and that's "for liberals."
Conservatives want to install a dictatorship to do all of the unpopular stuff.
And the more unpopular the things that dictator does, the "more conservative they are."
4
forensicdudeMay 4, 2026
+5
This is all bark, on their part they have a hub in Los Lunas. But they are rich enough to call it a loss and walk away.
5
war_story_guy6 days ago
+2
Can more states follow suit so they would have no choice but to remove access there as well? Pretty please?
2
pixeltackleMay 4, 2026
+13
As of 2020, Facebook had invested over $1 billion in a Los Lunas, New Mexico datacenter with plans to more than double that by now.
---
I think FB's claims they'll leave the state instead of change their policy is unlikely.
13
matrinox6 days ago
+5
It’s the same threat as billionaires saying they’ll leave if you tax them. They want to make money, even if it’s less of it. It’s completely irresponsible in a financial sense to just give up a market just cause it’s slightly less profitable
5
Consistent-Throat1306 days ago
+1
The Internet gives few fucks about state borders.
They could literally run that data center to serve surrounding States, while still rejecting traffic that appears to be from NM.
1
pixeltackle6 days ago
-1
that isn't how Internet Pipes™ work
-1
Consistent-Throat1306 days ago
+1
Facebook doesn't own the "Internet Pipe" all the way to your end device.
Any geo-ban is going to be by IP, and maybe mobile device location data if enabled.
They don't just "disconnect the Internet pipes" - it's more a "I don't like what your device is sending me so no login/data for you".
There's nothing stopping that from being implemented even if you're sitting on the data center's doorstep - it's *exactly* how Internet pipes work.
1
pixeltackle6 days ago
+1
I love that you spent all that time explaining internet pipes to someone who deals with networking for their living. Thanks for the lol.
You might also want to learn about the legal term "nexus"
1
VirginiaLuthierMay 4, 2026
+21
And Mad Mark is punishing us with his spyglasses. Teach us to make fun of his cartoon Metaverse, right?
21
hera-fawcett6 days ago
+1
ngl its p shitty bc the glasses are *amazing* as an accessibility device for visually impaired ppl.
i worked in a school district w some low vision kids who used them--- holy f*** they were amazing. such a huge quality of life upgrade for these kids.
1
Mikestopheles6 days ago
+5
Real monkey paw situation there
5
EvenSpoonier6 days ago
+4
They might want to be careful with those threats to just leave the state. Some people would consider that its own kind of victory.
4
HelpfulTooth16 days ago
+3
It doesn’t matter what the outcome is, the profiteering off of children by meta will be more then the fines/punishment. This is just another day for corporate America.
3
The-Sonne5 days ago
+3
I 100% support online anonymity and privacy. No real life ID online, ever
ESPECIALLY with the excuse of "it's for the children"
3
SleepingToDreamingMay 4, 2026
+4
Zuckertron: "There is no *SEARCH FOR RESPONSE* harm to adolescents...
*ADJUST RESPONSE*
...harm to future taxpayers...
*CRITICAL MASS ADJUST*
...harm to kids."
4
Interesting-Prize-791 day ago
+1
Sue these guys into the dark ages anything to hurt their bottom line
1
adx931May 4, 2026
-6
Why aren't the parents of those children in prison for letting their children use such dangerous technology?
-6
MAMark16 days ago
+1
The technology isn't dangerous. The site is dangerous in ways that are not immediately apparent to users.
If Tylenol turned out to have poison in it, which the makers were well aware of, you wouldn't blame the parents who gave it to their kids before it was discovered.
1
DrDFox6 days ago
+3
This isn't a case of poison in a pill, though. It's been well known and well documented that unfettered access to social media is bad for kids and parents should be limiting and monitoring the use.
3
adx9316 days ago
If a parent gave their toddler a bottle of tylenol as a toy and the toddler died from an overdose, the parent would go to prison. Why doesn't the same apply for social media?
25 Comments