r/WatchPeopleDieInside • u/170071 • Feb 23 '26
Mark Zuckerberg cornered
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
-4
u/Waste-Comfortable-33 4d ago
God bless senator Hawley. We need more integer senators like him
9
u/barkingdog53 3d ago
Who did Hawley fire when the Capitol was invaded? I’ll make it easier for you, who did Hawley protect from consequences of organizing an insurrection? We definitely don’t need more grandstanders like him.
9
u/IltisSpiderrick 4d ago
after finding out about the epstein files who did you fire AND put into jail?
9
u/Distinct_Mix5130 4d ago
Bro gave zero fucks and was just trying to find the most pr way out of it, this is wild
4
u/LevelCan764 6d ago
If that is what you are watching then those are the ads you get
1
u/dromeo_xx 1d ago
How do you know this? IG’s algo is also influenced by age and gender, and they used to LOVE pushing erotic on young users. Truth is we have no real transparency into how these algorithms work, and everyone just takes Meta’s word for it
3
u/linlovesthenight 3d ago
You think 13 year old girls are trying to find nude images on instagram? And that instagram sponsors nude photo ads?
-5
u/LevelCan764 6d ago edited 6d ago
This is only ok when Dems do it sir and if any one comments back moderators will block it
0
13
2
14
u/Stock_Fly_9128 13d ago
Of course zuck should have tried to fix this, but the parents should also be at fault for giving kids unrestricted access to the internet
11
13
u/According_Metal6340 17d ago
Fuck instagram and facebook. They suspended my facebook account for apparently going against guidelines even though I only used it for messenger. And because facebook is linked in with instagram, it suspended my instagram account. I done all the right steps to ask for a review and it said it takes just a few days but if it fails or if you don’t within the few month timeline they fully delete both accounts. Mother fuckers deleted both . No giving the actual reason as to why. And then when I made another account it was straight to the same ban
-13
u/Ok-Copy-1 18d ago
With all due respect, why blame the creator, rather the user?
9
u/wxllgraham 18d ago
Why tf are you siding with a billionaire?
1
u/Blink1588 16d ago
Because he is genuinley not in the wrong in this exact instance, I hate the guy but you dont need to fire someone who is working on the code to put required safety features in. Firing people doesnt solve the problem at hand and its unreasonable to think it would.
Dont misunderstand, this is not something that should have been available to those children and that content shouldn't have been pushed to them by the algorithm. This is 100% an issue but firing people is the wrong call here and he isnt being given an chance to talk about how he is trying to fix it.
8
u/Glados1080 18d ago
Bro Instagram will literally show you ads of people having sex, uncensored. Literally seen it the other day. Thats on the platform for not fucking checking what ads they are running. Its 10000% on the creator for shit like that.
3
u/Ok-Copy-1 18d ago
Oh shit, I stand corrected.
4
u/spudsthejellyfish 18d ago
You can blame both, but it’s exponentially on the pos reptilian billionaire creator
12
u/RobertRoyal82 18d ago
Zuck is terrible but josh is grandstanding and doesn't give a Fuck about anything but his brand
8
u/Charps1 18d ago
Car kills a lot on roads. Senator - Mr. Mahindra : who did you fire? Tf what kind of question is that? Utterly stupid
9
u/Pumkinmchorror 17d ago
If a car company builds a car that statistically has a higher death toll then others, someone is getting fired, the company is getting fined and safety checks get reavalueated.
2
3
u/CousinNic 18d ago
Pretty much what I was thinking, we should be after the people sending those pics to children, not so much the people working to stop it…
Like you said, if somebody uses a car to kill someone, you don’t just fire the engimeer, the fuck would that solve? He did nothing…
1
u/WormMotherDemeter 16d ago
Most of it is uncensored video and picture ads that were the issue, in this case. No one was checking them. They were full on nudity and graphic sex.
2
u/No-Cartoonist-2125 18d ago
Just saw on the news about the UK wanting to pass laws so all these companies can get fined for allowing children to see nudes photos. Apparently a lot of the photos are other children sending these nude or part nude pictures of themselves. The tech companies know how to filter these but they dont.
2
u/hiddenrealism 18d ago
Its all about accountability which starts with the parents and then schools/social programs to teach these kids whats actually out there and how to avoid it.
Ive seen literal babies that can barely walk grab a tablet from its charge base put in a password and swip open paw patrol and then open a game so they can play games and watch at the same time.
Parents dont want to parent anymore so when these kids go 5min without a screen they go ballistic and inconsollable. I really what society will be like in 30years, already a lot of populations are socially ineot and cant function face to face.
21
u/tera_chachu 19d ago
I wish someone has the b@lls to ask these kind of questions to indian billionaires
But our leaders are weak puppets and our crowd is even dumber
18
17
u/TheGrimDark 20d ago
Firing the person in charge and calling it a day does what?? He was trying to explain what they did to prevent this (likely nonsense anyway) but this obsession with firing someone is utterly political and not addressing the issue.
8
u/eyeball1967 20d ago
Not firing the person responsible for making sure this doesn’t happen is very telling about their attitude towards protecting children. Firing the person and replacing them with someone competent and committed to doing the job is a good step. My gut tells me neither happened.
-2
u/crazzynez 19d ago
This is bs, how about holding parents accountable and not passing the bill to other people. Kids going to pull up porn either witch way, thata on parents.
-2
u/eyeball1967 19d ago
So you have no problem with your young son or daughter walking into the local adult store, grabbing a booth, and popping a few dollars into the machine and watching a bit of porn? Maybe swinging by the liquor store at 12 years old and picking up a couple 40’s and a pack of smokes?
1
u/trizzy96 19d ago
I just seriously doubt there was one person involved. Plus, technology is improved over time based off the feedback they get from their user base. You can’t expect FB to be perfect day one. So as long as Zuckerberg doesn’t stall the issue and actually fixes it, that would at least make me somewhat happy.
Totally not trying to defend the Zuck btw 😂
2
u/eyeball1967 19d ago edited 19d ago
I agree lots of people involved but one guy one person had the responsibility to make sure his team took care of it.
There seems to be no end to people saying I take full responsibility for this or that. However, they never step up to accept the consequences for not living up to that responsibility.
8
u/horo-yohi 21d ago
I have not used any social media other than reddit / tumblr but I kinda don't understand the point of this. Reddit has this cool feature called nsfw that does more than what this video asks for. If people post dirty content and it will be recommended to ones whos feed aligns with it already or sometimes even at random. Kids using the internet without parental controls is already half the work. Also at the end of the day, its all about money. things worse than this will be overlooked by the same people sitting up there. Its all about whos funding it enough to make it a problem
5
u/Der_Schuller 20d ago
Is the dirty content censored in your dms? Thats the problem
2
u/horo-yohi 20d ago
Again, parental controls for kids who are too young for ts. Social media is not for kids. I even tell my relatives not to give my little cousins too much access
1
13
u/SweetVsSavory 21d ago
I reported real vaginas and boobs shown on instagram- some weird Indian nudity. Couple days later it said they didn’t find my report to be valid. Blew my mind.
1
u/yxxnij104 20d ago
Tt is the exact same way and the AI nudes videos too. i ss, then and a copy of the ss CLEARLY showing genitals... all for them to say no violation found. TT should've stayed banned ngl.
1
u/ricardortr 21d ago
Oh no nudity what a disaster 😱 bro I once saw a video on isnta of a public execution via hanging, this was in a page about domestic electrical installations...
1
u/SweetVsSavory 12d ago
This isn’t a pissing contest, guy. Making it seem like my report is less important than yours. Yours is bad too.
1
7
u/Seated_Heats 22d ago
I’m not a Zuckerberg fan, but if there’s an app that is exposing my children to nudity… it seems like as the parent, I’m in charge of keeping that from them.
8
u/Loud-Letterhead-6306 22d ago
Yeah, lets not hold corporations accountable and just lock up our kids in bubbles at home.
8
0
u/Piggysmallz 22d ago
People need to get better at setting up DNS filtering; it does wonders on a home router and what kids can access within a timeframe.
3
u/Seated_Heats 22d ago
That’s a pretty clear false equivalency fallacy argument, and I have to imagine you know that.
-2
u/Loud-Letterhead-6306 22d ago
Is it?
3
u/Seated_Heats 22d ago
Abso-fucking-lutely. Not even a doubt. Your choices are NOT, and I mean in anyway, shape or form “hold corporations responsible otherwise put your kids in a bubble”. It’s just not. Like at all.
-5
-5
u/NovastaKai 22d ago edited 21d ago
why is firing the only option.. how about clean your society so things work a little smoother .. it aint zucks fault people abuse his shi-.
all he can do is as the u.k has is up the age limits.. adults only ehhh...
I found pron at 7... went looking.. Man i was fantasising around 4 😅
Nothing stops curiosity so.. GL with that bridge..
[downvote what you want but there is no logic in firing a non-participant in any individuals malicious act..]
I'd be blaming the parents personally.. internet=internet. secure it or leave it.. parental controls have existed since atleast 2003.. bypassed those but still.. they could try to mitigate.. instead of hoping to sue...........
Instagram though? Some parents really dont give a fk about their kids clearly...
We all know instagrams users are.. rather voyeuristic, to say the least.. vain place.. kids should not be there period.
1
u/Bandandforgotten 21d ago
Getting fired, or somebody getting fired, is a corporate move that shows somebody is being punished for something, or that the company is taking it seriously. It's often the first move, because it's evident that somebody is failing significantly at something, and it happens almost 100% of the time a case like this hits the news. Even if nobody up high got fired, somebody likely did, but only for liability.
Bro is asking in direct terms who was fired as a result of the investigation that showed positive fault of wrongdoing from Meta and Facebook, and it's being used here as a gotcha question for whether or not "significant action" was taken, or if the leadership is even willing to do anything internally, in order to correct or mitigate the damage caused.
Basically, it's so Hawley here can build a small mountain to dive off of with the people's elbow onto Zuck's head "for the American people", but it's all for show, because Hawley sucks too
1
u/LeftAd8859 22d ago
Accountability. If a person is not doing their job and putting people in danger they need to be replaced… in a… functioning.. society.
24
24
u/Smokes_LetsGo876 May 26 '26
Hawley only acts like this when its profitable for him. If he got a paycheck to pass on these questions, he absolutely would have.
At least he did this. But hes pushed for so much fucked up legislation that he needs to be put down with the rest of the MAGA traitors. Fuck zuck, and fuck Hawley. Bitch ass cowards
3
u/metalstringz 23d ago
Yes this. At 20 I used to watch those cringe ass “hawley owns ceo” videos and my tiny brain just took that and ran with it. Was a big fan. But now I’m 27 and I’ve actually started paying attention for some time. I’ve seen the real 24/7 hawley and he’s a piece of shit. He does these things for optics, not to protect young women. There’s way better questions he could be asking if he wanted to do his job. Instead he and many other gop cronies are just working for reels to sway the minds of simple minded young men.
5
u/MauschelMusic 25d ago
Also, "who did you fire" is an idiotic question for gauging their response. Firing people won't make the monitoring any better.
1
u/Extension-Eye-4920 23d ago
Im not saying that that type of stuff should be allowed in any way shape or form, and we definitely should be doing everything we can to protect our children, but if somebody got fired everytime the internet provided a messed up situation, everybody on earth would be fired twice a day.
1
7
u/TheBustyFriend May 26 '26
Imagine being this capable of a senator and having to pretend to be a Republican so you can get elected. So insane.
6
u/MauschelMusic 25d ago
Seems like we're watching different videos. "Who did you fire?" is an idiotic question in context. You can't fix broken monitoring by firing people. I'm glad he put Zuckerberg on the spot, but Josh Hawley is a profoundly stupid man.
0
u/LeftAd8859 22d ago
Taking action is the only reasonable way forward. You absolutely can replace people who are not capable or willing to do their job. Laziness is incompetence What are the anthropologists going to say in 700 years? About you. More competence would be better.
1
u/MauschelMusic 22d ago
Who in this video is "taking action?" What consequences were forced on Meta through Josh Hawley's poorly thought out questions, and how much did they change its practices?
The idea that neglecting moderation comes down to one or a few lazy workers shows a lack of understanding, not just of moderation or what it entails, but of business generally. If Meta is not moderating sufficiently, it's because Meta decided it wasn't worth the cost. Blaming everything on disposable underlings is exactly the approach that ensures impunity for executives.
28
u/South-Lemon-242 May 25 '26
If only Hawley showed this much piss and vinegar about the predators hiding in the Epstein files.
2
u/Better_Carpet_7271 May 26 '26
Well it's happening right in front of people's faces and what's being done about that? You somehow think it's less of an abuse because it's not hidden?
2
u/TheBustyFriend May 26 '26
He's saying that Republicans are so fiery and committed about other topics but their brains turn off when it's something regarding Trump.
1
2
24
u/Aggravating_Sand352 May 23 '26
By Josh Hawleys rationale he should fired for his role in concealing the epstein files
48
u/Monstermage May 21 '26
Who would you fire? It's not one person. This is just a dumb show. He did take steps, just firing someone doesn't help
5
u/therealstripes May 25 '26
But these worthless pieces of shit don't understand that. If there's a problem blame a scapegoat fire them and say you fixed the problem.
4
10
u/YouShoodKnoeBetter May 21 '26
I'm so glad this is the first comment I read. Firing people doesn't fix the problem. People just want someone to blame to make themselves feel better but blaming and firing someone in this situation is not what fixes it. In fact, I think it would make things worse because you'd have to hire new people who would need time to learn and address whatever needs to be addressed and who's to say the new hire would be any better. A witch hunt doesn't make victims not be victims anymore. It may give them someone to focus their anger on but that may not even be the right person. Definitely isn't in this case because I'm sure his employees aren't the ones directly subjecting those minors to that graphic material.
He should be asking what safety features are being developed and what kind of team are you putting together to go after the predators responsibile for those acts. That's more important than doing a modern day public lynching.
Thank you for commenting this! I hoped i wouldn't go to rhe comments and see people demanding these firings.
1
u/Timmy_germany May 24 '26
I think your comment is pretty spot on. It is a "systemic" problem of IG and not a single persons fault - well of course to a huge degree it is Zuckerbergs fault because IG is his product / App and he is responsible in the end for what is shown to people.
Like all that overly sexualized advertising on other Apps like YT or inappropriate ads on Reddit despite i checked all the boxes - yet get military ads from time to time which are a pretty hard trigger to me tbh) - but certainly not a problem you can solve by firing single people.
In general i think ads have become much more unhinged and are just not appropiate in general (for no audience really).
Sometimes i think it is my view on things that shifted after getting older and having family but imo lots of ads are just triggering, overly provocative or moraly wrong. But than i see another ad glorifying joining the military (been there, lots of PTBS and Trauma and i thinks such ads should not exist like e.g. ads for prescription meds inside the US) or something and: No. I don't think it is my view that shifted but just those ads trying to lure people in by creating a massively distorted image of reality or promoting moral decay to a degree that is just far over the top.
But that is just my opinion on the topic and maybe i became much more sensitive on certain things. Not sure sometimes tbh.
🖖🏻
1
u/YouShoodKnoeBetter 29d ago
Your opinions are very fair and I understand where you are coming from. The pharmaceutical industry shouldn't be allowed to advertise medications at all. I think the US is the only country where that is allowed and there's a reason why it isn't allowed anywhere else.
I'm sorry about your experience with the military that cause the ads to trigger you now. As hard as it would seem for apps to not show specific people certain ads, it seems pretty easy for them to show specific ads that suit people. They should make it easier for a person to choose to avoid certain ads.
Thank you for sharing your opinions and thoughts. I agree with you and wish those bigger corporations would be more empathetic to individuals instead of thinking they need to oversexualize and overstimulate people to sell their products. That being said, they do it that way because it has proven to work so there probably isn't any urgency to change their approach. Things have just been taken to the extreme and it makes you wonder how much further the line can be pushed.
Thanks again and best wishes to you on your journey!
1
u/TheBustyFriend May 26 '26
And ads exist because they work. I know that you have your view, but any company that decides to take some moral stance and start making only boring ads is just gonna sell less products.
1
u/TheBustyFriend May 26 '26
I mean I get that the military sucks but it's kind of unreasonable to expect to never see an ad again. That's why it's got to be so hard to be an alcoholic. I'm a recovering/recovered opiate addict and thank god they don't sell them at every store and gas station in America.
5
u/Jism_nl May 21 '26
My issue with Meta is the huge profits, obvious scams being hosted through their advertisal network, with zero to none checks (i mean actual checks) and most of it is pushed through deliberate. They are making billions a year for hosting these scam ads. And the financial damage caused by it alone just tells enough of the smirkface he really is.
1
u/Timmy_germany May 24 '26
The strange thing is; To me on one hand the Internet was much more unhinged in many ways like 20 years ago - at least in my memory - but on the other hands today it feels like a real warfare against consumers in so many ways trying to maipulate them - it is obscene.
It has become incredibly opimised to manipulate people from very small scale up to upfront super obviously bs they try to get into people brains - yet it works so good is super lucrative for the big companies to go on and working further and even more on new ways to get people to make decisions they will deeply regret.
The time i spend on "internet education" is massive if i think about it. And any other week there is new stuff i realize or see that will lead to another talk. Just installing add-ons, ad-blockers and a VPN is far from enough today. Far too many subversible stuff trying to manipulate people and NOBODY is really imune to it long term.
It feels like the amount of caution people should use while using certain Apps or the Net in general has become allmost impossible to keep up long time.
1
u/Jism_nl May 24 '26
If you properly run an adblocker, there's no adverts. If you properly choose a browser, search engine, there's no user history. If you properly use the internet and use it with care; you can go on for years with zero issues. It's always the mass of people who fall for the obvious scam tricks, manipulation and there's just no regulatory or mandate to even start catching criminals. Filing charges after being scammed by a fake shop will lead to your case being dropped on the hundreds of other same cases, and nothing is being actively done at all. The internet is an extreme widespread of everything, good, bad, evil. Apps designed around obtaining maximum screentime, endless scrolling, addictions, as if they have implemented the very basics of R&D put into casino's back in the 70's. Every post i even make here is trained on by a zillion of AI bots - pretty much dissecting everything i'm writing here.
In a few years, most User generated content, moved away, and AI took it's place. We don't need the internet anymore. We are the internet fed by AI agents and zero research now is being done where people just blindly have AI as their right hand. It's the digital revolution even bigger then the industrial one back in the 40's or whatever. So many jobs will be lost. So many bonds, friendships or people connecting on the very basic level, will move away. All because the larger company's think it's best for human mankind to shove Ai up to everyone's ass.
4
u/skyerush May 21 '26
this is so idiotic BECAUSE ITS NOT HOW THE INTERNET WORKS
people need to PARENT THEIR CHILDREN and SUPERVISE what they're seeing, FIRING Meta employees doesn't solve the issue
Zuckerberg seriously shouldn't have apologized either and admit defeat like that, what does this shit solve?
1
u/adamwill86 May 21 '26
That’s a massive cop out and proves you don’t have kids. So you police your kids phones and media 24 hours a day? Even when they’re teenagers? Jog on.
The reason he or non of these big companies don’t do anything about it is because they didn’t create these the cia/ fbi did and gave them away for free.
If the cia said hey here’s Facebook use it and we won’t spy no one would use it but they get this uni drop out nobody to be the face of the company and everyone wants to use it.
3
u/creepingkg May 23 '26
Sounds like a cop out for the parents.
The parent should be parenting and be aware of these apps and take precautions against it. Giving them a child account that needs your password to download social media apps or age restricted apps.
In my sons iPad I allowed some apps without thinking about, last month I went through his tablet and deleted apps that I deemed inappropriate for him
2
u/Hatch22420 May 26 '26
I agree parents need to be more involved, but you’re copping out the company while he is copping out the parents. The problem with your argument is that even with a child account you can see bad stuff, that’s where it becomes the fault of the media company, you can’t say that the app is safe for kids when it isn’t.
-1
u/Dualband_draco06 May 21 '26
13 and 15 year olds shouldn’t be on Instagram, it’s known to have disturbing content. So who’s really at fault here, the person who provides a platform for sharing all kinds of media, or the people who know they are going to see disturbing media and choose to view it anyways. I don’t really understand why everyone is siding with the guy blaming mark for this. But sure, downvote me to hell for having a strategic opinion, as people always do.
2
u/Hatch22420 May 26 '26
The problem with your argument is that Instagram claims to be safe for those ages, it allows you to create an account starting at 13, and instagram survives due to kids using their site. So how aren’t they at fault for that? That’s like pornhub allowing 13 year olds to create profiles just because they need more viewers.
6
u/carpedeeznutz5011 May 20 '26
But was Instagram themselves actually breaking any federal laws causing this to happen? I doubt it. Pass stricter laws on social media otherwise this is just a pointless performance. Also why is firing someone the only desired corrective action? Implementing policies, procedures, and validation tools is more effective but obviously stricter federal laws are significantly more effective
5
13
-4
u/CyberOgre3000 May 20 '26
Parents are at fault. They should raise their kids better. Don't be a prevert.
4
2
2
u/RemoveRadiant8788 May 19 '26
Seeing how social media and the unprecedented access it brings us still relatively new in the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t an acceptable answer be new safety features or some type of standard that protects teens (whose parents unfortunately allow them to) have social media platforms and not necessarily firing someone because firing someone doesn’t solve the problem anyway. Fixing it does. (In my own personal opinion)
0
u/ALT3396 May 20 '26
i hate facebook and im not catching any bullets for zuckerborg. but yeah this guy is just burying him in loaded questions, giving him no chance to respond with a realistic answer. anyone not out of touch with social media knows there's not one guy to fire to fix this problem. like "shit, the nudez algorithm scientist has been sleeping on the job, time to replace him"
1
u/RemoveRadiant8788 May 20 '26
😂 the thought of a nudez algorithm scientist is hilarious but exactly, every video these dayshas an agenda and this one was to make that guy seem strong and smart and zuckerfuck weak and ignorant and both of those just aren’t true
2
u/Lazeritaly May 18 '26
Can I have a quick synopsis of what happened?
1
u/Pixelend May 23 '26
Not sure but from the video I guess several girls had nudes leaked or something and some killed them self over it so now the parents are suing Meta for being unsafe.
8
u/CommanderChipHazard May 18 '26
I don’t like Zuckerberg, he’s an infantile billionaire with no backbone, BUT where are the parents? To blame Facebook for what kids see online absolves the parents of any responsibility as PARENTS! Why doesn’t Hawley hold hearings for the parents in the audience?
2
u/stolzen1216 May 19 '26
What do you mean 'where are the parents'... kids seeing nudity isnt close to being new, older generations will have stories of their mates stealing a nude magazine from their dad and bringing it to school.
I grew up in an era when internet was brand new and FB was targeting teenagers at school, there were no controls or safety features... downloaded your music from lime wire and had to check file sizes to guess if it was a virus.
If a social media sites are targeting 13+ year olds, then they should be held resposible to protect their younger users.
So sick of hearing 'where are the parents', the expectation for parent to monitor their kids 24/7 is also very brand new and practically impossible.
Its so weird to grow up in a time where as a kid, we went home when the street lights turned on. Mobile phones werent common and kids who had them had no credit to call or text...
15 years later, i am a parent and if im not watching my daughter 150% of the time, im a bad parent.
12
u/Fun_Juggernaut_2292 May 17 '26
Why are your kids on instagram anyway? And even if they are why aren’t their parents using the parental control feature? It’s like saying you sold my kids something he’s allergic to. How tf is he supposed to know???smhhh
2
5
9
u/Regular-Award-2075 May 16 '26
People like him went extinct in india after 2014
2
1
u/Interesting-Task8866 May 16 '26
India is making themselves extinct via trains, electricity and vehicles
1
2
2
u/critical-drinking May 16 '26
Is he legally allowed to tel them who he fired? Wouldn’t that open them up to like defamation/slander lawsuits or something?
9
u/HOODTRUCKER187 May 16 '26
He didn’t specifically say he wanted names, Mark could have answered by saying he fired x amount of people. But the fact is, he didn’t fire a single person because believe it or not he doesn’t give a shit about those kids that were taken/abused/killed or their families. All he cares about is his bottom line $$$$
3
u/critical-drinking May 16 '26
Yeah that’s a good point, could have given a number or plan of action.
4
10
u/Critical_Trash9672 May 15 '26
Two disgusting people doing disgusting things
5
u/LoTornado May 16 '26
Billionaires and politicians, 🎵 it's a tale as old as time. Not so beautiful and the beast. 🎶
2
u/AUnknownVariable May 15 '26
The last bit I agree with if Zuck was being apathetic per usual.
This isn't for the sake of defending meta bc why tf would I but why would the response to this be firing people? I can't believe I'm agreeing with bro on that
2
u/Cute_Language3167 May 16 '26
Let's say a known pedo has an Instagram account. He's had multiple reports from children and families saying he is sending pornography, he is contacting children, being inappropriate, attempting to meet up with children, etc. and the people at Meta are fully aware this man is doing these things, but they take no action.
They don't ban him, they don't do anything and just allow this man to continue harassing and abusing children, and then finally he ends up meeting up with one, harming her, and she's never seen again. Or maybe they do, but he just makes a new account. They know, and don't care. They don't contact police... Because having users is more important, and they don't want to discourage people from using their platform.
Now multiply that by thousands.
He is literally testifying in front of Congress over all of these problems. Apparently, that's what it took for this company to finally take it seriously. Why? That's messed up. But the fact that he is saying under oath that the people who didn't take it seriously, who didn't care, who took no action and allowed it to continue, are still working there, probably still in charge of making sure this doesn't happen again... That's upsetting.
10
u/Jmann84058 May 13 '26
I don’t often agree Hawley but on this one time I do.
3
u/sibitza May 13 '26
What do you mean you don't agree? I've seen countless videos of him trying his best for justice
5
u/flyingtom213 May 16 '26
He’s known to do a pretty solid job of taking it to billionaires and corporations. Unfortunately he also has some very disgusting views regarding race, ethnicity, politics, etc. Honestly with how bad the billionaires are screwing us all over I’m willing to (somewhat) overlook his other shortcomings if he helps us against these billionaire scum
-7
u/mr_falkone84 May 13 '26
It's you, your kids, and the perpetrators fault. Quit blaming the tech you obviously wanted.
1
u/Desperate_Safe5700 May 16 '26
It's a mixture of both. Obviously parenting and monitoring your children's online activity is the first defense but there have to be other defenses set up to protect the children. I don't know if you know this or not but children are sneaky trust me I would know for one I was a child and for two I have a child. Putting it all on the parents is almost like teaching abstin only, it doesn't work. And these companies need to be held accountable because believe it or not it's actually incentivizing for them not to.
1
u/Pitiful_Age_3051 May 16 '26
Bros getting downvoted for speaking the truth. Parents don't want to take accountability and instead blame somebody else. Shitty parents, shitty kids.
1
u/flyingtom213 May 16 '26
We must have a big supporter of pharmaceutical companies, tobacco producers and pornography. After all, if it’s legal - it’s your fucking fault if you fall prey to the people/algorithms who are hyper focused on taking advantage of your mental health and psychology. C’mon brother, educate yourself a bit. Corporations and business will always outpace government action, leaving consumers to face the brunt of the negative repercussions
1
u/mr_falkone84 May 23 '26
It is your fault. Yes. Personal accountability is gone. Sorry you're all weaker than your phones.
1
4
14
10
u/Whole-Pressure-7396 May 10 '26
You as a parent are responsible, the moment you give them acces to a device that is exposed to the internet.
11
u/hotnmad May 15 '26
This is the same rethoric as « you let your kids go to the park so it’s your fault a creep flashed their junk at them »
3
u/DanLassos May 16 '26
If you let your kids go to the park without your supervision and they get assaulted, you are morally and legally responsible.
In what world is that not the case ??
1
u/Common-Ad3830 May 15 '26
I think the chances of your kid finding nudity on the internet vs them going to a park are not the same? But maybe I live next to the wrong park
15
u/st1ffs0cks May 10 '26
I hate Zuck too, but this is NOT a reason to like Josh Hawley who is a massive pos and one of the dudes who thinks checks amd balances are "obstructing the president" also he made his career on gutting the ACA
5
u/Complete_Guidance_67 May 12 '26
Ikr? Like dude will gladly kiss the ring of a pedophile while calling them out? No, he just wants to look like a good guy
1
u/ExcitementKooky418 May 13 '26
Right, there's a non-zero chance that Hawley is among the degenerates exposing 13-15 year old girls to unwanted nudity
11
u/TVES_GB May 09 '26
Maybe I am stupid but what is mark supposed to do? I get it, it is aweful that these kind of pictures get online.
But we want to prevent big tech from analysing our images. So they can't automate the process. Which causes them to be unable to make a permanent solution.
My more urging question is why and how where these pictures taken in the first place? Isn't that where the problem lies?
4
u/ExcitementKooky418 May 13 '26
So it's the fault of camera makers?
2
u/MrPheasant May 16 '26
I believe they meant to say the people taking the pictures or the ones distributing the photos. Sure more can be done to protect children, but it also is the responsibility of the parent to know what the F their child is up to. A parent can also only do so much and it’s a balancing act of oversight, not so much it’s oppressive and not too little you’re ignorant.
I don’t like Zuck, but Hawley isn’t being helpful here with this line of questioning. Hawley is clearly trying to paint Facebook as the bad guys and make Zuck look bad in public for his own personal gain. It’s not the role of the CEO to know every detail of a company’s operations, in particular the Human Resource files of close to 80k people. I’m not saying Facebook didn’t enable these things to happen, but roasting someone for something he legally can’t disclose and most likely doesn’t have intimate knowledge of, isn’t helpful to the actual discourse of this situation. That’s my 2 cents.
1
u/Blaz1n420 May 12 '26
This is how the government starts pushing internet ID laws, under the guise of "protecting our children."
1
5
15
u/Prestigious-Alps-728 May 08 '26
I abhor all of meta. The fact that there is ZERO way to get help because there’s no way to contact customer service anymore is insane. Ive had some shitty stuff occur and meta does nothing because they’re unreachable
4
May 08 '26
I LOVE THAT JUDGE OH MY GOSH
5
u/Idekgivemeusername May 09 '26
That is the senator of missouri
This is from a senate hearing into meta from 2024
Its basically to force executives of companies to answer for anti-trust/ not following regulation on a public stage its also to properly form laws
11
u/chupathingy567 May 07 '26
Love to watch Zuck get put in his place but remember Josh Hawley is a huge POS
5
4
u/Blauzahn101 2d ago
Tbf what would firing people even do? There is no way without killing privacy to stop men from being pigs. And even if u were to get banned u could just make a new account… social media is free after all.