Have to say I respect the guy for what he built up to around 2008 but I have to call this one. He's basically following the old tobacco 'four dogs' strategy if

Have to say I respect the guy for what he built up to around 2008 but I have to call this one. He's basically following the old tobacco 'four dogs' strategy if you follow his statements. Some examples from just the past couple of months of statements mostly from last night (all paraphrased): 1) First of all, I don't have a dog. -> 'The idea that someone affected an election with ads on fb is pretty crazy.' 2) And if I had a dog, it doesn't bite. -> 'Facebook is a force in the world for good, because it connects everyone, and my job is to work on something my kids will be proud of, as long as facebook is important.' (benefits outweigh the harms, equating FB with the internet). This is dubious. 3) And if I had a dog and it did bite, then it didn't bite you. -> 'Security is a problem that is never solved, so we like everyone else will always be working on it forever.' Implication: if I weren't working on internet security, someone else would be, and security design problems would still be a threat to internet users, so stop complaining about the state of internet security, because odds are it hasn't affected you, and by the way, look how much I am investing in it by hiring thousands of people to do content moderation on everyone's behalf. 4) And if I had a dog and it did bite, and it bit you, then you provoked the dog. -> '#deletefacebook is obviously not good, but nobody is acting on it in any meaningful numbers' (calling everyone's bluff and in my interpretation actually daring everyone to try and create a more secure and beneficial internet experience without facebook). Please reply with modifications; I think the essential gist is there.