> just like it's possible every asshole who did it before him was due to a genuine desire for the good of humanity.

So.. you're saying that every person that testifies before congress has bad intentions just because they testify before congress?

Say he did want what was best for humanity, how should he have acted differently in front of congress?

To me, from every interview I've heard from him, he doesn't seem like a Zuckerberg.

My point is that there is no room for granting leeway on either side. "But what if they really want to help the world" is the cry of founders who haven't been shown to be assholes yet.

Don't assume they're they're to help. Don't assume they're there to hurt.

They are there to cover their own asses and nothing more.

> Don't assume they're they're to help. Don't assume they're there to hurt.

Why is the assumption that they are only there to cover their own asses ok to make but other assumptions are not?

We don't know what he is actually thinking. It is entirely plausible that he is not a sociopath and actually wants to minimize negative impacts on society through regulation because he thinks that is the best path forward.