4 ms·

Or... Zuckerberg is lying. You certainly can’t treat anything he says as ground truth - you need independent figures.

circadiam 8y ago
If only there were research apps to get those independent figures...oh wait.
dymk 8y ago
You honestly think that Facebook is lying to investors about key metrics? Do you know how much of a field day of litigation the SEC would have if that were true?
- huac 8y ago
  they've lied about metrics before: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccurate-video-metrics-inflation-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccu...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- kerng 8y ago
  It's not that it didn't happen in the past...
- fromthestart 8y ago
  After everything that FB has already lied about, the repeated examples of dark patterns, shady practices, the "dumb fucks" quote, is it really far-fetched to think that Zuckerberg would lie about this too, if he thought he could get away with it? Who's going to prove him wrong? Does anyone else have access to FB internal metrics? And what's the downside to lying? Worst case a slap on the wrist fine and a drop in stock price? Zuck has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be the type of person who will absolutely take advantage of any situation without any kind of ethical qualms. I'm not saying he's lying about this too, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least, SEC or no.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bitpush 8y ago
You have every right to be less than impressed with the company and its business model(s), but dont make baseless claims.
- randomsearch 8y ago
  I didn’t claim he was lying. I said it was an alternative conclusion. Perhaps to be more generous I should say “exaggerating” or “being selective.” Clearly his interests are aligned with higher stats. Therefore, it makes sense to corroborate those stats with independent data.
  - johnfn 8y ago
    Your first sentence was “Or... Zuckerberg is lying.” That is a claim.
    - dmos62 8y ago
      The claim was that there's another explanation, not that there's only that other explanation. Why did everyone get their feathers in a bunch over Facebook's integrity?
    - randomsearch 8y ago
      Wasn't intended as one, but I see from discussion above that's a common way to imply that the alternative is true. My mistake.
  - deelowe 8y ago
    > "Or... Zuckerberg is lying." > "I didn’t claim he was lying." Sure seems like you did...
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      "A" "..or B" "You claimed B!" It seemed to me that he 'claimed' (if you want to use that term) that "A or B". I'm not sure what "A" was exactly, but he pretty clearly didnt just assert "B". Although sure, he did cast aspersions (or something), but he's hardly alone in doing that about his target. It would be novel to hear someone claim Zuckerberg is truthful, or say anything nice about the guy. The word "claim" was the problem here, I think. He may have suggested the possibility that Zuckerberg was lying, but claim that he was?! By what definition? "It's day..or night" "You claimed it's night!"
pavlov 8y ago
Actively lying about numbers in the prepared remarks of an earnings call...? Probably not (unless you think Facebook is actually a scam ten times bigger than Enron waiting to be exposed.)
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads on flamewar tangents. There's plenty of opportunity to make substantive critiques on HN. This is not that.
- randomsearch 8y ago
  Ack sorry, my bad. It wasn't meant to be, but I see I have misintentionally done just that. What I meant to communnicate was "we shouldn't take these stats at face value and therefore assume the scandals have had no impact" but I made the mistake of phrasing it as if it were an assertion (not an interpretation I'm used to), being too pithy, and also using Zuckerberg's name rather than "social media"/"facebook". I didn't mean it to be a tangent, just a genuine point that such statistics should be treated with healthy scepticism and therefore caution against concluding too much from them. Hopefully the last bit in the post at least indicates I was sincere. But totally my bad. Need to take more care. I'm certainly often a contrarian, but never intentionally a troll.
  - dang 8y ago
    Thanks. Moderating HN has taught me that most of what looks like trolling is unintentional. Most of us consider our comments to be individual statements; we don't think of them as roots of the next possible subthread. But that's actually what matters for discussion quality.
    - randomsearch 8y ago
      That's a really good point I'd never considered. It's very cool that on HN people sensibly and helpfully debated what I'd intended to say. Means I learn.

If only there were research apps to get those independent figures...oh wait.

dymk 8y ago

You honestly think that Facebook is lying to investors about key metrics? Do you know how much of a field day of litigation the SEC would have if that were true?

huac 8y ago
they've lied about metrics before: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccurate-video-metrics-inflation-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/17/17989712/facebook-inaccu...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kerng 8y ago
It's not that it didn't happen in the past...
fromthestart 8y ago
After everything that FB has already lied about, the repeated examples of dark patterns, shady practices, the "dumb fucks" quote, is it really far-fetched to think that Zuckerberg would lie about this too, if he thought he could get away with it? Who's going to prove him wrong? Does anyone else have access to FB internal metrics? And what's the downside to lying? Worst case a slap on the wrist fine and a drop in stock price? Zuck has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be the type of person who will absolutely take advantage of any situation without any kind of ethical qualms. I'm not saying he's lying about this too, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least, SEC or no.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bitpush 8y ago

You have every right to be less than impressed with the company and its business model(s), but dont make baseless claims.

randomsearch 8y ago
I didn’t claim he was lying. I said it was an alternative conclusion. Perhaps to be more generous I should say “exaggerating” or “being selective.” Clearly his interests are aligned with higher stats. Therefore, it makes sense to corroborate those stats with independent data.
- johnfn 8y ago
  Your first sentence was “Or... Zuckerberg is lying.” That is a claim.
  - dmos62 8y ago
    The claim was that there's another explanation, not that there's only that other explanation. Why did everyone get their feathers in a bunch over Facebook's integrity?
  - randomsearch 8y ago
    Wasn't intended as one, but I see from discussion above that's a common way to imply that the alternative is true. My mistake.
- deelowe 8y ago
  > "Or... Zuckerberg is lying." > "I didn’t claim he was lying." Sure seems like you did...
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    "A" "..or B" "You claimed B!" It seemed to me that he 'claimed' (if you want to use that term) that "A or B". I'm not sure what "A" was exactly, but he pretty clearly didnt just assert "B". Although sure, he did cast aspersions (or something), but he's hardly alone in doing that about his target. It would be novel to hear someone claim Zuckerberg is truthful, or say anything nice about the guy. The word "claim" was the problem here, I think. He may have suggested the possibility that Zuckerberg was lying, but claim that he was?! By what definition? "It's day..or night" "You claimed it's night!"

pavlov 8y ago

Actively lying about numbers in the prepared remarks of an earnings call...? Probably not (unless you think Facebook is actually a scam ten times bigger than Enron waiting to be exposed.)

dang 8y ago

Please don't take HN threads on flamewar tangents. There's plenty of opportunity to make substantive critiques on HN. This is not that.

randomsearch 8y ago
Ack sorry, my bad. It wasn't meant to be, but I see I have misintentionally done just that. What I meant to communnicate was "we shouldn't take these stats at face value and therefore assume the scandals have had no impact" but I made the mistake of phrasing it as if it were an assertion (not an interpretation I'm used to), being too pithy, and also using Zuckerberg's name rather than "social media"/"facebook". I didn't mean it to be a tangent, just a genuine point that such statistics should be treated with healthy scepticism and therefore caution against concluding too much from them. Hopefully the last bit in the post at least indicates I was sincere. But totally my bad. Need to take more care. I'm certainly often a contrarian, but never intentionally a troll.
- dang 8y ago
  Thanks. Moderating HN has taught me that most of what looks like trolling is unintentional. Most of us consider our comments to be individual statements; we don't think of them as roots of the next possible subthread. But that's actually what matters for discussion quality.
  - randomsearch 8y ago
    That's a really good point I'd never considered. It's very cool that on HN people sensibly and helpfully debated what I'd intended to say. Means I learn.