Mark Zuckerberg also lied to Aaron Greenspan (thinkcomp on here) and the Winklevosses and, oh, users (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719) and the public (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198) multiple times
Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
251–260 of 342 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies. Even if your 79% number is correct, this does not follow. It like if someone said, 30 years ago, that 95% of total advertisements were in the classified section that 9 out of 10 retail sales happened thanks to the classifieds. (I’m not trying to excuse Facebook’s behavior. But maybe criticisms of Facebook would be more effective if they stayed on trac…
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%.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is made in the main article, supported by this link [1]. But I agree, I suspect it’s sensationalized, just because that number is _so high_. [1] https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-2023...
Oh! Wow, so it is. Thanks! > [the report] found that 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited from Facebook Even in 2020, I'm very skeptical that so many children were on Facebook that it could account for 2/3 of recruitment. My own kids say that they and their friends are all but allergic to Facebook. It's the uncool hangout for old people, not where teens want to be. I may be wr…
The number is wrong / the citation is misleading. It’s closer to 20-30% according to that study, the 79% is referring specifically to cases involving social media, of which Meta platforms are obviously going to make up a large percentage.
There’s also a reporting bias here I’m sure - if Meta is better at reporting these cases then they will become a larger percentage, etc.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#254One 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…
Causal has a specific meaning related to causal modeling, most studies can't show causality, a lot only show correlation[1].
And the third one seems to be about effect sizes. But a lot of this is still concerning, even if they appear to be trying to say technically true but misleading things.
[1] Yes, newer methods can show causation, not just correlation. See The Book of Why, by Judea Pearl for an introduction to how that works.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#255Not that congress or the DOJ would do a single thing about this, but here are the well defined consequences for perjury in front of congress... https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-807
Section 1001(a) states: "[I.] Except as otherwise provided in this section, [II.] whoever [III.] in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, [IV.] knowingly and willfully— [i] falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; [ii.] makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or [iii.] makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; [V.] shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A [sexual abuse], 109B [sex offender registration], 110 [sexual exploitation], or 117 [transportation for illicit sexual purposes], or section 1591 [sex trafficking], then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years."
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cont…
Okay but what about scammers, they don’t drive engagement. Why leave them be untouched. I report scammer who pretends to be e.musk with name e.musk and sent me fake musk’s passport in chat, asking to invest- what more of impersonation scam could that be. Meta’s response - we reviewed and took appropriate steps. Yet scammer guy still untouched chatting with me weeks later.
Scammers drive a lot traffic, pay for ads, people check Facebook more often while being scammed, and search for support and help from peers on Facebook after being scammed, driving engagement in the form of support, ridicule and rage.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#257Earlier 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…
"But internal study found users who stopped using Facebook and Instagram for a week showed lower rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness." This isn't causal though. The users who quit were not randomly selected. Maybe they were receiving some kind of mental health treatment, and as part of that they stopped. Then the recovery could have been from the treatment or it could have been from stopping.
So this argument you've made, you've just constructed a strawman.
> The users who quit were not randomly selected. Maybe they were receiving some kind of mental health treatment
You don't know that? You don't know anything about the selection process since facebook did not share their research. Your whole argument pins on the selection process you have no idea what happened. I'd find it very difficult to believe that researchers could not anticipate and control for situations like that. Researchers are after all, experts in research.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#258Of the ones that I know something about, almost each one is a stretch to call a lie, or just downright misleading.
- 'Internal document stating the goal for Meta to be the most relevant social products for kids worldwide. To do so, Meta will focus on “each youth life stage, ‘Kid’ (6-10), ‘Tween’ (10-13), and ‘Teen’ 13+.’"' for instance is talking about a slide deck for Messenger Kids, which was an explicit focus on building something that was COPPA-compliant and independent of the main Facebook/IG/Messenger products. It's not at all inconsistent with the claim of not allowing people under 13 on the main sites.
- In the rebuttal to "We are on the side of parents everywhere working hard to raise their kids” they cherry pick a quote talking about the audience problem: having a social graph full of both peers and family on the same site means that live streaming things for friends will obviously ruin the experience, so figuring out a way around that would indeed be a critical requirement for a live streaming feature. Giving teens a way to interact with friends outside of parental supervision is not inconsistent with wanting to help parents.
I don't like Facebook. Heck, I left a job there partially because I disagreed with the product decisions and evolution. But I trust this article way less than I trust Mark Zuckerberg.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is made in the main article, supported by this link [1]. But I agree, I suspect it’s sensationalized, just because that number is _so high_. [1] https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-2023...
Oh! Wow, so it is. Thanks! > [the report] found that 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited from Facebook Even in 2020, I'm very skeptical that so many children were on Facebook that it could account for 2/3 of recruitment. My own kids say that they and their friends are all but allergic to Facebook. It's the uncool hangout for old people, not where teens want to be. I may be wr…
Thanks for looking into it and pulling out that quote. I notice there are some moving goalposts — the parent article claims 79% of _all_ minor sexual trafficking (emphasis mine), but the govt report found
> 65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited _on social media_ were recruited from Facebook, with 14% being recruited on Instagram
(Emphasis mine). I think the parent article is repeatedly lying about the facts, that’s super annoying. I’m not at all surprised that Facebook and Instagram have the lions share of social-media victims, because they also have the lions share of social media users.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can't Trust His Testimony
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's certainly a stretch to describe that as killing people. You can argue it's a an acceptable stretch, or that it's still very bad even if described more accurately, but it is plainly not what 'killing people' traditionally means
"this product leads to elevated suicide rates among users" being equated to "this is killing people" is not a stretch
Yes, it is. Anything with a wide userbase that worsens or even just intensifies mood will lead to elevated suicide rates. If your boss picks someone else for the promotion and you kill yourself over it, your boss didn't kill you. If you're attracted to someone and they marry someone else and you respond similarly, same answer. If your instagram friends post pictures of their happy lives and it makes you feel bad, etc.
You can broaden the definition of 'killing people' to include 'elevating their risk of killing themselves', but then you have to shed the intuitions that are the sole purpose of using that kind of language in the first place. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand.