4 ms·

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 th

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 carried on reading and found real, unchallengeable lies, nevertheless had a little alarm in my head that these might be interpretations more than facts. It would probably be good to either remove those borderline "understatements" or "distortion of the truth" ; or present them as things we can't trust given all the other lies.

close04 8mo ago
> Both sides can be true simultaneously. You can invest a lot and produce no results. Evidence show that Meta can be very effective at achieving the results that drive profits. It's already suspicious when they fail exactly at the ones that would lower profits. Even more when you consider the rest of the evidence which shows intention to hide the "failure". That breaks trust and you're just choosing to believe that the lie that they got caught with must have been the only one. Short of universal laws almost anything can go both ways. But when one is overwhelmingly more likely you can make a concession and agree Zuck was lying a lot in there. You're bending over backwards to muddy the waters with vague "it could go both ways" statements.
- charles_f 8mo ago
  Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient. When you have 10 other examples that are undeniable, might as well remove the ones that can be challenged, let alone open with it, or you open yourself to very standard rebuttal PR strategies that focus on these.
  - gtowey 8mo ago
    > Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient This is the exact problem, they could solve the issue by spending a lot more money. They could hire enough human content reviews to keep up, they could force all content to go through review before it can be posted. But those things break their business model. If you take away their ability to externalize these cost by harming society, it turns out Facebook isn't a viable business. From this perspective, every dollar they make, all those billions that Zuckerberg is "worth" is simply value extraction at our expense. Which is why he will do absolutely everything to protect it. It's so far beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. To know what he knows and continue to operate Facebook like this is moving into the territory of being pure evil.
pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
Ya, strongly agree. For those that don’t read the article, here are some of the more concerning ones imo - Mark said “We don't allow sexually explicit content on the service for people of any age.” But they had a 17-strike policy, and 79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms. :(. Edit: the 79% claim is overstated. If you read the linked report[1], it is actually “65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited _on social media_ were recruited from Facebook, with 14% being recruited on Instagram” (emphasis mine). Thanks kstrauser for investigating - Mark said “Mental health is a complex issue and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.” But internal study found users who stopped using Facebook and Instagram for a week showed lower rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. Meta halted the study and did not publicly disclose the results – citing harmful media coverage as the reason for canning the study. I suppose he might debate whether this is a “causal” link, but it’s fairly damning. - Instagram head Adam Mosseri told reporters that research he had seen suggests the app’s effects on teen well-being is likely “quite small.” An internal 2019 study titled “Teen Mental Health: Creatures of Habit” found (1) “Teens can’t switch off Instagram even if they want to.” (2) “Teens talk of Instagram in terms of an ‘addicts narrative’ spending too much time indulging in compulsive behavior that they know is negative but feel powerless to resist.” (3) “The pressure ‘to be present and perfect’ is a defining characteristic of the anxiety teens face around Instagram. This restricts both their ability to be emotionally honest and also to create space for themselves to switch off.” [1] https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-20230425-Meta-Fails-To-Keep-Kids-Safe.pdf?ref=dispatch.techoversight.org https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-2023...
- kwanbix 8mo ago
  I reported many times sexual profiles, and they allways came rejected.
  - ryanmcbride 8mo ago
    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 content platform this weird middle ground of generally acceptable content, and porn if you look for it hard enough. I'm obviously ignoring the giant societal can of worms around "what is sexual content, what is art, what is porn". Because we can be pretty sure that Zuck doesn't care what's art and what's porn, and we know he doesn't care about protecting _anyone_ from _anything_. It's always about the bottom line and always will be.
lingrush4 8mo ago
After reading the examples, I trust Zuckerberg more than the author of this article. And that's a really low bar. The evidence for Zuckerberg lying here is flimsy at best. It's almost like the author doesn't know what lying even is.
- infinitewars 8mo ago
  I would say it's a very high bar-- convincing you to trust him is literally Zuck's entire business from day one.
  - mattkevan 8mo ago
    “They ‘trust’ me. Dumb fucks.” - Mark Zuckerberg
squeegmeister 8mo ago
At the least they should lead with the most indisputable lies and leave the borderlines towards the end
TheRealPomax 8mo ago
Same, I read the first few and it just read as conspiracy theory material, where the "evidence" that refuses the claim has nothing to do with the claim unless you're already halfway down the koolaid pitcher. Always better to leave the "maybe, if you squint, but just as easily no" stuff out if you're trying convince others that there's a serious, objective problem with receipts.
danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
"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.
- pbhjpbhj 8mo ago
  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.
  - danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
    Lol... maybe I needed an explanation point to make it obvious it wasn't by accident...
    - danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
      *exclamation
      - jama211 8mo ago
        AKSHUALLY
  - jama211 8mo ago
    And you mixed childish pedantry with a general agreement.
    - pbhjpbhj 8mo ago
      I am often pedantic. But here I think it's instructive. One can easily use name-calling without realising it.
      - jama211 8mo ago
BurningFrog 8mo ago
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.
- flawn 8mo ago
  There are enough verifiable actions by Zuckerberg that proxy for some sort of behaviour unaligned with the wellbeing of society/humanity. You don't need to cut out the noise here, if there's even any on e.g. HN
  - BurningFrog 8mo ago
    But it's not just Zuckerberg. It's all billionaires with any public profile.
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  And a lot of people with valid grievances.
PantaloonFlames 8mo ago
You can invest a lot and get minimal results, OR, it’s possible they invested in 71-odd tools and only 17% produced results, but those results were as desired or expected so they didn’t actually need the other 83% of the tools they tried. The number of tools that were deemed effective is not proportional to the “the effect”.

close04 8mo ago

> Both sides can be true simultaneously. You can invest a lot and produce no results. Evidence show that Meta can be very effective at achieving the results that drive profits. It's already suspicious when they fail exactly at the ones that would lower profits. Even more when you consider the rest of the evidence which shows intention to hide the "failure". That breaks trust and you're just choosing to believe that the lie that they got caught with must have been the only one. Short of universal laws almost anything can go both ways. But when one is overwhelmingly more likely you can make a concession and agree Zuck was lying a lot in there. You're bending over backwards to muddy the waters with vague "it could go both ways" statements.

charles_f 8mo ago
Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient. When you have 10 other examples that are undeniable, might as well remove the ones that can be challenged, let alone open with it, or you open yourself to very standard rebuttal PR strategies that focus on these.
- gtowey 8mo ago
  > Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient This is the exact problem, they could solve the issue by spending a lot more money. They could hire enough human content reviews to keep up, they could force all content to go through review before it can be posted. But those things break their business model. If you take away their ability to externalize these cost by harming society, it turns out Facebook isn't a viable business. From this perspective, every dollar they make, all those billions that Zuckerberg is "worth" is simply value extraction at our expense. Which is why he will do absolutely everything to protect it. It's so far beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. To know what he knows and continue to operate Facebook like this is moving into the territory of being pure evil.

pinkmuffinere 8mo ago

Ya, strongly agree. For those that don’t read the article, here are some of the more concerning ones imo - Mark said “We don't allow sexually explicit content on the service for people of any age.” But they had a 17-strike policy, and 79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms. :(. Edit: the 79% claim is overstated. If you read the linked report[1], it is actually “65% of child sex trafficking victims recruited _on social media_ were recruited from Facebook, with 14% being recruited on Instagram” (emphasis mine). Thanks kstrauser for investigating - Mark said “Mental health is a complex issue and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.” But internal study found users who stopped using Facebook and Instagram for a week showed lower rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. Meta halted the study and did not publicly disclose the results – citing harmful media coverage as the reason for canning the study. I suppose he might debate whether this is a “causal” link, but it’s fairly damning. - Instagram head Adam Mosseri told reporters that research he had seen suggests the app’s effects on teen well-being is likely “quite small.” An internal 2019 study titled “Teen Mental Health: Creatures of Habit” found (1) “Teens can’t switch off Instagram even if they want to.” (2) “Teens talk of Instagram in terms of an ‘addicts narrative’ spending too much time indulging in compulsive behavior that they know is negative but feel powerless to resist.” (3) “The pressure ‘to be present and perfect’ is a defining characteristic of the anxiety teens face around Instagram. This restricts both their ability to be emotionally honest and also to create space for themselves to switch off.” [1] https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-20230425-Meta-Fails-To-Keep-Kids-Safe.pdf?ref=dispatch.techoversight.org https://techoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/08-2023...

kwanbix 8mo ago
I reported many times sexual profiles, and they allways came rejected.
- ryanmcbride 8mo ago
  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 content platform this weird middle ground of generally acceptable content, and porn if you look for it hard enough. I'm obviously ignoring the giant societal can of worms around "what is sexual content, what is art, what is porn". Because we can be pretty sure that Zuck doesn't care what's art and what's porn, and we know he doesn't care about protecting _anyone_ from _anything_. It's always about the bottom line and always will be.

lingrush4 8mo ago

After reading the examples, I trust Zuckerberg more than the author of this article. And that's a really low bar. The evidence for Zuckerberg lying here is flimsy at best. It's almost like the author doesn't know what lying even is.

infinitewars 8mo ago
I would say it's a very high bar-- convincing you to trust him is literally Zuck's entire business from day one.
- mattkevan 8mo ago
  “They ‘trust’ me. Dumb fucks.” - Mark Zuckerberg

squeegmeister 8mo ago

At the least they should lead with the most indisputable lies and leave the borderlines towards the end

TheRealPomax 8mo ago

Same, I read the first few and it just read as conspiracy theory material, where the "evidence" that refuses the claim has nothing to do with the claim unless you're already halfway down the koolaid pitcher. Always better to leave the "maybe, if you squint, but just as easily no" stuff out if you're trying convince others that there's a serious, objective problem with receipts.

danielmarkbruce 8mo ago

"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.

pbhjpbhj 8mo ago
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.
- danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
  Lol... maybe I needed an explanation point to make it obvious it wasn't by accident...
  - danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
    *exclamation
    - jama211 8mo ago
      AKSHUALLY
- jama211 8mo ago
  And you mixed childish pedantry with a general agreement.
  - pbhjpbhj 8mo ago
    I am often pedantic. But here I think it's instructive. One can easily use name-calling without realising it.
    - jama211 8mo ago

BurningFrog 8mo ago

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.

flawn 8mo ago
There are enough verifiable actions by Zuckerberg that proxy for some sort of behaviour unaligned with the wellbeing of society/humanity. You don't need to cut out the noise here, if there's even any on e.g. HN
- BurningFrog 8mo ago
  But it's not just Zuckerberg. It's all billionaires with any public profile.
Forgeties79 8mo ago
And a lot of people with valid grievances.

PantaloonFlames 8mo ago

You can invest a lot and get minimal results, OR, it’s possible they invested in 71-odd tools and only 17% produced results, but those results were as desired or expected so they didn’t actually need the other 83% of the tools they tried. The number of tools that were deemed effective is not proportional to the “the effect”.