Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

dispatch.techoversight.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 342 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#41

Post by marginalia_nu »

thunfischtoast wrote: post #33
raincole wrote: post #23

> > The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Really? Even if we ignore all the implication of censorship and surveillance state, lying to the congress is already a crime. It's already regulated. If he can get away with it why another act would be different?

When was the last time a rich and/or famous person faced actual repercussions for their bad actions? Actions that, would they be comitted by the lower 99,9% of the world, would yield at least a fine that actually hurts, or jail. Serious jail, not "house arrest" in a big mansion. Jail time that actually lasted to the end and was not prematurely lifted after 6 months? When the current systems are failing the solution i…

They threw Epstein in prison. Maxwell is doing time now as well. Bernie Madoff got 150 years, died in the same prison R Kelly is doing a 31 year stint in.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#42

Post by dudefeliciano »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #35

Remember when he bought IG and one of the conditions was that he not merge IG / FB but its definitely merged behind the scenes. IG somehow knows your FB and vice versa. Also, when one goes offline, both go offline.

not just behind the scenes with account manager, but instagram content and comments get pushed to facebook as well

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#43

Post by FrustratedMonky »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #17
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #13

Remember when lying could get you in trouble? Lying has become normalized to such an extent that reality is unknowable. Just listen to any regime press conference on any day. Just pick any random day and listen. The hyperreal is here.

It's always been this way, though. From tall tales of hunting or combat, the town crier spread propaganda from the lords to the public.

Just like apples/fruit from medieval times were tart and sour and full of seeds, and through generations of selective breeding are now super sweet and not necessarily still good for you.

The old town crier is very removed from todays social media.

Yes, a newspaper from 1800's was pretty biased. But does that justify todays hyper targeted algorithms as a-ok?

That something happened in the past is not a good argument that it is a-ok today.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#44

Post by Covzire »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #22
llm_nerd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he did not, and you're repeating some misinformation bit of nonsense that you find in anti-vax ignorance echo chambers. When he first learned about mRNA vaccines he misunderstood them and was concerned about vaccines "basically modifying people's DNA and RNA to directly encode in a person's DNA and RNA basically the ability to produce those antibodies". This is technically ignorant to the point of being nonsensic…

> Every single plutocrat that pulls the levers that get you riled on your march to becoming Soylent Green got the vaccines. Every single power broker got the vaccines I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious how you came to know this so confidently.

The amount of regret that exists doesn't fit either, don't forget Biden's warning that those who don't take it will die, the exact opposite of all the fear mongering happened and it's despicable people keep telling all the same lies.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#45

Post by InitialLastName »

wongarsu wrote: post #11

Reading through the list, I really wouldn't call most of them lies. There are some lies, but it's mostly 'very precisely worded statements' and statements that were arguably made in bad faith, but are not technically false. With some of them I am not even sure how their 'evidence' column is supposed to refute the quoted statement. In my opinion being this broad is really hurting the message. They should concentrate o…

It's worth noting that their argument isn't "Mark Zuckerberg perjured himself and needs to be jailed for it" because he said something strictly and knowingly false. It's "we shouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg's testimony because he (and Meta more widely) have a long (long, long) history of being knowingly deceptive about the harms of their product".

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#47

Post by llm_nerd »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #22
llm_nerd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he did not, and you're repeating some misinformation bit of nonsense that you find in anti-vax ignorance echo chambers. When he first learned about mRNA vaccines he misunderstood them and was concerned about vaccines "basically modifying people's DNA and RNA to directly encode in a person's DNA and RNA basically the ability to produce those antibodies". This is technically ignorant to the point of being nonsensic…

> Every single plutocrat that pulls the levers that get you riled on your march to becoming Soylent Green got the vaccines. Every single power broker got the vaccines I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious how you came to know this so confidently.

While it's clearly rhetorical bombast and zero readers would assume I've actually polled every person in such a position, anti-vax nonsense is a thing primarily among America's bugeoning and incredibly loud idiocracy.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#48

Post by Forgeties79 »

bronco21016 wrote: post #39

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue but after reading some of the statements in the article I can't help but agree with Tech Oversight's conclusions. It's just anecdotal but recently, when mindlessly scrolling reels, (yes, bad enough already) I came across a reel that was unquestionably sexually explicit (in USA, I think policy varies on locale). I reported the account and reel because after clicking on t…

I know exactly what you’re talking about and it has been driving me nuts for years. They constantly go up there and say “it’s cool we totally have these amazing algorithms that solve the problem,” then when they don’t solve the problem they just shrug and go “well we’re just so big you can’t actually expect us to do what we said we would. We’re doing decent enough!” YouTube is another great example of this.

Fine, be smaller. If I own 10,000 apartment buildings and one of them collapses killing dozens and injuring more, I don’t just get to shrug and go “sorry folks, it’s not reasonable for you to expect me to follow all the rules on all my properties. I’m too big.”

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony

#49

Post by mystraline »

blacklion wrote: post #25
raincole wrote: post #23

> > The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Really? Even if we ignore all the implication of censorship and surveillance state, lying to the congress is already a crime. It's already regulated. If he can get away with it why another act would be different?

Yes, it is what always puzzles me: we have regulations, they don't work because everybody can find loopholes in them, or enforcement is not strict, but lets add more regulations instead of really implementing previous ones. It is everywhere. More and more layers of regulations which don't work, not enforceable or nobody care to enforce them, but lets add more in same vein.

It shouldn't surprise you. Once a company starts bribing politicians with campaign funds, they have a foot in the door.

Once they have the paid lobbyists, then they present company-written policy documents and laws that just need a sponsor.

Those laws are crafted explicitly for specific holes only the company can effectively navigate. But on its face, looks completely fair.

Law gets passed, and the law is really a moat 'pulling up the ladder' for any other company trying to encroach on their space. Naturally, its written such a way that will pass basic scrutiny.

Post reply on HN