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

311–320 of 342 posts

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

#311

Post by Forgeties79 »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #260
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

We have decades of research now showing concretely the harmful effects of social media, especially for people under 18. It is not debatable. It directly harms broader society and individuals yet we continue to have incredibly thin regulations that are barely enforced.

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

#312

Post by cies »

khalic wrote: post #88
cies wrote: post #7

[flagged]

OMFG you anti vax are still at it?

Why you call people critical of the mRNA-jab to be "anti vax"? I'm not against all vaccines, just the mRNA treatment that was rushed out and pushed on us was a giant fraud. The word "anti vax" is part of the campaign to push it on us: demonize the people that are hesitant.

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

#313

Post by LanceH »

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.

It certainly wouldn't be equivalence, but it would be another 4 years of expanding presidential powers only for a republican to come to power after that, or after 8 years. It really doesn't matter. The system keeps changing to put us more a risk of a bad president being effectively bad.

Two of the most authoritarian decisions by the supreme court have been progressive in nature: Kelo v. City of New London - where the government can redistribute wealth if it benefits the government, and the whole fiasco around the ACA, which defaults every American to being a criminal until they bought health insurance, using the commerce act as justification for the power grab.

About the ACA, whether I agree with national healthcare is irrelevant, this was not the way to do it -- by expanding the government's reach. There has to be consideration for what the administration does.

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

#314

Post by Izkata »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #161
llm_nerd wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liver cell thing was literally cancer cells in vitro, and reverse-transcription doesn't "change your DNA", or your RNA. Some liver cancer cells turning mRNA into cDNA has literally zero connection with changing the DNA of your cells.

For those who like me don't know what you're talking about, this has a decent summary: https://www.chop.edu/parents-pack/evaluating-information/why... TLDR: "Covid vaccines alter your DNA" is not an appropriate conclusion from the paper

Those are terrible as refutations, all boiling down to "we need more research" instead of actually showing it was wrong in any way. Which is also kind of what I said.

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

#315

Post by cies »

llm_nerd wrote: post #308
cies wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 belie…

You already agreed that he said it. So funny how you twist and turn in order to believe the narrative you were force fed.

I'm anti the rushed out, badly tested, mRNA treatment. It's not a vaccine. Believe as you wish.

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

#316

Post by [deleted] »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #85
hrimfaxi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument wasn't "this is okay", the argument was "your past where the liars were punished never was". > Remember when lying could get you in trouble? > It's always been this way, though.

Contempt of court is a thing. Lying under oath is a thing. This did exist. Testifying to Congress under oath, lying did use to have penalties.

[deleted]

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

#317

Post by CrzyLngPwd »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #17
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #13

Remember when lying could get you in trouble? Lying has become normalized to such an extent that reality is unknowable. Just listen to any regime press conference on any day. Just pick any random day and listen. The hyperreal is here.

It's always been this way, though. From tall tales of hunting or combat, the town crier spread propaganda from the lords to the public.

Why the fuck are there downvotes?

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

#318

Post by bryan_w »

watwut wrote: post #263
noslenwerdna wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Internal study does mot have access to people who left because of unknown mental health treatment. They would had no way to evaluate them. There is no reason to make imaginary issues of studies just to defend companies.

Why are you so scared of people defending companies? Why can't your arguments stand on their own?

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

#319

Post by morissette »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #311
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We have decades of research now showing concretely the harmful effects of social media, especially for people under 18. It is not debatable. It directly harms broader society and individuals yet we continue to have incredibly thin regulations that are barely enforced.

And here I thought the internet was about the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. And free will was the ability to choose to use social media or not.

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

#320

Post by llm_nerd »

cies wrote: post #304
llm_nerd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Amazing stuff. I'll leave with your mental illness.

Good day.

Post reply on HN