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

191–200 of 342 posts

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

#191

Post by rdiddly »

4ggr0 wrote: post #82
jaybyrd wrote: post #64

i remember when i was a kid i used to think if you broke the law you went to jail. i miss being a kid.....

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.

The Luigi Mangione method? United Healthcare's brief couple-week spasm of not being complete dicks and borderline fraudsters to people with legitimate insurance claims, was encouraging in this regard. Unfortunately, to take this position you have to condone murder. And I don't see it doing anything to redistribute wealth - it just passes it on to their spouses or kids. On the other hand, if the spouse is a Melinda Gates or MacKenzie Scott type, having them be in charge might be an improvement.

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

#192

Post by FlamingMoe »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #131
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…

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…

He needs to be in prison.

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

#193

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

There are a lot of vocal angry people and bots around who hate everything billionaires say, do, or wear.

Tuning out that noise while still noticing genuine bad things billionaires do is really hard.

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

#194

Post by aetherson »

ceejayoz wrote: post #160
mgaunard wrote: post #143

Earlier 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?

Like, I'd think that was a bad policy for murder in particular, but "we don't allow things but we give you a lot of chances to correct your behavior" is ordinary.

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

#195

Post by Aurornis »

raincole wrote: post #19
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…

I wonder if one day when people hear "censored internet" the first country that comes to mind will be a western one (probably the UK, but the US is not off the table either) instead of China.

Why would it have to be a single country or hemisphere? If it's happening globally we'll stop thinking of it as a regional think and start thinking of it as a global problem.

It is weird to see all of these HN comments demanding such regulations and the continued belief that it won't impact us, it will only impact sites we don't like. Even after the Discord fallout from last week.

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

#196

Post by ryanmcbride »

kwanbix wrote: post #136
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 reported many times sexual profiles, and they allways came rejected.

It's the line that facebook, and functionally every platform based on user content always tries to walk. They want sexual content because it drives engagement, positive and negative, more than almost anything. But they don't want to be held liable for the content, so they put weak policies in place so that they have the appearance of doing something to prevent it.

This makes almost every current social media and content platform this weird middle ground of generally acceptable content, and porn if you look for it hard enough.

I'm obviously ignoring the giant societal can of worms around "what is sexual content, what is art, what is porn". Because we can be pretty sure that Zuck doesn't care what's art and what's porn, and we know he doesn't care about protecting _anyone_ from _anything_. It's always about the bottom line and always will be.

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

#197

Post by mattkevan »

infinitewars wrote: post #182
lingrush4 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“They ‘trust’ me. Dumb fucks.” - Mark Zuckerberg

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

#198

Post by lubujackson »

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.

79% of ALL child sex trafficking. 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies.

But sure, go on and talk about "leeway" and "limited capabilities" for a company worth nearly a trillion dollars. Do you honestly believe this is acceptable? What are your vested interests here?

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

#199

Post by 4ggr0 »

rdiddly wrote: post #191
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.

The Luigi Mangione method? United Healthcare's brief couple-week spasm of not being complete dicks and borderline fraudsters to people with legitimate insurance claims, was encouraging in this regard. Unfortunately, to take this position you have to condone murder. And I don't see it doing anything to redistribute wealth - it just passes it on to their spouses or kids. On the other hand, if the spouse is a Melinda Ga…

or the Charles-Henri Sanson method.

> brief couple-week spasm

maybe we have to start systematically hunting these people instead of one-off events :D

who am i kidding. consider myself a pacifist, talk instead of fight, find common ground and all that cute jazz. i feel powerless. murdering people will not change the system, too global and interconnected for this.

maybe us commoners really should start living like hippies. stop consuming from corporations, grow your own crops, start solarpunk societies. repair stuff. reuse. i don't know.

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

#200

Post by exceptione »

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.

This sounds like almost the best business environment for criminals.

"I am sorry judge, yes, it could be that we are involved in crime, but we have been too busy counting billions of dollars each year. As you might understand, businesses are not part of society, they should only be judged on their shareholder value. We reap the profits, society pays for the collateral damage, that's only fair."

Yes, you mentioned leeway. That would only make sense in the context of an entity understanding it's role. It does like in the way above.

Post reply on HN