Absolutely. But, this is Zuckerberg's full statement:
>I do think that there should be regulation on harmful content ... there’s a question about which framework you use for this.
>Right now there are two frameworks that I think people have for existing industries - there’s like newspapers and existing media, and then there’s the telco-type model, which is ‘the data just flows through you’, but you’re not going to hold a telco responsible if someone says something harmful on a phone line.
>I actually think where we should be is somewhere in between.
Here is a charitable interpretation: he's considering how it should be regulated, not what the company exactly is or should be. And I think his statement there is correct. In practice, many people do treat Facebook like a sort of newspaper. I definitely think they shouldn't, but it's a fact.
He seems to be saying that, as a result, some kind of regulation similar to newspaper-targeted regulation is necessary. But, at the same time, it's certainly not exactly like a newspaper, where content is produced and published exclusively by the source. Facebook doesn't even explicitly curate content (or so they claim), let alone create it; they try to let curation occur automatically through algorithms.
This absolutely may be a duplicitous attempt at humility on his part, but, regardless of the underlying intent, I think his public message is that Facebook is in a unique position where it can influence a lot of people to believe certain claims and ostensible facts like a newspaper would, and yet is not an author of content in the way a newspaper is. I think he's trying to allude to the additional responsibility they have and the risk they pose which telcos don't share, and that there's a need to regulate them more strictly than telcos as a result. He's saying they're a telco that should be treated with some of the regulatory gravity of a newspaper, rather than that they're a newspaper that should be treated like a telco.
So I think people are kind of interpreting it in reverse. He's trying to sound humble and accountable - perhaps to misleadingly deflect from his probable true personal belief that they should have as minimal regulation as humanly possible - rather than arrogantly proclaiming they should be immune from regulation. (One can't rule out the possibility that he's being sincere, but of course that's not exactly his reputation.)
tl;dr I think he's likely being sneaky rather than shameless.