> He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right?

Yes, I would definitely agree that this is the case and I think that is a large part of the problem. The Machiavellian ends justifying the means equates to him not caring about the negative impacts that he has on society while trying to attract the most eyeballs possible.

Aren't those negative impacts on society a matter for government? Basically any company will 'try it on' until it's stopped. And 'stopping' is what governments are about, I used to think. It doesn't seem to happen and it's not surprising that some have written darkly about the marriage of huge corporations with government and its dire consequences.

Yes, I think the government should be responsible for preventing bad actors, but I also don't think Facebook operating without morality is good or acceptable. Government is slow, facebook is using this to their advantage and moving fast and breaking things (society) and I don't think they should be let off the hook because our government hasn't caught up with the blatantly bad stuff that they are up to. If outrage and bad PR can curb some of their negative tendencies, I am all for exposing their actions.

Facebook has consistently disappointed anyone working on any of these issues, from Islamic State recruitment to Myanmar's ethnic violence. Because young people in tech are generally thought to be smart and happy, i. e. Democrats, these failing have been interpreted as growing pains and various lapses in skill or judgement.

The idea has, however, been catching on that Zuckerberg may just be a Greenwald-Democrat, i. e. someone going through a process of alienation in increasingly schizophrenic episodes.

Combine bad faith with the power of Facebook and it's possible to consider that dangerous. The superlative feels strange indeed, but can you think of any other credible alternative, especially outside of (party) politics?

> smart and happy, i. e. Democrats

> these failing have been interpreted as growing pains and various lapses in skill or judgement.

"[...]have been interpreted[...]" are wikipedia "weasel words" here; this is really what centrist party Democrats feel. They interpret the acts of "smart and happy" middle-class people through the lens of "people trying to do good badly" rather than "people doing what they want to do, consistently with what they've always done."

These are the only people that need to rationalize their associations with Facebook, and this is how they do it. Republicans and libertarian-types don't actually think these are issues that Facebook should be concerned about, and lefties don't need to to rehabilitate Facebook.

I believe Zuckerberg never made it past the "I don't know why these dumb fucks trust me" phase of his psychological development. He's never fully grasped that the fact that people did in fact trust him means he has a responsibility rather than a mandate. Unfortunately every time Zuckerberg has abused his power, he never faces a single consequence, so he just keeps learning the wrong lesson again and again.

Conspiracy theory? He did everything in his power to get liberals into political power.

Yes he is a very large threat to Western society, the United States of America and world peace. The current state of affairs should be the proof anyone needs.

Well there we go... Last one turn out the lights, this guy has solved it.