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

81–90 of 342 posts

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

#81

Post by navigate8310 »

I think the heart of the issue is mental health not being tangible enough for a common man, not being able to easily see and identify the plethora of spectrum like how a simple cough and cold flu might look and feel like; is what drives these companies to billion dollar valuations.

Until the society changes its outlook towards mental wellness, no amount of regulations or Government oversight might solve this and we'll continue to have the next generation of Meta or TikTok ready to kill humanness in humanity further.

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

#82

Post by 4ggr0 »

jaybyrd wrote: post #64

i remember when i was a kid i used to think if you broke the law you went to jail. i miss being a kid.....

the financier's island files gave me a huge dose of this. i always got the feeling that laws don't really matter for truly rich people, now i'm convinced. which means that we need different methods than law to handle such people.

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

#84

Post by jacobsimon »

blitzar wrote: post #80
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.

I should say market share of social media* updated lol

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

#85

Post by FrustratedMonky »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #73
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#86

Post by khalic »

mystraline wrote: post #67
1over137 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're talking about the USA here. Was such a thing ever done to someone of analogous stature in history?

Absolutely, yes. When China's civil war with Chaing Kai-Shek happened, the communists won. After that, landlords, business owners, and industrial owners were presented with an ultimaturm, of which many took. And that was to return to being a worker, or be jailed. Given how capitalists amass wealth and options to evade all governments, this does seem like a valid solution. A modern viewing is after Jack Ma (CEO of Ali…

lol are you seriously trying to frame the Chinese cultural revolution as something good? It was an anti-science, barbaric and corrupt movement

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

#90

Post by eschulz »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #35

Remember when he bought IG and one of the conditions was that he not merge IG / FB but its definitely merged behind the scenes. IG somehow knows your FB and vice versa. Also, when one goes offline, both go offline.

Well, there is an explanation here - he simply was misleading regarding his intentions.
Post reply on HN