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

301–310 of 342 posts

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

#301

Post by AnimalMuppet »

antonvs wrote: post #295
LanceH wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanders would just be a different flavor of authoritarian.

That’s such false equivalence nonsense.

No, it's not. When people try to "drain the swamp", several things push them to become authoritarians, even if they weren't before.

1. The definition of "the swamp" drifts from "open, blatant corruption" towards "everyone who opposes me". That's a much larger set, so you need bigger guns.

2. Some people agree that "the swamp needs drained", but disagree on what "the swamp" is, and/or disagree on how to drain it.

3. People don't agree with everything you're doing. (Maybe this is the same as #1 and/or #2.) Some people oppose you because they're corrupt, some people oppose you because they dislike change, and some people oppose you because they dislike your methods. The more force you use, the more people oppose your methods. But as opposition grows, you need more force to get anywhere.

The result is that anybody who sets out to do something like "drain the swamp", if they stick with it as an objective, gets pushed toward more and more authoritarianism to try to make it happen.

Look, Bernie isn't Trump. He's been consistently pushing in the same direction for decades. He actually cares about his issues; he's not just using them as a cover for seeking power. But I think that, if he got actual power (president, not just senator), the dynamics of the situation would also push him to become more and more authoritarian.

(Would he become equivalent to Trump? Hopefully not.)

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

#303

Post by Lerc »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #287
Lerc wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying that from our perspective. I don't think the argument that witches are not real would have gained you much ground back then. We don't have the years of analysis of what actually happened for things happening right now. While a lot of people feel a lot of certainty about all manner of social media harms, the scientific consensus is much less clear. Sure you can pull up studies showing something that loo…

The most important question is, how do you know you're not the next Andrew Wakefield? I'm genuinely curious how you keep your own epistemic house in order.

I'm not making any claims of certaincy. I have not published any books making claims of harm. I have not gone on a tour of interviews the world over trying to build public opinion instead of building consensus that the information is true.

That's how I know.

I also don't go around talking about race based differences in IQ, but that's just Haidt.

I am prepared to go with scientific consensus.

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

#304

Post by cies »

llm_nerd wrote: post #14
cies wrote: post #7

[flagged]

No, he did not, and you're repeating some misinformation bit of nonsense that you find in anti-vax ignorance echo chambers. When he first learned about mRNA vaccines he misunderstood them and was concerned about vaccines "basically modifying people's DNA and RNA to directly encode in a person's DNA and RNA basically the ability to produce those antibodies". This is technically ignorant to the point of being nonsensic…

You say:

> No, he did not

Then you continue saying he did say it, but explained himself later (after it came out) in a way that makes his earlier statement void. "Plausible deniability"

I'm not anti-vax, I'm critical. This C19-jab was risky and had little to no benefits. That's obvious. Even the Epstein files (probably you also think that those are merely a conspiracy) mention then covid response was orchestrated.

I know some really wealthy people and many of them did not take it. Not sure if they go by the definition of plutocrat.

You are conned by the pushed narrative: so naive.

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

#305

Post by cies »

llm_nerd wrote: post #66
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically you have a gut feeling that you feel very passionately, but that we have no way of evaluating. It might be just as likely that zero of the people in such a position took the vaccines for all we know. How is this somehow more enlightened than the idiocracy that you are decrying?

Ignoring that most, like Trump, just outright admitted it, simple logic dictates that reality. When something has overwhelming scientific and medical evidence in its favour, and the alternative are a bunch of high school dropout conspiracy nuts cheered on by simpletons like Joe Rogan, odds overwhelmingly lean towards the connected and rich going in one direction. Like, this is so blatantly obvious that I find your sc…

You revert to calling names... It's a clear sign of losing imho.

Oh and this picture proves your whole story is, what others here have already pointed out, your "gut feeling" promoted by you as the "science".

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-educat...

PHDs take less vaccines.

Checkmate.

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

#306

Post by Forgeties79 »

zanellato19 wrote: post #114
Forgeties79 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, this is bizarre that we just accepted. "oh, we get so much content that we can't possibly review it all" then don't accept anymore content from anyone? Honestly, the fact that these companies are too big is a big big concern. We should have limited their size long ago and never accepted that bullshit excuse.

Exactly. If you can’t handle your volume that’s your problem

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

#307

Post by antonvs »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #301
antonvs wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s such false equivalence nonsense.

No, it's not. When people try to "drain the swamp", several things push them to become authoritarians, even if they weren't before. 1. The definition of "the swamp" drifts from "open, blatant corruption" towards "everyone who opposes me". That's a much larger set, so you need bigger guns. 2. Some people agree that "the swamp needs drained", but disagree on what "the swamp" is, and/or disagree on how to drain it. 3. P…

> Look, Bernie isn't Trump. He's been consistently pushing in the same direction for decades. He actually cares about his issues; he's not just using them as a cover for seeking power.

Exactly.

> But I think that, if he got actual power (president, not just senator), the dynamics of the situation would also push him to become more and more authoritarian.

This is just sheer unsupported speculation. It's silly.

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

#308

Post by llm_nerd »

cies wrote: post #305
llm_nerd wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring that most, like Trump, just outright admitted it, simple logic dictates that reality. When something has overwhelming scientific and medical evidence in its favour, and the alternative are a bunch of high school dropout conspiracy nuts cheered on by simpletons like Joe Rogan, odds overwhelmingly lean towards the connected and rich going in one direction. Like, this is so blatantly obvious that I find your sc…

You revert to calling names... It's a clear sign of losing imho. Oh and this picture proves your whole story is, what others here have already pointed out, your "gut feeling" promoted by you as the "science". https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-educat... PHDs take less vaccines. Checkmate.

Checkmate? Are you purposefully trying to fit the cliche?

Just to be clear, you are citing a worthless online Facebook poll. The sort where people like you check "PhD" (the -h is lowercase, bro) because you think it makes your rhetoric more authoritative.

There are countless other studies -- ones that aren't a dogshit, worthless online Facebook poll -- that show an extremely strong correlation between anti-vax beliefs and having a lower education level, and often being lower intelligence. Overwhelming evidence.

But I suspect that you will just flood the space with bullshit from horseshit venues like "unherd", so I bid you goodbye. You mentioned elsewhere, after the ridiculous anti-vax horseshit you said about Zuck, that you aren't an anti-vaxxer. I guarantee you 100% are.

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

#309

Post by a123b456c »

parineum wrote: post #282
munk-a wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me clarify - why should we offer Meta leeway to implement such a flawed review system.

Why shouldn't we? It seems an incredibly difficult problem. They have reviewers who make subjective calls on subjective rules. The leeway not only gives the opportunity for the user to improve but also gives the reviewers leeway to flag borderline posts without harshly punishing users. 17 is a weird number but having a number is perfectly reasonable to me.

It's also possible that users could misuse the reporting system, in order to get other users' accounts suspended.

Requiring N distinct reports of a suspension reason would seem to reduce misuses of the reporting system.

The 17-reports threshold might have been found to balance type-1 and type-2 errors, as account removals are costly actions when made in error or as a result of reporting-system misuse.

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

#310

Post by Covzire »

llm_nerd wrote: post #53
Covzire wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of regret that exists doesn't fit either, don't forget Biden's warning that those who don't take it will die, the exact opposite of all the fear mongering happened and it's despicable people keep telling all the same lies.

"Regret"? You mean the grifters conning the waves and waves of incredibly stupid Americans? Do you think the million or so people who died of COVID also might have some regrets? Biden didn't warn that "those who don't take it will die" -- again, why do you people lie constantly about everything? -- he warned that it would be a winter of severe illness and death, which is absolutely, unequivocally, empirically true! I…

By March 2020, the early John's Hopkins data showed a clear trend of those demographics who were actually vulnerable of serious harm, namely the elderly and those with already compromised immune systems. We knew even back then, that children and healthy adults were NOT at risk from COVID-19, even the early strains which were much more virulent than the later ones. It was censored, over and over, by Twitter, Facebook and even HN.
Post reply on HN