/static.texastribune.org/media/files/92e525dfa5fa30ca5b37b9d58650156c/Meta%20REUTERS%20TT.jpg)
This is one of the best cases of “When one of the worst cunts you know of makes a really good point.”
This sounds like an excellent law so it is shocking as fuck that it came out of Texas.
i’d wager it’s more about paxton trying to let zuckerberg know who’s boss, and that he’d better toe the line if he wants to stay in business
the notion that ken paxton actually cares about commoners’ privacy is, um…sus
All Zuck has to do is promise Paxton he will out some women fleeing Texas to get reproductive healthcare. Paxton would happily pay Zuck $1.4 billion.
Paxton with Clarence Thomas in a private jet to Tahiti: “got ‘em!”
When I read Paxton, I knew it wouldn’t be good for the people
I like that Meta is fined for this bad practice. But why are they paying the state? How does this help anyone that was actually victim of the facial recognition?
I can see an argument based on how state funds help state residents. But it still doesn’t really feel right to me.
A real tangential thought: What if fines claimed by the state didn’t increase the states fund? What if those funds reduced the tax burden of residents from the bottom up?
Maybe they could use the funds on the freedom grid so fewer people die this winter
Why become a corrupt state AG if not to get people to pay you metric assloads of money?
I’d be good with it since I don’t have a FB account and so I get some benefit from them getting their PPs slapped. Because frankly, I have zero sympathy for anyone who still has a facebook account.
From that title I thought Meta is going to pay Taxes $1.4b for the right to use facial recognition withou asking its users.
Tomato / tomato.
Is this going to Texans or is it just going straight to the budget?
At best it’d go towards property tax relief so the rich would benefit the most and renters get fuck nothing.
