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