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

321–330 of 342 posts

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

#321

Post by Forgeties79 »

morissette wrote: post #319
Forgeties79 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know why you’re getting sarcastic with me. I also imagine you’re aware of the addiction element but if not I can send some studies/research along.

Social media companies have decades of work and billions of dollars of research to pull from. They use every single trick and tool they can to make it an addiction. The dialogue and shared strategies between them and the gambling industry is enough of a red flag on its own IMO.

It’s not a fair fight. Asking someone to just stop using social media can be like telling a gambling addict to just stop gambling. You’re also expecting teenagers to exhibit that self control.

And I’m not even getting into how critical it is to use social media if you run a business. Hell at some companies you’re required to participate in their social media presence. You can’t simply make it go away. You may as well tell people to just stop buying a phone or a computer.

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

#322

Post by Forgeties79 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #193
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.

And a lot of people with valid grievances.

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

#323

Post by Natsu »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #296
Natsu wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Causation has a direction, but the equals sign doesn't, is probably an overly-pithy summary of the first section of the book. And it was hard to represent the simple observation that effects come after causes, not before.

So they introduce do calculus to intentionally break that symmetry to test causal models, which themselves are basically directed graphs going from cause to effect. These also help you see what you need to test to try to falsify your model and to show you how to measure how much of the variance in an effect is explained by variance in the cause. And it helps keep track of interventions, like opening doors in the Monty Hall problem[1].

There's a more detailed summary here that looks pretty good which probably does a better job than my quick summary. I skimmed it and it matches what I recall from the book:

https://www.tosummarise.com/book-summary-the-book-of-why-by-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

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

#324

Post by kwanbix »

ryanmcbride wrote: post #196
kwanbix wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cont…

I mean rally sexual. Not sexy as in instagram girls. Showing the asshole or things like that.

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

#325

Post by fc417fc802 »

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 awfully convenient ...

Not at all. It's simply setting realistic expectations based on past performance. People aren't required to be suckers in order to uphold some perceived ideal.

The reality we live in is rife with regulatory capture, lobbying, religious zealots, power hungry authoritarians, and moral panics (among many other things).

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

#327

Post by throwerefg »

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.

[dead]

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

#328

Post by danielmarkbruce »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #231
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you mixed strong advice with childish dismissal. But I agree, you should present your best argument, otherwise they'll attack your weakest argument and claim victory. Such tactics are weak in logic but often successful.

Lol... maybe I needed an explanation point to make it obvious it wasn't by accident...

*exclamation

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

#330

Post by jama211 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #218
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you mix raisins and turds, all you have is turds" It's a common phenomenon - mixing strong arguments with weak ones because then you have "more arguments". So dumb.

And yet you mixed strong advice with childish dismissal. But I agree, you should present your best argument, otherwise they'll attack your weakest argument and claim victory. Such tactics are weak in logic but often successful.

And you mixed childish pedantry with a general agreement.
Post reply on HN