I shouldn't reply to this after so much time has passed; it's petty and no one cares. But just for the record: > the assumptions that you are making are false

I shouldn't reply to this after so much time has passed; it's petty and no one cares. But just for the record: > the assumptions that you are making are false or misleading Nothing that I listed in the second section of my comment was false, it was all factual information. Facebook did take out full-page adds with misleading and inaccurate FUD about Apple's privacy stances. Facebook did merge Occulus and Facebook accounts. Facebook does, still, to this day, ban pseudonyms. Facebook has never claimed that the leaked emails describing its internal policies towards competitors were faked. Those are factual statements. If you want to claim that I'm lying about them, then that's a really bold claim that you should own in specific terms, not just allude to in vague statements about whether or not I'm willing to listen to you. > You certainly do not care to listen, for instance. You have never provided a single example throughout this entire thread of any of my examples being factually inaccurate, but you're characterizing me as being close-minded for not taking you at your word with zero evidence that every critique about Facebook is wrong. You're upset that I don't know what you have to say, but you haven't said anything. You set up an example of a hypothetical critic who doesn't understand how shared contacts work, and told me to extrapolate from there. So yes, I do think you're wrong, because absent any evidence of the contrary, the fact that you've worked at Facebook doesn't mean you magically have context that makes Facebook's real-name policy not a problem. Again, unless you want to claim that the entire media landscape is outright committing libel and that Facebook doesn't have a real name policy[0]. [0]: https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576 https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576