Hook, hold, harvest and hide: Meta's alleged strategy laid out in first week

Corporate & legal accountability for harm

• Many argue more CEOs should face prison, not just fines, for large‑scale social harm; others warn that vague standards like “harming society” resemble authoritarian tools.
• Comparisons to China split the thread: some praise harsh treatment of business leaders; others stress it’s often politically targeted and not a model to copy.
• Several note US enforcement is highly selective, especially for white‑collar crime; others counter that executives do sometimes go to jail, but mostly for investor fraud, not social or environmental damage.
• There is concern that going after only Meta, if many firms behave similarly, risks politically selective prosecution but can also be a strategy to “make an example” with limited resources.

Meta’s ethics and employee responsibility

• Many see Meta/Facebook as fundamentally immoral, arguing anyone choosing to work there now is complicit.
• Others say corporations themselves don’t have morals; they are structures diffusing responsibility, which is precisely the problem.
• Debate over where accountability lies: top leadership and board vs mid‑level managers vs individual contributors; fear of scapegoating ICs like in past scandals (e.g., Wells Fargo).

Addiction engineering & “mind control”

• Strong condemnation of intentional “addiction engineering,” especially targeting teens; likened to a black‑hat attack on the human nervous system and to assault.
• View that businesses are structurally incapable of self‑policing profitable harms, so only regulation that universally bans certain practices can work.
• Others note the gray area: making products engaging vs addictive. Questions arise about whether most modern advertising and UX optimization become de facto “mind control.”
• Suggested regulatory approach: first outlaw explicit, secretive R&D programs whose stated goal is maximizing addiction, then iteratively tighten boundaries.

Children vs elderly as vulnerable groups

• Core lawsuit focuses on children, but some argue elderly users are at least as vulnerable: easier to scam, politically manipulable, and still voting.
• Counterarguments: elders are autonomous adults with life experience, whereas minors lack full rights and capacity; yet technology naïveté and cognitive decline complicate this.

Regulation, age verification & surveillance

• Skepticism that Meta’s support for child‑safety/age‑verification laws is altruistic; some see it as a path to mass surveillance or liability offloading.
• Others note Meta is lobbying for on‑device age checks (pushing burden to Apple/Google), while future digital IDs could make centralized verification and tracking more scalable.

Meta’s structural power & dependence

• Some call for dissolving Meta and jailing leadership, dismissing fines as ledger entries that quickly wash out.
• Pushback notes heavy dependence on WhatsApp and Facebook pages by small businesses worldwide; abrupt shutdown could cause serious economic disruption.
• Others believe migration to alternatives would be rapid, though there is disagreement, citing Twitter’s messy collapse as a caution.

Corporate personhood & rule of law

• One side blames US corporate personhood and weak penalties: perpetual existence, non‑jailable entities, modest fines, and executives rarely punished personally.
• Replies clarify corporations have only some human‑like rights and can be dissolved, but proving personal criminal liability for top executives is inherently hard.
• Tension between wanting stronger tools to punish “societal damage” and fear that vague standards could be abused against disfavored activities or technologies.