shaicolemanMeta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...
https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings
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.
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.