Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by jobs_throwaway » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #69

Izkata wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That refutation is ignorance of reverse-transcription enzymes. Our liver cells have been shown to do exactly that in a lab with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. There have also been studies on long covid showing that some of them still have the mRNA in their system months after it should have broken down. These haven't been linked together as far as I know, but it's definitely plausible.

The liver cell thing was literally cancer cells in vitro, and reverse-transcription doesn't "change your DNA", or your RNA. Some liver cancer cells turning mRNA into cDNA has literally zero connection with changing the DNA of your cells.

For those who like me don't know what you're talking about, this has a decent summary: https://www.chop.edu/parents-pack/evaluating-information/why...

TLDR: "Covid vaccines alter your DNA" is not an appropriate conclusion from the paper

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

#162

Post by jacobsimon » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #129

rkangel wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who could simply choose not to use it There is an inherently addicting aspect to it though - carefully evolved over the years by optimising for "engagement". One (imperfect) analogy is gambling - anyone can in theory choose not to gamble, but for some people addiction gets in the way and they don't make the choice that can be good for them. So (in the UK) the gambling industry is regulated in terms of how it advert…

I like how everyone on this thread is up in arms about Zuckerberg - until the moment where regulation is mentioned. Then it's suddenly "oh well, they could just, like, not use it, couldn't they?" There is also peer pressure/FOMO. "Choosing not to use it" is not exactly easy if everyone else in your social group uses it - especially for teens.

I’m not saying it’s easy for teens to stop using social media, I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like it should require intervention by the US government to do so. There are many other ways to go about social change.

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

#163

Post by throwuxiytayq » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

input_sh wrote: post #70

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…

Facebook closed my report the same way when I reported a beheading. Like a literal, pre-AI, ISIS-era beheading.

Maybe it was just a mild literal beheading? People these days are so easily-triggered.

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

#164

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

mystraline wrote: post #94

khalic wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol are you seriously trying to frame the Chinese cultural revolution as something good? It was an anti-science, barbaric and corrupt movement

Even the Chinese admit that the anti-science was a wrong choice. So were the witch-hunts for perceived-West-ness. But it was "has anybody dealt with monied elite". I was pointing out a case in point that there was a situation. And the choice to the elite was "be a worker, or be jailed".

A million business owners is a totally different group from billionaires. Business owners get in legal trouble all the time in the US.

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

#165

Post by lingrush4 » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

charles_f wrote: post #124

One thing that I would recommend is to avoid weaving the actual lies with statements that are subject to judgement. For example, the first two rows are about the level of investment in protection tools, and are claimed as lies because of the ineffectiveness of these tools. Both sides can be true simultaneously. You can invest a lot and produce no results. When I read that, I thought they were grasping at straws. Then…

After reading the examples, I trust Zuckerberg more than the author of this article. And that's a really low bar. The evidence for Zuckerberg lying here is flimsy at best. It's almost like the author doesn't know what lying even is.

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

#166

Post by brazzy » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

buellerbueller wrote: post #91

4ggr0 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the financier's island files gave me a huge dose of this. i always got the feeling that laws don't really matter for truly rich people, now i'm convinced. which means that we need different methods than law to handle such people.

We just need to elect a wave of politicians that will hold the wealthy accountable. That's the single issue we should all be voting on at the moment. Once the lawless are brought to heel, and their wealth kicked out of politics forever, then we can actually start solving the other problems that face us.

You mean, someone to... drain the swamp? Splendid idea, no way that can go wrong!

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

#167

Post by charles_f » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

mgaunard wrote: post #143

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, strongly agree. For those that don’t read the article, here are some of the more concerning ones imo - Mark said “We don't allow sexually explicit content on the service for people of any age.” But they had a 17-strike policy, and 79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms. :(. Edit: the 79% claim is overstated. If you read the linked report[1], it is actually “65% of child sex traffick…

I don't understand how those statements are contradictory.

I think they're examples of the stronger lies

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

#168

Post by tiffanyh » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

Just something to keep in mind…

Testifying before Congress is brutally stressful. Even the most prepared CEOs can freeze up, lose their train of thought, or misspeak under that kind of pressure.

And the media often hunts for “gotcha” lines without acknowledging how easy it is to make an unintentional misstatement in that setting.

Note: I’m not weighing in on whether Zuckerberg’s statements were accurate ... I’m just pointing out the pressure dynamic that often gets overlooked.

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

#169

Post by hsuduebc2 » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

input_sh wrote: post #70

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…

Facebook closed my report the same way when I reported a beheading. Like a literal, pre-AI, ISIS-era beheading.

Yea it's total dogshit. I would even conspire that this is intentional to drive engagement. I certainly don't believe that one of the biggest corporations don't have the capabilities to recognize gore. Because a free version of chatgpt can do that without problem.

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

#170

Post by jefftk » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

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.

Really very sure that wasn't one of the conditions. I didn't remember that from 2012, and looking now it wasn't included in the merger agreement. They did write:

> We believe these are different experiences that complement each other. But in order to do this well, we need to be mindful about keeping and building on Instagram’s strengths and features rather than just trying to integrate everything into Facebook.

>That’s why we’re committed to building and growing Instagram independently. Millions of people around the world love the Instagram app and the brand associated with it, and our goal is to help spread this app and brand to even more people. -- https://about.fb.com/news/2012/04/facebook-to-acquire-instag...

That looks to me like what they've done?