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

291–300 of 342 posts

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

#291

Post by turtlesdown11 »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #48
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…

I know exactly what you’re talking about and it has been driving me nuts for years. They constantly go up there and say “it’s cool we totally have these amazing algorithms that solve the problem,” then when they don’t solve the problem they just shrug and go “well we’re just so big you can’t actually expect us to do what we said we would. We’re doing decent enough!” YouTube is another great example of this. Fine, be…

its the silicon valley way, just break the law if it might affect your business

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

#292

Post by dfxm12 »

Aurornis wrote: post #289
dfxm12 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actions taken unilaterally by private platforms are distinct from government regulation. That is an important distinction that your posts are not addressing. What Meta or another company would decide to do on their own is not "regulation" & is up to them. You haven't addressed the fact that KOSA is calling for regulation for kids online without forcing everyone to go through age verification with anything but your ow…

> You haven't addressed the fact that KOSA is calling for regulation for kids online without forcing everyone to go through age verification And you're still ignoring the fact that any regulations targeted at kids online inherently requires that all users' ages are known somehow. You can't have regulations that require companies to do something for kids' accounts without implicitly requiring that they identify which…

And you're still ignoring the fact that any regulations targeted at kids online inherently requires that all users' ages are known somehow.

No, this has already been addressed. :(

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

#293

Post by thaumasiotes »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #290
thaumasiotes wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don't think we should ignore "so much [...] to make sure" or "industry leading". You're wrong; one is tautologous and the other is clearly non-factual. More specifically, if you say "that's why we do so much to make sure [that xxx...]", the literal meaning of "so much" is "as much as we do" - the claim can never be false. Meanwhile, "industry leading" is puffery.

Being nonspecific is not a tautology. "so much" has a minimum to not be a lie. Is it still puffery when there are objective measurements and you're not anywhere near leader? Well when you're testifying to congress and you puff that hard I think you should be punished regardless of definitions.

> "so much" has a minimum to not be a lie.

Seriously, "so much" means nothing other than "that amount, whatever it might be". That is the meaning of "so" - it refers to the context. You can wish as hard as you want, but you won't change the meaning of common English words.

Compare Merriam-Webster's gloss for so much:

> by the amount indicated or suggested

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so%20much

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

#294

Post by antonvs »

fainpul wrote: post #283
GlibMonkeyDeath wrote: post #224

https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco-ceo-statement-to-congress Tobacco CEO's Statement to Congress 1994 News Clip "Nicotine is not addictive."

Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook." [1] Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." [2] Donald Trump: let's not even start. I find it weird that institutions still insist the people they question must swear to tell the truth. It obviously doesn't help. Quite the opposite, it makes the liars look stronger (until they're caught). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal [2] h…

*liars

(The spelling’s not logical, just an historical quirk of English)

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

#296

Post by pinkmuffinere »

Natsu wrote: post #254
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…

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 ho…

Wow, the claim in your footnote is absolutely fascinating to me. I just bought the book, but in the meantime could you give a tl;dr? No worries if not

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

#297

Post by fainpul »

antonvs wrote: post #294
fainpul wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Nixon: "I'm not a crook." [1] Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." [2] Donald Trump: let's not even start. I find it weird that institutions still insist the people they question must swear to tell the truth. It obviously doesn't help. Quite the opposite, it makes the liars look stronger (until they're caught). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal [2] h…

*liars (The spelling’s not logical, just an historical quirk of English)

Thanks

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

#298

Post by blacklion »

mystraline wrote: post #49
blacklion wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is what always puzzles me: we have regulations, they don't work because everybody can find loopholes in them, or enforcement is not strict, but lets add more regulations instead of really implementing previous ones. It is everywhere. More and more layers of regulations which don't work, not enforceable or nobody care to enforce them, but lets add more in same vein.

It shouldn't surprise you. Once a company starts bribing politicians with campaign funds, they have a foot in the door. Once they have the paid lobbyists, then they present company-written policy documents and laws that just need a sponsor. Those laws are crafted explicitly for specific holes only the company can effectively navigate. But on its face, looks completely fair. Law gets passed, and the law is really a mo…

It is not only about regulating huge businesses.

For example, EU has effective definition of electric bicycle, electric moped and electric motorcycle. It is three different classes of vehicles, with strict technical thresholds for properties. You always can say what you see.

These three classes of vehicles require different licenses (no license for bicycle, AM or B for moped and A1/A2/A for motorcycle), different insurance, different equipment (helmet). They can be ridden on different roads (and bicycle roads), etc.

Here, in the Netherlands teenagers (their parents) buy "Fat bikes". Thy are effectively electric mopeds (1000W+ of power, mode when you don't need to pedal, etc), but of course it is hidden mode, and "by default" they are limited as electric bicycles. Only saddle is not adjustable, they weight 20+ kg and it is impossible to ride them as bicycles, you will damage your knees very quickly.

So, all teenager ride them as if they be bicycles (no helmets, no license plates, no insurance, no nothing, on the bicycle paths), in moped mode: very fast (faster than 30km/h), powerful, etc.

Everybody sane hate them. Every city discuss how to ban them completely. Every magistrate want new regulations. But each new definition of "fat bike" is leaky!

There is NO any bribing or "sponsors".

But everybody wants some new regulations when there are perfectly clear regulations. Problem is, you need to do checks of these bikes. You need confiscate vehicles which violate rules, you need raids. Police don't want to do this.

Ok, some Magistrate will come up with definition of "Fat bike" to ban them. What will change? Nothing. Now police has all legislations to regulate this madness. But it don't want to spend resources for this. What new definition of "fat bike" will change? Nothing.

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

#299

Post by m4nu3l »

dfxm12 wrote: post #245
fc417fc802 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignorant? Hardly. It's ignorant to assume anything but the worst from proposed regulation until proven otherwise. Particularly if past proposals from the same people included ID checks. It falls to the people proposing regulation to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good. (Spoiler, they usually are up to no good.)

It's awfully convenient that you require others to prove or clearly demonstrate things, while you allow yourself to merely assume things :) I know you've already made up your mind, but just humor me. What can the government do to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good?

It's not just about intentions. To convince me that the Government can improve things through regulations, you'd need to do a few things:

1) You must convince me that optimising for some utility function you defined is the right thing to do.

2) You must convince me that the Government can effectively estimate the utility function.

3) Finally, you must convince me that the Government can predict how the utility function will change after the policies are implemented.

For 1) I'd have problems with any utility function you could come up with. If you want to maximise total utility, for instance, does it mean that I get to assault someone as long as I gain more utility than the other person loses? What about the "Utility Monster" thought experiment?

For 2) and 3), I'm pretty sure the Government has no idea of how to measure and/or predict the result. Does the scrolling addiction of a teenager cause more loss in utility than the loss of friends to a teenager with disabilities?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/06/ive-l...

Because of these basic philosophical principles, the burden of proof that some regulation is required is always on the Government side, and the standard of proof should be much higher than it is today.

I don't believe that the concept of utility is entirely useless, though. I believe that by respecting people's individual freedoms and allowing for voluntary arrangements, you'll also get more utility in the long term, whereas if you try to force your utility optimisations, you might, maybe, get utility increases in the short term, but much worse utility in the longer term.

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

#300

Post by Dylan16807 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #293
Dylan16807 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being nonspecific is not a tautology. "so much" has a minimum to not be a lie. Is it still puffery when there are objective measurements and you're not anywhere near leader? Well when you're testifying to congress and you puff that hard I think you should be punished regardless of definitions.

> "so much" has a minimum to not be a lie. Seriously, "so much" means nothing other than "that amount, whatever it might be". That is the meaning of "so" - it refers to the context. You can wish as hard as you want, but you won't change the meaning of common English words. Compare Merriam-Webster's gloss for so much : > by the amount indicated or suggested https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so%20much

It refers to context. That's not the same as meaning nothing or being a tautology. In context, it can be a lie.

He indicated an amount that was not just "insert any number".

Post reply on HN