> Both sides can be true simultaneously. You can invest a lot and produce no results.

Evidence show that Meta can be very effective at achieving the results that drive profits. It's already suspicious when they fail exactly at the ones that would lower profits. Even more when you consider the rest of the evidence which shows intention to hide the "failure". That breaks trust and you're just choosing to believe that the lie that they got caught with must have been the only one.

Short of universal laws almost anything can go both ways. But when one is overwhelmingly more likely you can make a concession and agree Zuck was lying a lot in there.

You're bending over backwards to muddy the waters with vague "it could go both ways" statements.

▲

charles_f 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient. When you have 10 other examples that are undeniable, might as well remove the ones that can be challenged, let alone open with it, or you open yourself to very standard rebuttal PR strategies that focus on these.

	▲	gtowey 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Likely a lie but also they do have tools, they're just inefficient This is the exact problem, they could solve the issue by spending a lot more money. They could hire enough human content reviews to keep up, they could force all content to go through review before it can be posted. But those things break their business model. If you take away their ability to externalize these cost by harming society, it turns out Facebook isn't a viable business. From this perspective, every dollar they make, all those billions that Zuckerberg is "worth" is simply value extraction at our expense. Which is why he will do absolutely everything to protect it. It's so far beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. To know what he knows and continue to operate Facebook like this is moving into the territory of being pure evil.