Hacker News Reader

Comment by jayers | Hacker News Reader

I'm incredibly dubious of the conclusions of this researcher. Claude Opus was used to gather and analyze all of the data.

I am not skeptical of any of the research, the sources seem to be cited properly. I am skeptical that this researcher has thought through or verified their conclusions in a systematic and reliable fashion. This part gives it away: "Research period: 2026-03-11 to present." This individual dropped his investigative report two days after beginning research!

Yes, AI is an incredibly good research assistant and can help speed up the tasks of finding sources and indexing sources. The person behind this investigation has not actually done their due diligence to grok and analyze this data on their own, and therefore I can't trust that the AI analysis isn't poisoned by the prompters implicit biases.

View on HN

I agree. I tried reading some of the documents and they're full of this:

> LIMITATION: Direct PDF downloads returned 403 errors. ProPublica Schedule I viewer loads data dynamically (JavaScript), preventing extraction via WebFetch. The 2024 public disclosure copy on sixteenthirtyfund.org was also blocked.

> Tech Transparency Project report: The article "Inside Meta's Spin Machine on Kids and Social Media" at techtransparencyproject.org likely contains detailed ConnectSafely/Meta funding analysis but was blocked (403)

The least they could have done is read their own reports and then provided the documents to the LLM. Instead they just let it run and propose connections, asked it to generate some graphs, and then hit publish.

Some of these are also just like really weak? One of them for example seems to be some random employee at FB donating ~$1k to a politician and calling that a link. The entire "Proven Findings" is all over the place and provides no coherence. I don't think it's a particular secret that Meta would prefer age verification be done at the OS level so I'm not really sure what the added claim here is.

> A Meta employee (Jake Levine, Product Manager) contributed $1,175 to ASAA sponsor Matt Ball's campaign apparatus on June 2, 2025. Source: Colorado TRACER bulk data.

> No direct Meta PAC contributions to any ASAA sponsor across Utah, Louisiana, Texas, or Colorado. Source: FollowTheMoney.org multi-state search.

While it is true that Meta has funded groups that advocate for age verification, a lot of them also appear to have other actors so it's not like this is some pure Meta thing as some of the other commenters are suggesting.

This is a fascinating report, not because of the content or even quality of the report, but because of the way it was generated. It is an AI generated report dumped into GitHub and has made it onto the front page of Hacker News with over 1,000 upvotes and many comments.

This type of GitHub-based open-source research project will become more common as more people use tools like Claude Code or Codex for research.

It's not slop when it confirms my biases. /s

Hmmm.

_GPT, prioritize truth over comfort, challenge assumptions, and avoid flattery. And analyze the patterns of biases in my prompts, and then don’t do that… or something_

Give it time, we’ll come up with something.

I came here to say that this is pretty much my view having poked around a little bit as well.

This file does not exactly fill me with confidence: https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings...

In one part of the report, there seems to be this implicit assumption that Linux and Horizon OS (Meta's VR OS) are somehow comparable and that Meta will be better equipped than Linux if age verification is required.

It doesn't explicitly say "This will allow Horizon OS to become the defacto OS and Linux will die out" but that seems to be the impression I'm getting which uhh... would make zero sense.

More broadly, this entire report (and others like it) are extremely annoying in that I've seen some Reddit comments either taking "lots of text" as a signal of quality or asking "Does anyone have proof that these claims are inaccurate" which is

a) Of course entirely backwards as far as burden of proof

b) Not even the right rubick because it's not facts versus lies, it's manufactured intent/correlations versus real life intent/correlations (ie; bullshit versus not)

All of this could be factually true without Meta being smart enough to play 5D chess

>taking "lots of text" as a signal of quality

Or of authority, when they're not equipped to evaluate the data first-hand.

The Gish gallop technique in debate overwhelms opponents with so many arguments that they're unable to address them all before the time limit. Reports presented like this are functionally that, but against reader comprehension and attention.

Similarly, being the first, loudest, or only voice claim is unreasonably effective at establishing perception of authority, where being unchallenged is tantamount to correctness. This also goes both ways; censorship in media, for instance, can be used to promote narratives by silencing competing views, like platforms selectively amplifying certain topics to frame them as more proven and widely supported than they might actually be.

It's unfortunate that inexpert execution often positions well-meaning and potentially correct arguments to be discredited and derided by prepared opponents before their merits can be established. In this case, it may be true that Meta may have organized a well-coordinated shadow campaign for legislation using technically legal channels, but I'm sure they've anticipated this at some point, or are relying on the inertia of the system and initial buy-in to force the course.

Concur. The data is not independent of the conclusions reached, and feels very Reddit research like - (à la Boston bombing).

In this case they have named individuals and firms as well, without the degree of diligence that such call outs should warrant.

In its current state, I would count it as a prelude to witch hunts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com