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

271–280 of 342 posts

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

#271

Post by parineum »

munk-a wrote: post #226
mgaunard wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement, which are traditionally very distinct things. It makes sense for there to be leeway due to the scale, automations and high rate of false positives with limited capabilities to correct them.

For what reason should we allow such leeway? No hosted platform in the 80s was responsible for a similar amount. Maybe if Meta can't properly police such a large platform it shouldn't be allowed to operate one. Facebook doesn't have to exist and we don't have to accept weak cries of "it's our best effort!"

There should be leeway because sexual content is subjective and it gives a few chances to allow users to learn where the line is.

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

#272

Post by kelseyfrog »

amluto wrote: post #252
kelseyfrog wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Observer take: until your parenthetical it looks like you're supporting Facebook's actions by nitpicking weird edge cases.

I’m not nitpicking a weird edge case. I’m nitpicking a completely unsound inference. Even if Facebook indeed accounts for 79% of total instances of children being trafficked, it does not follow at all that removing Facebook from the picture would have reduced the number by anywhere near 79%.

Ok? It still looks like that. Maybe improve your writing or rhetoric if you want it to portray yourself differently?

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

#273

Post by parineum »

malfist wrote: post #261
dantillberg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"sexually explicit content" and "child sex trafficking" are rather different things. Connected? Maybe? If you want to claim that Mark was lying, you've got to demonstrate the connection as part of the claim. Otherwise, it's a non sequitur.

Are you making the argument that child sex trafficking is not sexually explicit?

Obviously they're saying that sexually explicit content isn't child sex trafficking.

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

#274

Post by thaumasiotes »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #144
thaumasiotes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in this case, lying to Congress is a crime, but techoversight is happy to call statements "lies" when there's no chance of upholding a "lying to Congress" charge. So their position that addressing the problem they see requires additional regulation is correct. This is the first example of a "lie" they give: “No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered and this is why we invest s…

> You would have to really strain even to call Zuckerberg's statement a statement of fact, and the factual elements are just "we invest [an amount]" and "we do [efforts]". You think such a weak claim is still a strain? That's the weakest possible factual interpretation. But I don't think we should ignore "so much [...] to make sure" or "industry leading". If there was nobody prioritizing teen safety, or if that team…

> But I don't think we should ignore "so much [...] to make sure" or "industry leading".

You're wrong; one is tautologous and the other is clearly non-factual.

More specifically, if you say "that's why we do so much to make sure [that xxx...]", the literal meaning of "so much" is "as much as we do" - the claim can never be false.

Meanwhile, "industry leading" is puffery.

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

#275

Post by NickC25 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #219
joering2 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He/FB was very against Trump/MAGA during his first tenure with the "fact check teams" verifying majority of popular opinions on FB, until before second election Trump posted that Zuckerberg should be in prison for meddling and giving Democrats their positive push. Nothing happened until Trump won second term, then the fact check teams were gone and Zuckerberg donated 1 million to Trump. Here Google AI will say it bet…

Well, not a "stay out of jail" card. It was a "quit having to worry that maybe 1) Trump actually means it, and 2) the courts will go along, and 3) my legal team can't save me. Under current circumstances, the odds that Trump could have had Zuckerberg jailed for anti-Trump fact checking are very close to zero.

Seriously.

Mark's got 250 billion dollars, founded a 2 trillion dollar company, and is quite possibly the wealthiest self-made person alive today. It is highly likely Mark also possesses some form of security clearance from the NSA related to issues adjacent to his company. It it also likely that Mark has some form of kompromat

Donald Trump is a pedophile and a lying grandstander who has always talked tough and backed down when up against someone who knows what they are doing.

Donald Trump could try to put Mark in jail. Mark has hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent the government from touching him. It wouldn't happen. The second Donald Trump tried shit, Mark would simply buy the top 100 law firms in the nation, and have them work together to stop Trump, and Trump would back down.

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

#276

Post by y-c-o-m-b »

rappatic wrote: post #233
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily doubt it's false, but if you have something of your source material, or your reasoning then it would make it possible to agree.

That link leads to a PDF which says "The 2020 Federal Human Trafficking Report found that 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited from Facebook, with 14% being recruited on Instagram." This is a completely different statistic: the percentage of child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media vs. the percentage "of all child sex trafficking."

Perhaps it's an AI written/assisted article because they clearly added the two percentages together to come up with the poorly summarized claim.

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

#277

Post by munk-a »

parineum wrote: post #271
munk-a wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what reason should we allow such leeway? No hosted platform in the 80s was responsible for a similar amount. Maybe if Meta can't properly police such a large platform it shouldn't be allowed to operate one. Facebook doesn't have to exist and we don't have to accept weak cries of "it's our best effort!"

There should be leeway because sexual content is subjective and it gives a few chances to allow users to learn where the line is.

Let me clarify - why should we offer Meta leeway to implement such a flawed review system.

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

#278

Post by gtowey »

charles_f wrote: post #179
close04 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both sides can be true simultaneously. You can invest a lot and produce no results. Evidence show that Meta can be very effective at achieving the results that drive profits. It's already suspicious when they fail exactly at the ones that would lower profits. Even more when you consider the rest of the evidence which shows intention to hide the "failure". That breaks trust and you're just choosing to believe that t…

Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient. When you have 10 other examples that are undeniable, might as well remove the ones that can be challenged, let alone open with it, or you open yourself to very standard rebuttal PR strategies that focus on these.

> Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient

This is the exact problem, they could solve the issue by spending a lot more money. They could hire enough human content reviews to keep up, they could force all content to go through review before it can be posted.

But those things break their business model. If you take away their ability to externalize these cost by harming society, it turns out Facebook isn't a viable business.

From this perspective, every dollar they make, all those billions that Zuckerberg is "worth" is simply value extraction at our expense.

Which is why he will do absolutely everything to protect it. It's so far beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. To know what he knows and continue to operate Facebook like this is moving into the territory of being pure evil.

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

#279

Post by joering2 »

NickC25 wrote: post #275
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not a "stay out of jail" card. It was a "quit having to worry that maybe 1) Trump actually means it, and 2) the courts will go along, and 3) my legal team can't save me. Under current circumstances, the odds that Trump could have had Zuckerberg jailed for anti-Trump fact checking are very close to zero.

Seriously. Mark's got 250 billion dollars, founded a 2 trillion dollar company, and is quite possibly the wealthiest self-made person alive today. It is highly likely Mark also possesses some form of security clearance from the NSA related to issues adjacent to his company. It it also likely that Mark has some form of kompromat Donald Trump is a pedophile and a lying grandstander who has always talked tough and backe…

I wasn't voting for Trump, but if you have a credible evidence that "Trump is a pedophile" then you should immediately go to your nearest police station and report it. Otherwise you might be found in a lot of legal trouble for aiding and abetting "a pedophile" even if unintentionally.

With that being said, I don't think you know much about how litigations work. Buying 100 top law firms and having I presume all those lawyers working on your case does not help you win your case; judges do not get intimidated by the law firm you use. And that's like saying drinking 100x more protein will get me muscles 100x faster.

Trump trying to put Mark in jail is all that needs to happen for a starter. He could cost his company billions; once they done with FB and all the political power then can rain, the stock would be some 80% down. Mark would be worth 90% of what he has now and would be radioactive for any future business endeavors. I mean it should be clear at this point that President of USA does have a power to destroy your life and/or business. He doesn't need to put you in prison to end your life. And Mark wouldn't pay $1 million bribe if he would think otherwise.

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

#280

Post by ceejayoz »

Lerc wrote: post #248
kelseyfrog wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Observer take: until your parenthetical it looks like you're supporting Facebook's actions by nitpicking weird edge cases.

There lies much of the problem. Nobody in Salem wanted to be seen to stand up for witches. I have never had a Facebook account because I never liked what they do, but this 'evidence' against them seems like they are relying on the seriousness of the allegations more than the accuracy.

The problem with witch hunts is witches aren't real; every witch you find is guaranteed to be a false positive.

A witch hunt that finds actual witches everywhere isn't really a "witch hunt" in the sense the term is usually used.

Post reply on HN