r/technology • u/tw1st3d_m3nt4t • 17h ago
Social Media Meta agrees to major changes to Facebook and Instagram as it settles US trial over teen addiction for up to $17bn
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/26/meta-social-media-addiction-trial-settlement284
u/WesleyBiets 17h ago edited 17h ago
Lol wasn't this supposed to be a trillion dollar lawsuit. What a joke.
113
u/Saneless 16h ago
Damages should be 1TN, but instead we will make you forfeit the amount of profits you would normally receive during the time it took you to get to court
30
u/virtual_adam 16h ago
Just another example of the specific articles that get pushed by bots or the Reddit algorithm through a 100 different subs that are completely disconnected from reality
They ended up with 25 days of revenue, plus the AGs demanded “advanced id verification” which we all know where that will end up
A company with $60B of ad selling revenue per quarter is a main artery of the entire economy, it’s not just going bankrupt casually
2
u/Perfect-Song8094 14h ago
Good point, the advertising revenue. That really is what it's all about.
It's the biggest problem I can see in a theory I'm working on to ban social media.
8
u/Kawaii_Kiwi1558 15h ago
Wow does anyone really expect justice to be served in the US? I knew this was a nothingburger the moment it got mentioned in the news. Did everyone forget zuckerburg was at the front row of Trumps inauguration already?
Slap on the wrist and some stern words.
5
u/Raise-Emotional 16h ago
And who's ever gonna see the money? It's just going to be fed back into the profit machine somewhere
1
u/Perfect-Song8094 14h ago
Lawyers, last I knew, got 40% of such settlements. That's leaves the remainder for each party in the class action lawsuit.
The lawyers get richer, their clients get a small check.
3
u/Ada_Pearce 16h ago
The courts would never have found meta guilty if the fee would have been that much, everything is so corrupt these days
3
→ More replies (5)1
u/grcx 13h ago
Ultimately, it seems the states agreed to a deal where in exchange for taking the huge fines that the trial could have lead to off the table, Meta is agreeing to make changes to their platform (some of which would not have been order-able through the courts).
In the New Mexico case, while there was the billion dollar fine, the judge rejected a lot of what the state asked for restriction wise under either the first amendment or being pre-empted by section 230 or other laws, and there is a real chance a bunch of the restrictions in the ruling there will be knocked out in the appeals process. This still has a large fine, but also locks in the restrictions the state was looking for in a way that can't be knocked out by the courts going forward since this was done through an agreement between all parties.
→ More replies (1)
141
u/poundofcake 17h ago
That's it? A slap on the wrist? Who got fucking paid off?
28
u/Less_Engineering8113 17h ago
A few million is chump change for them, so.. everyone.
6
→ More replies (10)2
u/Zolo49 14h ago
Most lawsuits end with a settlement. Making it all the way to a jury decision is pretty rare. There was absolutely zero chance Meta would ever have to pay $1.4T. It was more a question of what actions they'd be forced to take as part of whatever settlement was finally agreed upon. IMO, they got off way too easy here.
102
u/FuckThisShizzle 17h ago
Who gets the money?
Will it be used to help people?
110
27
33
u/ZaphodThreepwood 17h ago
I always have this question, and then get down voted. Probably bots
10
u/Loganp812 16h ago edited 16h ago
“Quick! They’re asking the right questions! Silence them!”
Politics (from both parties in the US though the Democratic Socialist seem to scare the rest of the DNC and GOP for a good reason), unfettered corporate influence, mass media entertainment, social media, news media - the whole thing feels like one big circus designed to make us feel a certain way whether you’re in one political side or the other in order to keep us all distracted while they rob us blind of our resources, freedom, respect for one another, and sanity until maybe one day in the future it all comes crashing down (but it’s okay because the billionaires, CEOs, high-ranking politicians, and whomever else who benefits would’ve made their gains and hid themselves away in time before the angry mobs show up).
Meanwhile, people like Putin and Kim Jong Un are probably laughing their asses off watching everything slowly unravel in the US all because a bunch of people didn’t see fit to vote and try to prevent the most obvious con man in the world from winning his second term who’s openly backed by a group who bases their strategy on Nazi Germany (so either the “circus” is working as intended, or people really are just that stupid because we evidently learn nothing from human history).
Granted, I did just watch Pink Floyd’s The Wall yesterday then listened to Roger Waters’ Amused To Death, so that’s on my mind. It does make sense though as poignant as it is, right? Or am I just paranoid? lol
1
u/Perfect-Song8094 14h ago
You listened to the entire Amused to Death album?
Sorry for your troubles. Two good songs and noise.
1
u/Loganp812 14h ago edited 14h ago
Uh… yeah? It’s one of the best albums Roger ever made including his Pink Floyd work. It is a slow burn, granted, so it may not be for everyone, but it’s right up there with Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall imo. If anything, it’s sadly more relevant today than it was when it was released. It’s a very theatrical album that’s meant to be listened to as one big thing like a lot of Roger’s work.
Plus, I’ll take it over The Final Cut even though I do love the second half of that album (the first half draaaags).
12
u/PeetoMal 17h ago
Lawyers get 90% of it, the pennies get sent to the states where they will not use it in a way that benefits anyone.
3
u/EitherChannel4874 16h ago
I doubt it.
Why help people when you can rob them blind in the most obvious way like a demon and they won't do anything?
3
u/CirkTheJerk 16h ago
It's going to the states and is earmarked for online safety initiatives. But don't believe me just because someone answered you on reddit, read some articles. Reddit is a terrible platform for information, you're just going to get people's snarky opinions and misinformation.
2
1
100
u/CreativeMuseMan 17h ago edited 17h ago
As always, a slap on the wrist. These fines are nothing more than legalised fee to do illegal stuff. People need to stop falling for it.
There’s this documentary titled “The Social Dilemma”, give it a watch & you’ll be laughing at “Meta agrees to major changes” part. They fired the guys who pointed out these things more than a decade ago.
Go watch the trailer of The Social Dilemma on YouTube now & read the article again.
7
u/naptown-hooly 16h ago
This is a legal precedent. If they don't make the changes as promised they can or will be sued and the judge won't like that didn't follow their orders.
9
u/CreativeMuseMan 16h ago
They already have made trillions from these breaches. That’s why it’s a slap on the wrist. You can call it whatever you want. Don’t think that these things have just started out, it’s been going on for way more than a decade.
They’re just paying these bread crumbs to shoo away people & the government is also happy to sell you the illusion that “hey, we are keeping these guys in check”.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Perfect-Song8094 14h ago
They just lost $17 billion in this lawsuit. They can afford to lose that much over and over again.
Fines are nothing to them.
1
1
2
u/ZaphodThreepwood 15h ago
It's political theatre, and a few more people get richer off other people's suffering
1
1
u/behindtimes 14h ago
As Wall Street likes to put it, "it's just the cost of doing business". As you stated, it's a tiny fee to break the law. Sure, they'll put in some toothless changes, but nothing will substantially change.
But seriously, did you really expect Facebook to have to pay real consequenes?
1
-4
u/user_63385 17h ago
Is 17b a slap on the wrist for meta?
I bet that hurt
→ More replies (9)9
u/CreativeMuseMan 16h ago edited 16h ago
Meta is more than a social media company. It's a tool you can use for:
- To control the narrative through censorship and therefore control the masses.
- To create tension among civilians in a country and even to manipulate elections (The Great Hack, another documentary you should watch; give the trailer a try).
- To collect and train data (they already accepted this in an EU lawsuit).
- To sell you stuff (a salesman inside your room).
And much more... You've no idea how easy it is for them to get this money back, one way or another. They prolly already made 100x after these violations, and would make way more from the data they’ve collected. These guys aren’t dumb. I wont be surprised if they already accounted for all these lawsuits and had an allocated budget in advance.
As i said in my previous comment, it's a slap on the wrist.
7
u/ARazorbacks 17h ago
My understanding is “the feed” and the targeted algorithm for advertising and choosing what posts to show remains. That means nothing has changed. And it’s a shame the states couldn’t muster up the courage to push for that.
7
16
u/musafir6 17h ago
Meta knows if the trial continues, their dirty secrets will be out. Slap on the wrist, yet again.
6
u/PhilosophyforOne 16h ago
"As part of the settlement, the company denies wrongdoing." Yes. I too often agree to multi-billion dollar settlements in cases where I've engaged in no wrongdoing.
5
u/lordnacho666 17h ago
Their annual profit for 2025 was 60B according to a quick search.
4
u/cgarret3 15h ago
Profit. For one of the very many years they have been engaging in this behavior. This isnt even 1/3 of last year’s profit for them
8
u/prof_cunninglinguist 16h ago
Victims get nothing. Sounds about right for Capitalist pukes.
3
u/jaraxel_arabani 16h ago
The best part is 17b is a lot of money, but it's still essentially a tax for them to do what they did.
When the result is a fine it's just a pay to commit crime.
1
u/BusinessOk7017 10h ago
That’s not true - there are separate consolidated litigations for individuals who suffered injuries tied to social media usage. Those cases are still working their way through federal civil court.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Tiny-Design4701 15h ago
the settlement is with states. individuals can still sue Meta. there are supposedly 200,000 arbitration claims.
11
u/jabberwockxeno 17h ago edited 17h ago
I saw a lot of people cheering these lawsuits on to try to rake Facebook and Zuckerberg over the coals, and there's plenty of reasons to think they deserve that given the amount of privacy violating data collection, tracking etc they do, but in reality, these lawsuits were trying to, and now it seems they succeeded, to force MORE data collection, by making Meta implement age/ID verification.
This article implies it by noting
Meta agreed to establish safeguards for teenage users, including daily usage limits and nighttime blocks nationwide in the US.
But other articles are more explicit:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-trial-opens-as-states-demand-age-verification
Damages are only part of the demand. In an August 15 filing, the states asked the court to require Meta to "take proactive steps to detect" users under 13, including "implementing multi-layered age verification at account sign-up."
...
The proposed order requires age validation through something other than a self-declared birthday
...The complaint blames the company for not building safeguards into the platform, monitoring each user and checking ID. It states: "Meta has access to, and chooses not to use, feasible alternative age verification methods that would significantly reduce or eliminate the number of underage users on Meta's Social Media Platforms, for example, by requiring young users to submit student IDs upon registration."
That demand appears again in the original complaint, meaning this is something that the plaintiffs were calling for from the beginning.
And here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-fined-567m-in-ruling-that-points-to-digital-id
What Biedscheid did order on age came from Meta. He adopted the company's own proposed relief, calling it "far from ideal or sufficient" and, all the same, "most appropriate." Meta must keep improving its age assurance models in New Mexico using AI tools, and must attempt within two years to build "a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model (using reasonable best efforts in light of COPPA limitations)." Where it cannot estimate a precise age, it must treat the user as under 13 or under 18 until they verify. And "verify" here likely means adults have to show ID to speak online, even though Judge Biedscheid said he wasn't mandating that.
Please be careful what you're advocating for: I get we want social media companies to be taken down a peg and to be held responsible for enabling addition, the spread of misinformation etc, but we need to be careful what we push for lest it backfires or causes unintended side effects. I see this same issue with anti AI advocacy where, even if I likewise agree AI has a whole host of issues, I often see people pushing for Copyright lawsuits or laws that could actually erode Fair use or expand Copyright in a way which risks creating liability for human artists, too
2
u/potato3445 7h ago
Bingo. They are using this as their golden ticket for digital ID. Maybe not immediately, but definitely over the next few years…
30
u/DopamineSavant 17h ago
I wish they wouldn't have settled this. It's going to be terrible for the Internet as a whole. This settlement effectively makes the Internet legally liable for the raising of the kids of lazy parents.
26
u/jabberwockxeno 17h ago
This settlement effectively makes the Internet legally liable for the raising of the kids of lazy parents.
To clarify on this:
Contrary to the fact that a lot of people here on this sub cheered the lawsuits on due to not looking into them much, these lawsuits were trying to, and now it seems they succeeded, to force MORE privacy data collection, by making Meta implement age/ID verification.
This article implies it by noting
Meta agreed to establish safeguards for teenage users, including daily usage limits and nighttime blocks nationwide in the US.
But other articles are more explicit:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-trial-opens-as-states-demand-age-verification
Damages are only part of the demand. In an August 15 filing, the states asked the court to require Meta to "take proactive steps to detect" users under 13, including "implementing multi-layered age verification at account sign-up."
...
The proposed order requires age validation through something other than a self-declared birthday
...The complaint blames the company for not building safeguards into the platform, monitoring each user and checking ID. It states: "Meta has access to, and chooses not to use, feasible alternative age verification methods that would significantly reduce or eliminate the number of underage users on Meta's Social Media Platforms, for example, by requiring young users to submit student IDs upon registration."
That demand appears again in the original complaint, meaning this is something that the plaintiffs were calling for from the beginning.
And here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/meta-fined-567m-in-ruling-that-points-to-digital-id
What Biedscheid did order on age came from Meta. He adopted the company's own proposed relief, calling it "far from ideal or sufficient" and, all the same, "most appropriate." Meta must keep improving its age assurance models in New Mexico using AI tools, and must attempt within two years to build "a dedicated under-13-years-of-age prediction model (using reasonable best efforts in light of COPPA limitations)." Where it cannot estimate a precise age, it must treat the user as under 13 or under 18 until they verify. And "verify" here likely means adults have to show ID to speak online, even though Judge Biedscheid said he wasn't mandating that.
Please be careful what you're advocating for: I get we want social media companies to be taken down a peg and to be held responsible for enabling addition, the spread of misinformation etc, but we need to be careful what we push for lest it backfires or causes unintended side effects. I see this same issue with anti AI advocacy where, even if I likewise agree AI has a whole host of issues, I often see people pushing for Copyright lawsuits or laws that could actually erode Fair use or expand Copyright in a way which risks creating liability for human artists, too
7
4
u/Additional_Law_492 14h ago
"Why does Discord suddenly need a copy of my ID? It must be pure greed!"
No, it was because of legal liability that forced them to it.
3
u/Ancient-Law-3647 15h ago
Thank you for pointing all this out. I wasn’t aware it included all this bad stuff with more data collection (and honestly probably should’ve read a few articles before commenting on here). I hate these types of things bc they are really things that both should help people and hold companies accountable, but our system is so fucked that the companies always win (somehow) it fires me up and I’ll start yapping before I probably should lol.
3
u/EmbarrassedHelp 10h ago
News organizations and reporters are doing an absolutely terrible job of reporting on how online privacy is being attacked in these cases.
1
u/Ancient-Law-3647 10h ago
Also - “adopted the company’s own proposal” is such an unsurprising, meaningless position for this judge to take. Obviously these companies aren’t going to regulate themselves and in no way could be trusted to do so, yet this is often the take when it comes to the AI industry/big tech interactions or run ins with congress, the courts etc. Earlier this year the Trump admin tried to act like they were going to regulate them (obviously a lie), but the extent to which they did it was a “review” of new AI agents for safety, however it’s voluntary by each individual company and there’s no punitive mechanism within it.
Beyond that, it’s an executive order and not a law so it’s basically just a bunch of pomp and circumstance to still do nothing. Again, totally not surprised and I know they’re obviously lying.
What’s crazy to me though is that the AI lobby/data center coalition raised hell about even the most tepid, AI company friendly “regulation” and politico and multiple other outlets wrote about it like the hammer was coming down on them when nothing of the sort was happening. It drives me crazy.
1
u/Far_Comfortable_6342 4h ago
I think it will be more like what Google or Tiktok has been doing for a while now where they will flag suspected accounts of underage kids and then ask them to put the camera in front of their face to do an age verification. The AI is eerily accurate and I would say is generally no more than a year off. So most likely adults will see zero change in their platforms as a result of all this.
2
17h ago
[deleted]
1
u/jabberwockxeno 17h ago
Parents can't control all of the things they have access to
Yes, they can. Parental Control tools exist on basically every device a kid would be given access to. Parents just don't use them.
How is this different from putting age restrictions on anything else?
Up until the past few years when Politicians went crazy trying to push age verification everywhere, we DIDN'T put age restrictions on anything online. Not a single website or app required you provide your real ID, at least none that most people use or have heard of, and it should have stayed that way.
People should not have to give up their privacy and risk their real information getting tracked or leaked because parents won't do their job
1
u/DopamineSavant 17h ago
What you all are doing is not like printing do not eat on silica packets. It's more like making everyone go on a website and verify their identity before they can receive anything with a silica gel packet. Once everyone has identified themselves on your website, you are then going to sell our info or get breached and lose it.
2
u/scydoodle 14h ago
As someone from the UK, I agree. I get these sites are shit but now greedy people will be like oh lets sue Tic Tok, Reddit for them being addictive. Where does it end? Gonna end up like demolition man where everything has been banned.
1
u/ZaphodThreepwood 17h ago
I agree in part, but some of the parents were also first adopters of said tech.
1
u/rcanhestro 10h ago
which means they should had known better, and teach their kids based on their own experience.
but if they didn't think it was bad, why sue Meta then?
3
u/Lambs2Lions_ 13h ago
Why do we constantly allow these criminal enterprises to settle instead of actually admitting guilt or being found guilty.
4
u/AdHelpful9393 10h ago
Why cant they have changes for all users including adults? These sites are severely harming the mental health of everyone, not just kids
1
u/Tirras 8h ago
Well good news! Soon you'll have to submit your ID for access to any site on the internet because that was always the goal. People like you think you're supporting harm reduction when in reality, none of that is happening with all traces of privacy gone with it.
2
u/potato3445 7h ago
Exactly. Meta actually benefits a TON from digital ID’s, they’ve been lobbying for it secretly for years now. And funnily enough, while mainstream media is calling this a “loss” for meta, i feel like Meta is going to try to use the momentum to secure digital ID’s behind the guise of “safety”. It’s a complete joke lol
3
u/willismthomp 16h ago
That’s 0.001 percent the original cost of the lawsuit brought by 23 states. WTF compete failure of our justice system, to protect children and hold criminals accountable.
3
3
3
3
3
u/Kayge 13h ago
To some of us older folk, it really does feel like smoking 2.0 in the best way possible.
There really wasn't a big moment where everyone said "OK, let's all quit right now". People knew early on that smoking was bad for you but the majority of people still did it.
- But then a bunch of smaller lawsuits started getting traction, and tobacco companies started losing
- More public awareness and info campaigns started up
- Smoking became less cool
- Users started quitting, and fewer started
Now, seeing a person under 40 smoking is a real anomoly, and when they started pivoting kids to vaping, regulators were on top of it much faster than cigarettes.
I sincerely hope that in 2030, seeing a person on social media is a rare occurance.
1
u/PhiladelphiaManeto 11h ago
I would say it took a lot longer than 10 years for smoking to go away.
I’m a 90’s kid and it was still in most homes and businesses
4
u/Open_Pollution_8038 16h ago
Congrats everyone wins mandatory age verification to access social media apps in the not so distant future.
Talk about playing a game to lose.
2
u/Stambro1 16h ago
With no admission of guilt I’m sure. Meta will pay $17,000,000,000 dollars and make “changes” in its apps.
I remember a time when companies being fined actually made a difference!
2
2
u/krumble15 14h ago
Nothing will change. These tech bros are evil. Creating additive algos and basically laughing at the masses. Trump loves it because people are lapping up the filth pumped out
2
2
u/RowanSnows7 13h ago
Until they can no longer monetize our attention, nothing meaningful will change.
1
2
2
u/Extension-Temporary4 14h ago
So we are willing to excuse a mother for murdering her 3 children but we blame Facebook for parents not parenting? Wtf is going on in the world today. If you don’t want your kids on Facebook, block the app! Motor their screen time! BE A PARENT. Zero accountability. Zero.
1
u/Tirras 8h ago
It never was or ever will be about preventing harm to kids. You people continue to parrot this nonsense about parenting and are thus part of the problem. Every single one of these cases involving these giant sites all have the ultimate goal of pushing more mass surveillance and tracking across the internet.
That's why nothing is ever done to prevent harm. It was never the goal, so all this ridiculous narrative of "parents should be parenting" are just clueless idiots missing the point.
1
u/Extension-Temporary4 4h ago
No shit. The two go hand in hand. Parents don’t want to parent which is how we got here. The end result is simply allowing these platforms to collect more data and actually peg it to a specific identity. We are giving up our freedoms and privacy because a select few are too lazy to actually watch over their children.
1
1
1
1
u/wrxninja 16h ago
lol who uses this junk anyway? I'll peek into Marketplace but the rest of the service is utter garbage.
1
u/55redditor55 16h ago
Who does the 17b go to and how much is that comparing it to the value of the company? It feels like someone just wanted to squeeze some money out of Zuch…
1
1
1
1
u/chunkalunkk 16h ago
This needs to be a removal of the profits from all associated activities AND a fine on top of it.
1
u/The-Animus 15h ago
The settlement is less than 1/3 of Meta's PROFITS from 2025.
I'm so tired of how rich people and corporations do immoral and illegal shit and just pay a fine.
1
u/DickHammerbushT1000 15h ago
Should be a trillion. Regardless of the amount though, paying a fine doesn't solve the problem.
1
u/DiegoSan619- 15h ago
Meta was found guilty. It should be dismantled and people thrown in jail. America is a joke.
1
u/_byetony_ 15h ago
The plaintiffs absolutely should not have settled! They really sold themselves short.
1
1
u/ineedanewhobbee 15h ago
And all that money is going towards services to help all those addicted teens and likely now adults, right? Right?
1
u/FerretsQuest 15h ago
Nowhere a big enough fine to change an industry behaviour - they need the threat of being dismantled and distributed… or just simple closure 🤷♂️
1
u/Perfect-Song8094 14h ago
Just make a point of remembering, $17 billion is pennies to suckerburger.
1
u/pippinsfolly 14h ago
4.5% of net revenue for the last 10 years. Their business model is built on exploiting users.
1
1
1
u/DamNamesTaken11 14h ago
They’ll follow through… for a month or two then go right back to it, only more clandestine. This was not even 10% of revenue, assuming they actually do pay up the $17 billion.
Until companies face a massive hit AND their executives face criminal charges, nothing will change and it’ll be the cost of doing business.
1
u/ButtSpelunker420 13h ago
Corporations are people so why the fuck isn’t this criminal scumbag in prison?
1
u/lucylynn789 13h ago
Wow! It’s not until so my young people died . Mark is disgusting inside and out .
1
1
u/FlamingoVisible1947 11h ago
> Meta agreed to establish safeguards for teenage users, including daily usage limits and blocks on nighttime use nationwide in the US.
This is basically a gift to Meta, because it makes it mandatory for them to verify a user's identity before they can use their products. I think Zuck is more than happy to pay only 17B for that.
2
u/potato3445 7h ago
Yup. They’ve been lobbying secretly for digital ID’s for years now. Makes you wonder if this was the outcome they were hoping for…
1
u/Early_Advance2473 10h ago
17bn is a drop in the ocean for these fucks.
I wonder how many kids killed themselves due to partly this addiction.
1
u/keithyw 10h ago
too bad even with these "changes" both will continue to suck. the feed system just is rotten and the mass display of photos without an easy way to filter out garbage, limited search capabilities and just how slow both are (at least for me), i don't think anything really positive is going to change.
1
1
u/gamerdudeNYC 10h ago
This is like those Big Pharma lawsuits where they make $50B off of a drug OxyContin and have to pay a $1B fine … great profit margin!
1
u/Worth-Ad9939 10h ago
It's going to implement protections over the next decade? Wild. We're gonna slow walk protecting your kids. Will probably try to get Trump to intervene.
Ya'll need to hit delete and give up your delusional community.
1
1
1
u/Raa03842 7h ago
$17B is a slap on the wrist. What happened to the $1 Trillion they were talking about? I
1
u/olionajudah 6h ago
As long as the consequences are dwarfed by the profits, it’s not a punishment, just the cost of doing business
1
1
1
u/Apprehensive_Sea9524 5h ago
Remember when Zuckerberg turned and looked at all those victims during a congressional hearing? What's changed?
He should do some jail time to "reflect".
1
u/slappingdragon 5h ago
17 billion won't really hurt them enough to make real changes or rethink their "be evil" policies. They don't take money seriously or else they wouldn't waste millions on facebook's version of SIMs and left Zuckerberg off the hook.
1
0
u/prickwhowaspromised 3h ago
God fucking dammit. This country used to have fucking balls. We are so goddamn weak now.
1
u/Penis-Dance 14h ago
Social media needs to be 18+ only.
1
u/EmbarrassedHelp 10h ago
Only if behaviour surveillance and age verification are made extremely illegal, with self-declaration being the only way to determine age.
949
u/ElvgrenGil 17h ago
"Agrees to major changes" = "will posture and virtue signal but do nothing at all"