Or... Zuckerberg is lying.
You certainly can’t treat anything he says as ground truth - you need independent figures.
You certainly can’t treat anything he says as ground truth - you need independent figures.
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.
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.
It's very cool that on HN people sensibly and helpfully debated what I'd intended to say. Means I learn.
It isnt a baseless claim to point out the infallability of a CEO or the broken incentive model to tout bad information or consciously lie
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.
> "I didn’t claim he was lying."
Sure seems like you did...
"..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!"
AFAIK "... or B" is a common idiomatic expression used to convey, in a sarcastic tone, the fact that the speaker disagrees with A, and considers B to be true.
Do you know how much of a field day of litigation the SEC would have if that were true?
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.