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

71–80 of 342 posts

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

#71

Post by hrimfaxi »

dfxm12 wrote: post #57
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…

The uproar was specifically about the implemented ID checks. KOSA hasn't been passed in any form & its most recent forms introduced to the House & Senate don't include ID checks. To imply that KOSA includes some kind of ID check or that the only way to provide any type of protections is via an ID check is ignorant.

The full text is here for the interested: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/174...

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

#72

Post by dfxm12 »

raincole wrote: post #23

> > The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Really? Even if we ignore all the implication of censorship and surveillance state, lying to the congress is already a crime. It's already regulated. If he can get away with it why another act would be different?

This line of reasoning doesn't follow. The "dangerous and egregious behavior" being referred to here is about Meta's behavior relating to children, not lying to congress. Prosecuting Zuckerberg for perjury will likely have no effect on Meta's day to day business operations (including its behavior related to children).

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

#73

Post by hrimfaxi »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #43
CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just like apples/fruit from medieval times were tart and sour and full of seeds, and through generations of selective breeding are now super sweet and not necessarily still good for you. The old town crier is very removed from todays social media. Yes, a newspaper from 1800's was pretty biased. But does that justify todays hyper targeted algorithms as a-ok? That something happened in the past is not a good argument t…

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.

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

#74

Post by jobs_throwaway »

morissette wrote: post #63
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…

[flagged]

It's not a stretch to see a direct connection to mental health issues and suicide

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

#75

Post by khalic »

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.

Oh don’t forget that calling someone a lier is consider off limits too!

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

#76

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Larrikin wrote: post #65
marginalia_nu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They threw Epstein in prison. Maxwell is doing time now as well. Bernie Madoff got 150 years, died in the same prison R Kelly is doing a 31 year stint in.

Black men are usually punished no matter how much money they have. Rich Women have a lower threshold than rich white men, if their crimes hurt or have the potential to hurt rich people. Holmes was punished for defrauding the investors, not the people who took her fake blood tests.

But you haven't engaged with two of the four examples in the comment you're responding to. I don't think developing just-so stories for why some rich and famous people were prosecuted and ignoring others to whom the stories don't apply will be helpful for your understanding.

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

#77

Post by ifyoubuildit »

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…

> Ignoring that most, like Trump, just outright admitted it

So if trump said it, it must be true?

The rest of what you said could be translated to: "I believe it was such a good idea, all the rich and powerful must have done it".

How is this not a gut feeling?

My skepticism is solely for your argument, not that these people did or did not take the vaccine, which is something that I consider basically unknowable without a lot of leaps of faith.

Edit: in fact, here's my equally unprovable assertion: most people got the vaccine because they didn't want to lose their jobs. Rich and powerful people don't have to worry about that. Therefore fewer of them got the vaccines.

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

#78

Post by jacobsimon »

Not trying to defend Meta at all here, but this report is also lying.

For example, it says "79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms." But the source it cites actually says 79% of online social media cases occurred on Facebook and Instagram. So this stat is probably just a reflection of Meta's market share of social media.

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

#79

Post by delichon »

InitialLastName wrote: post #45
wongarsu wrote: post #11

Reading through the list, I really wouldn't call most of them lies. There are some lies, but it's mostly 'very precisely worded statements' and statements that were arguably made in bad faith, but are not technically false. With some of them I am not even sure how their 'evidence' column is supposed to refute the quoted statement. In my opinion being this broad is really hurting the message. They should concentrate o…

It's worth noting that their argument isn't "Mark Zuckerberg perjured himself and needs to be jailed for it" because he said something strictly and knowingly false. It's "we shouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg's testimony because he (and Meta more widely) have a long (long, long) history of being knowingly deceptive about the harms of their product".

If they had said that instead of "lied to congress" they would have lost less credibility with this reader. But then they wouldn't have gotten the click.

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

#80

Post by blitzar »

jacobsimon wrote: post #78

Not trying to defend Meta at all here, but this report is also lying. For example, it says "79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms." But the source it cites actually says 79% of online social media cases occurred on Facebook and Instagram. So this stat is probably just a reflection of Meta's market share of social media.

Meta's market share of child sex trafficking.
Post reply on HN