Thread

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

1. sky2224 · 1790476827 · focus · HN ↗

   Huh, this explains why I've seen some pretty wildly obtuse far right posts being promoted to the top of the discover page on Snapchat.
2. Ellis_dev · 1790478408 · focus · HN ↗

   Guess Snap's data collection became so comprehensive that states are comparing them to a government entity. Wild times.

   1. xethos · 1790481705 · focus · HN ↗

      > states are comparing them to a government entity

      You've got it backwards: Snap said they were doing the bidding of the DHS and the FDA, and as such, their case belongs in Federal court. It was the court that said "No, you aren't, this is going back to state-level court". Per TFA (quoting State v. Snap, Inc., 2026 WL 2525593 (D. Kansas Aug. 27, 2026)):

      > "No doubt, Snap performed some services for federal officers. Some of those services—like advertising on Snapchat—reflect no more than a standard arms-length commercial transaction. Other services, like lens production and custom research, didn’t involve a federal officer’s “strict guidance or control” over Snap. Snap thus has failed to identify any conduct that qualifies it as acting under a federal officer"

3. cremp · 1790481499 · focus · HN ↗

   As someone whose seen first hand how addictive it can be among adults with type A personality, and how it causes relationship issues because they can't stop consuming the content - it feels to me true about the lawsuit itself, but all other social media is doing the same doom-scrolling.

   Why Snap is choosing to list it's ties with DHS to get into federal court is confusing - what benefits would Snap get by going to federal?

   1. dreamcompiler · 1790487248 · focus · HN ↗

      Probably they expect the Trump administration to give them friendlier treatment than Kansas would.

      1. cassonmars · 1790489223 · focus · HN ↗

         Probably not, the current (and hopefully not continuing) state admin (outside of the governor who has been a nice check against the legislature and judicial insanity here) is very ideologically aligned to the point of trying to find ways to imprison trans people.
4. Terr_ · 1790482649 · focus · HN ↗

   [delayed]

   1. altairprime · 1790502696 · focus · HN ↗

      If they’re fine binding their future to that of corrupt government officials, then this is certainly the right administration to take that bet with. Are their financials sound?

      1. Terr_ · 1790536327 · focus · HN ↗

         [delayed]

         1. altairprime · 1790554870 · focus · HN ↗

            [delayed]
5. Mugshelf · 1790483538 · focus · HN ↗

   Snap aiming for sovereign immunity? Next they'll be issuing passports. That's a truly wild legal argument.

   1. Apocryphon · 1790574305 · focus · HN ↗

      Not a nation-state actor within international relations, but an entity that acts on behalf of the government within constitutional law.
6. Marchant_hq · 1790483752 · focus · HN ↗

   Wild move for Snap to try claiming state actor status. Definitely sets a strange precedent for corporate liability and user data.

   1. jsrozner · 1790495222 · focus · HN ↗

      Maybe Snap's lawyer's AI did not see the second order effects of the idea.
   2. el_io · 1790499761 · focus · HN ↗

      I'm sure snap users care so much about it.
7. phendrenad2 · 1790489262 · focus · HN ↗

   [delayed]
8. drooopy · 1790497040 · focus · HN ↗

   My idiot brain's first thought was "goddamn Canonical and their feature creep nonsense. what the hell have they done now?" before reading the article.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.