The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative makes its first investment

This destabilizes the local economy, creating gentrified districts or entire cities(See: SF) where only the privileged laborers for a foreign economy can afford to live. It will also lead to a sharp increase in luxury good prices due to new demand, driving the bar for middle-class living out of reach for local workers. The skilled workers hired by the foreign economy become a brain drain - the government has invested resources into their education, but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels.

Helping people is hard.

> Using deception and dirty tactics to make the FB app run continuously on the background of your phone

Can you provide a link that explains this in more detail?

> Manipulating timeline results

I actually see this as a feature. Somehow Facebook has kept time-on-site and MAU metrics very, very high, so the timeline must be working well for most people.

You can also configure it to a surprisingly granular degree.

> Manipulating trending topics

There was no anti-conservative bias, and any other manipulation could be construed as curation or editing. I hid trending topics with a CSS rule, but if I were using it, I would want it to be curated and edited. I see this as a potential feature if done right.

Anyway, no one is forced to get their news from trending topics.

> Naming a for-profit arm of the company ".org"

.org domains aren't required to be used for non-profits, and the Chan Zuckerberg initiative could certainly be considered a charity.

In the US, non-profit status is a tax designation and has no bearing on how beneficial an organization is. In fact, I'm glad that it's not a non-profit, because it means the money comes from Zuckerberg and not from tax-payers.

> Publicly attacking net neutrality activists by buying gigantic ads across India

Links? I know Facebook was heavily criticized for attempting to undermine net neutrality in India, but I've never seen anything about them attacking activists directly via ads.

(Not that it matters, but it's pretty ironic that an ad company would buy ads in the physical world...)

> Calling the Brazilian people to protest in front of the Congress

This is very reasonable and actually positive (even if it did directly involve his company). Are you for or against internet/communication freedom? The Brazilian people absolutely should have protested the WhatsApp ban, especially because the reasoning for it wasn't made public.

WhatsApp is one of the few apps with excellent encryption, as well.

> Whitewashing his personal for-profit investment company as a "initiative"

Again, for-profit vs. non-profit is a tax designation. The US is structured to allow people to profit from doing good things. Is there a reason people shouldn't benefit from their humanitarian efforts? Should all non-profit employees just be volunteers, in that case?

I can understand taking issue with capitalism and the idea that good deeds must be incentivized with money, but I can't understand taking issue with Zuckerberg operating within a system set up by others.

> he appears extremely arrogant when you take in account some of the actions above, so it is quite understandable that people see him that way

Yeah, but so does Elon Musk a lot of the time, and people worship him. Off the top of my head, Paul Graham, Marc Andreessen, and Jeff Bezos also regularly come off as incredibly arrogant (more arrogant than Zuckerberg, in my view). I think that arrogance might be a pre-requisite for being wildly successful in the US startup world: you have to believe that you are special and will do something that 99% of others fail at.

> Oh, and the movie.

Well, it was fiction...

You might disagree with the reasons and defend him endlessly, that still doesn't mean the reasons don't exist.

Some sources: http://boingboing.net/2015/12/27/facebooks-fuddy-full-page-a... http://www.zdnet.com/article/insane-iphone-battery-drain-dis...

Also, we're not talking about the domain, we're talking about the name of the subsidiary: it's called "internet.org".

And non-profit isn't just about taxes. You can't take money out of a non-profit into your own pocket. Got it?

Oh, and people don't like when owners of foreign companies try to use them as fodder cannon to promote their own objectives, as in Brazil, no matter what's the upside.

And you don't see Elon Musk using FUD against activists, or doing any of the above.

About the movie, you're still not understanding my post. It doesn't matter if it was fiction or not, people still believe it.