Are you joking? You have got to be joking. What have you contributed to society that amounts to 1/100000th of Mark's recent contribution? You're going to sit here and write an internet comment about how a guy who just donated $500 million dollars to charity is evil because you don't like the way he handles privacy settings on the $100 billion dollar company that he started single-handedly

You have some serious soul-searching to do, guy. Go out there and build something, or do anything useful with your life. Then come back and tell me who you think is good or evil.

Do you have to be successful in order to be allowed an opinion?

If your opinion is as boneheaded as the parent's, then yes.

Edit: This was uncalled for, and I apologize.

What I mean to say is that anybody who builds things of value for a living quickly develops a more nuanced sense of morality than the parent displays. I do think that, when talking of the moral character of great people, the experience of having gone through the struggle yourself is rich with perspective. The fact that the parent deems Mark "clearly immoral" because Mark changed the parent's Facebook UI is absolutely the most revolting type of perspective in my eyes.

You've just lost any credibility by saying this.

You're right. Thanks.

People like the parent bring out the worst in me -- people who judge others without lifting a finger. I'm not sure what I was trying to accomplish with the name-calling, though.

Thanks for the rational reply.

For ref, I don't do nothing - I do a lot of charitable work which benefits people directly (children with neurological problems). No stock, no schemes (other than gift aid). I won't go into the amount in detail but per year for the last year it's been larger than zuck's donation aggregated per Facebook staff member

I'm entitled to judge a person by their own standards - in public, in front of people, which is how zuck wants us to live our social life.

I stand by my point.

I'll have done net more positive things by sitting on my arse doing nothing, which I haven't been.

Why do you think he's immoral?

If you equate "enabled people to share more of their lives more broadly" with "damaged people's privacy" then I agree, but I'm not sure even a majority would agree with a sentiment of that necessarily being a bad thing. People share what they feel comfortable with, don't they?

It's not about what but to whom.

To whom is hard to control and is made harder on purpose as after all, their entire model is based on encouraging sharing legitimately or otherwise.

Don't underestimate the power of the majority to make a crap decision. That's why we have privacy and data protection laws in the EU: to protect people from predatory information gathering and sharing.

Who's privacy was damaged in a way where the victim didn't voluntarily give it up?

Guys like these maybe : http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/10/facebook_bobbi_d...