Interesting, I didn't feel at all like there was a weird disconnect or agenda being pushed. In fact, it felt to me like a pained attempt to paint a contentious

Interesting, I didn't feel at all like there was a weird disconnect or agenda being pushed. In fact, it felt to me like a pained attempt to paint a contentious situation fairly and factually. It seems all too plausible to me that both of the following might be factually true: • Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are putting a lot of money into the local community and feel like they are going above and beyond their obligations in that regard • various hardships that the local community has suffered and is suffering over the recent years are directly and visibly linked to Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, and therefore they feel like Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have and are continuing to harm them, not help them The article seemed to be taking pains not to claim that any of the following were true, or that their opposite was true: • Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are wrong to feel that they are going above and beyond; they should instead be contributing to the local community more and/or differently • the local community is wrong to feel that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are doing more to help than to hurt them; in fact, they have no right or claim to getting more from, or even what they currently get from, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg It sounds like you think it's clear that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are contributing plenty enough to the local community. I'd be interested in learning why you think it's so clear that they needn't be doing more or different things, in spite of the local community's reported continued hardships.