They got done on not publishing data that, from my quick skim, would not come from human review. e.g. targeting data etc.
I can only assume Meta feels the risk/costs of fines are less than the bennefit of not disclosing who pays them big dollars for targeting certain demographics. I.e not provide ammunition for law makers to come after them in more costly area.
I don’t think this is wise advice. Something can bring joy for a while but may ultimately bring negative emotions if it becomes too large a part of one’s life. e.g. if it excludes exercise, spending time outdoors, in person human interactions etc. It may also rewrite your dopamine and serotonin
reward pathways which can be hard to reverse.
This is a bullshit and untenable position. This “one specific feature” takes out the core feature. Shameful, deceitful and reputation tarnishing position.
Similar to Pear Therapeutics that SPAC merge announced at $1.6B on about $500k revenue 12 months to date. Professional Analysts put stock target at twice first listing price. Had been around 10 years. Products in market for years. Market cap now $235M.Trading at or below cash.
I can only assume Meta feels the risk/costs of fines are less than the bennefit of not disclosing who pays them big dollars for targeting certain demographics. I.e not provide ammunition for law makers to come after them in more costly area.