Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karunamon | Hacker News Reader

>I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are.

Considering that they are not even under oath, precisely zero. They can lie to the lawmakers' faces with no recourse.

I very distinctly remember Jack telling congress the time before last that they "do not shadowban", and then screenshots of their admin dashboard were leaked[1] that show they explicitly did have multiple kinds of shadowbans.

[1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxd3d/twitter-insider-acces...

Disregard that first sentence, apparently they are all sworn in by default. It's just that perjury is barely ever pursued.

View on HN

The witnesses are under oath. Everyone that testifies before Congress is under oath and lying would constitute a federal crime.

Interestingly the questioners, in this case the Senators, are not under oath and they can say whatever they’d like. Regardless of how false or nonsensical.

Has any witness ever been convicted? There are so many witnesses that give completely false information that is later shown to be a lie. Has there any been a case of prosecuting such lies? Without prosecution it is all just empty threats and there is no real incentive to speak the truth.

At the last hearing, for instance, Jack Dorsey said that they do not shadow ban, but later pictures appeared of their administrative interface and certainly that capacity was there. An outright lie and yet he isn't even interrogated on this. Wouldn't there be arrests and trials if it truly was a federal crime?

It happens. It's whimsical and seems often to be based upon media-generated hype. Important decision-makers like Comey and Clapper both lied to Congress in significant ways and never faced any repercussions. A little nobody like Roger Stone lied to Congress and was prosecuted to the hilt.

Look at the prosecution of Roger Clemens. Why the hell was Congress holding hearings about steroid use in baseball?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...

> Interestingly the questioners, in this case the Senators, are not under oath and they can say whatever they’d like.

That parallels to attorneys in a trial. Although in a trial there are some limits to questions that can be asked. In a Congressional hearing, the witnesses don't have anyone who can specifically raise an objection on their behalf, they just have to wind down the clock.

Honestly, most of these hearings would be better conducted via letters. Then you wouldn't get nearly so many "I would have to get back to you" answers, often without serious followup.

Zuckerberg lied at one of his last testimony and nothing happened...

Does this happen off-camera? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see them get sworn in.

Yes. There is a bunch of procedure/setup stuff before the sit-down that's not on live stream. Maybe in C-SPAN archives? I've seen it before, on C-SPAN c2008

Reply on news.ycombinator.com