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

#181

Post by squeegmeister » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:03 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…

At the least they should lead with the most indisputable lies and leave the borderlines towards the end

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

#182

Post by infinitewars » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

lingrush4 wrote: post #165

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.

I would say it's a very high bar-- convincing you to trust him is literally Zuck's entire business from day one.

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

#183

Post by zo1 » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

soulofmischief wrote: post #104

buellerbueller wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And how do we do that? The reality is those of us in the know are stuck twiddling our thumbs until the party duopoly pisses off enough politically illiterate people. The only way to speed that up is communication and unity, two things our government is actively trying (and succeeding) to destroy. I can tell you right now I'm not convincing anyone here in Louisiana to change their minds on anything. The only real hope…

It's human nature scaled up. Just isolate and zoom in on any single injustice or "how the sausage is made" scenario that you are privy to in your industry. Just a random water-cooler discussion about agreeing to a certain tech framework, or being 5% more likely to promote the project who's team is led by your friend, etc.

...And it gets worse and worse the higher I go in my career. Nothing is logical, nothing is purely organic and merit based. It's all marketing, promotion, personal-preference and plain old backroom deals. No amount of banging your head against any wall with logic or pros/cons can dissuade those in power from changing their mind, unless you force their hand with blatant lies/facts/bad-optics.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

mgaunard wrote: post #180

ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by sollewitt » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

mgaunard wrote: post #180

ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are both the legislature and the judiciary.

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

#186

Post by TheRealPomax » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:08 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…

Same, I read the first few and it just read as conspiracy theory material, where the "evidence" that refuses the claim has nothing to do with the claim unless you're already halfway down the koolaid pitcher.

Always better to leave the "maybe, if you squint, but just as easily no" stuff out if you're trying convince others that there's a serious, objective problem with receipts.

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

#187

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

mgaunard wrote: post #180

ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I would call that being confused about the distinction between law making and law enforcement…

I think you're confused. Facebook does neither. Facebook makes and enforces their own policies, not laws.

> 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.

They should staff a human review/appeals process again, then. They used COVID as the excuse to discard that cost center.

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

#188

Post by danielmarkbruce » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:08 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…

"If you mix raisins and turds, all you have is turds"

It's a common phenomenon - mixing strong arguments with weak ones because then you have "more arguments". So dumb.

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

#189

Post by Aurornis » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

rkangel wrote: post #21

Aurornis wrote: post #15

> The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Just last week there was uproar because Discord was going to require age verification to join adult themed servers and bypass content filters. This is how people are getting baited into inviting these restrictions and regulations into their services: By believing it’s necessary to hurt their enemie…

Which step in this logic do you not accept? When profit for a company is in conflict with human good, regulation is needed (e.g. health and safety rules) Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people Meta is aware of this, but due to a profit motive does not take serious steps to do anything about it (only token efforts) Meta (and other social media) needs regulation

> Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people

> Meta (and other social media) needs regulation

The first obvious flaw in your logic is that you jumped from "Facebook causes harm" to "other social media needs regulation".

It should be obvious why that's broken logic.

The second problem is that this is just the classic "think of the children" fallacy: You point out a problem, say it affects children, and then use that to shut down any debate about regulation. It creates a wide open door for intrusive regulation.

This isn't new. It's been going on for decades. Yet people still walk right into this trap over and over again.

So to answer your question:

> Which step in this logic do you not accept?

The step I don't accept is the real core of the problem: The specifics of the regulation, but you conveniently stopped your logic chain before getting to that.

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

#190

Post by tejohnso » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

ddlsmurf wrote: post #171

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 ?

Yeah, but the stock might take a massive hit if this were seriously pursued, and it might even have further consequences in the markets. Let's keep our priorities straight.