Every single official corporate response in this story so far was formulated using the exact same terms, and did not constitute an actual, categorical denial of the claims. We have not giving "direct access". We are providing the government with our data through "legal channels".

Like someone in the other thread about Pages blogpost asked: What could Zuck say more to convince you otherwise?

He says explicitly Facebook is not providing information or metadata "in bulk", which seems to contradict the Guardian article ("direct access").

He says:

  We have never received a blanket request or court order from 
  any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk

Not that they don't provide information in bulk. The next paragraph comes closer:

  When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request
  carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes
  and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information 
  if is required by law.

Which in an ungenerous reading leaves plenty of wiggle room. eg, "When governments ask", not "When governments order us".

Personally, I believe Larry and Zuck, but the statements themselves are really weird.

My thoughts exactly. And not just the content, but the vocabulary and the whole way the language is structured.

Felt the same way reading it.