Reading through the list, I really wouldn't call most of them lies. There are some lies, but it's mostly 'very precisely worded statements' and statements that were arguably made in bad faith, but are not technically false. With some of them I am not even sure how their 'evidence' column is supposed to refute the quoted statement.

In my opinion being this broad is really hurting the message. They should concentrate on the actual lies, not dilute the list with "In 2024 Zuckerberg told congress that accounts of under-sixteens are private by default, but they only rolled that feature out in 2024, seven years after learning of the harms of not doing that. He lied!"

▲

InitialLastName 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's worth noting that their argument isn't "Mark Zuckerberg perjured himself and needs to be jailed for it" because he said something strictly and knowingly false. It's "we shouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg's testimony because he (and Meta more widely) have a long (long, long) history of being knowingly deceptive about the harms of their product".

▲

delichon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If they had said that instead of "lied to congress" they would have lost less credibility with this reader. But then they wouldn't have gotten the click.

	▲	InitialLastName 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The word "lied" has a lot of layers[0] other than "knowingly said an outright falsehood". He may not have told an outright, provable falsehood (although some of these examples are close). He certainly has a long history of statements to Congress that are baldly misleading or belied by Meta's own internal records. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Types_and_associated_terms

▲

lelandfe 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This broad…side, perhaps?