If you’re going to make a claim against what a reasonable person would expect, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
You said tik tok like counts aren’t real and someone asked you for source. Then, rather than giving a source, you made another unsupported claim about Facebook doing the same thing.
I don’t have an opinion one way or the other, but I do enjoy reading HN for lively conversation and debate. I’d prefer the debate to be in good spirit and based on fact, not conjecture.
So you’re saying some random person on the internet has a higher burden of proof than a $55b company. In the pursuit of intellectual honesty, it also seems reasonable that for once some giant bullshit claim from a company is audited?