Wow. I feel like it is almost to the discussions here to post an opinion article that feels like a slightly more articulate rant than you would get from your s

Wow. I feel like it is almost to the discussions here to post an opinion article that feels like a slightly more articulate rant than you would get from your second cousin Ned at a reunion. You love Ned, he's a great father and volunteers at a homeless shelter. That being said, if you were JFK in October 1963, you aren't calling Ned for advice. What makes it especially egregious, is that someone who has had their own history of public inciteful remarks come back to haunt them in RL, somehow manipulates the _actual_ situation so that it only applies to himself and his perceived peers in the "Aggrieved Coalition". The amount of hubris it takes to say you stand for the Constitution while engaging in soliloquy of this nature must be staggering. Zuck and FB have broken the law many times (I'm only counting the US here), on record, way before the "Facebook Papers". The most insanely sad bit, even the State of TX (where author resides), has already provided documented evidence of conspiratorial criminal behavior. Author decides to turn the whole thing into some kind of party affiliation fight, instead of just acting on his (hopefully) innate humanity and moral compass to just call out Zuck and Co. for not valuing anyone else's. This is the kind of sad commentary I expect to see elsewhere, but definitely not here.