https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/08/zuckerberg-meta-lawsuit-kids-safety/
What exactly is the "right" level of funding? Right level of funding? Wrong level of funding? I mean, it's easy to say "more funding is good" or the nebulous "more needs to be done". It's hard to argue in a suit someone is evil just because they didn't approve a particular funding request.
"The lawsuit also accuses Zuckerberg of rebuffing calls from his senior leaders to prohibit some beauty filters that might harm the mental health of women and young people."
"might harm the mental health of"
I'm not really a fan of such filters, but that is so nebulous.
"Massachusetts is using the evidence to accuse Meta of making deceptive statements about the safety of its platforms in violation of state law."
Except, a lot of this is very much a matter of opinion. Someone could argue this. Someone could argue that.
They seem to be leaning a lot on "Zuckerberg might be a bit of a jerk", such as focusing on how he cancelled some meeting (presumably, to avoid an unproductive argument), or not answering his emails promptly.
But, this isn't really relevant, other than maybe being embarrassing to FB.
I mean... It's an improvement on the initial suit but unless you believe the government should be able to argue over every detail of how someone runs their business, I'm not really seeing the arguments here.
Last I checked, it wasn't illegal for FB to offer a beauty filter product.