I'm not American legal system expert, but if I'm not mistaken, this isn't just lies and being deceptive, this is called perjury and is a crime no ?
Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
171–180 of 342 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#172Just 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…
[dead]
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#173One 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…
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…
The amount and severity of such concerning topics still lets you agree that these are just "statements that are subject to judgement" and "interpretations more than facts"?
I encourage critical thinking and fairness but if a coin lands on one side 100 times in a row I don't need to flip it forever to see if eventually it reaches 50/50. That many lies about extremely serious issues removes any benefit of the doubt for the liar.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#174Remember 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.
FB knows your eBay, for that matter. When I search for something on eBay I get ads on FB for it. Even if they are not merged, corporations can share your data behind the scenes and you are forced to unilaterally, without negotiation, accept that ToS to use these sites.
It seems safe to assume that just about any vaguely commercial site knows about your activity on all the other ones. Sometimes the cookie banner shows info about who they share your data with. There will be literally hundreds of entities. And I’m sure many of them pass the data on further.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#175Not trying to defend Meta at all here, but this report is also lying. For example, it says "79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms." But the source it cites actually says 79% of online social media cases occurred on Facebook and Instagram. So this stat is probably just a reflection of Meta's market share of social media.
> But the source it cites actually says 79% of online social media cases I'm curious about what other conclusion you may have reached when reading "on Meta's platforms". Offline by nature cannot happen on Meta's platforms right and any site that facilitates interaction can be considered social media.
It’s just an incredibly different statement. It’s like saying 79% of Americans voted for Trump vs 79% of registered Republicans voted for Trump, they lead to very different conclusions.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#176Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Which would be?
The harmful effects of social media are a topic of public discussion for at least a decade now, if not more. I think if there were an effective grassroots/civil society way to address this, it would have been found by now.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#178One 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…
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…
"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.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#179One 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…
> 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.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how those statements are contradictory.
If I said "we don't allow murder", but gave everyone 17 free murders, would you find that contradictory?
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.