> But if his/her agenda is Democracy... So OP is saying "hey, some people oppose this.Where does Zuckerberg oppose democracy in this post? Show me the specific line where he makes a concrete and definitive statement that he opposes democracy.
If Zuckerberg were arguing against democracy, or if the parent gave a concrete argument that this is an effect of his advocacy, then I would have all the sympathy in the world for the argument you're making. But parent doesn't make that argument, and I'm pretty damn sure Zuckerberg didn't explicitly condone anti-democratic viewpoints in this post.
> Democracy is about allowing differing views, so forcing this is not democratic"
Democracies are a form of government.
The whole point of government is applying force.
The point of democracy is that we come to a consensus about when and how to apply that force via voting.
But the application of force itself is extremely democratic. Without it, government -- and by extension, democracy -- does not exist.
Now, if Zuckerberg were arguing that we should apply that force to prevent you from expressing your opinion or obtaining democratic consensus about something, that's one thing. But again, I don't think he's saying any of that...
> Just thought I'd point this out this little oxymoron to you since it seems like you tripped a bit in your logic and confused arguments
I interpreted Zuckerberg's words on face value. You seem to be reading a hell of a lot between the lines. And maybe that's fair. But you have to actually make that argument. Otherwise you're preaching to the choir and anyone who doesn't already agree with you is left confused and incredulous.
Because, at face value, Zuckerberg is NOT arguing against either democracy OR against free speech rights. If you want to argue that he is sympathetic to authoritarianism or opposed to free speech, then make that argument. But don't condescend as if these things are obvious when the actual text were discussing emphatically doesn't argue against either democracy or free speech.
If you can point to the specific line in this post where he explicitly advocates either of those things, I'll extend my sincerest apologies. Otherwise, you're drawing extremely wild inferences out of thin air, and taking a condescending tone when people call into question your rather conspiratorial priors.
> Happens to everyone
Indeed...