there are some problems with what you have posted.

let's begin.

>things I can’t talk about but that I’m incredibly proud of, and that have made the world a meaningfully better place.

ah, so we must simply trust you, then? FB has violated users trust from day one with the "dumb fucks" and the like. "making the world a better place" demands evidence. btw, i bet you can probably provide some evidence that will satisfy your criteria for this. just recognize that it's overtly incredulous unless you provide that evidence. and yes, i am incredulous here.

>Facebook is showing how to properly react to a scandal

lying, denying, fumbling, partial admission, larger admission, and then a cycle of non-apologies is NOT the right way to handle a scandal.

>Even now, the company is exposing itself to more criticism because that’s the right thing to do.

yeah, that explains the extralegal FB "raid" on CA's offices. or is there some internal explanation for that? because to everyone else, it looks like you guys were "just doing the right thing" by trying to destroy evidence of their wrongdoing. trying to dress that up somehow comes off as... shall we say, incredulous, again. there's a limit to how much people will believe that you believe.

and don't even bother watching zuck's testimony to congress. you will find that he is eminently doing his darndest to avoid criticism by avoiding inquiries. i encourage you to watch it in full and count the dodges. you will break fifty.

oh yeah, and trying to sue the newspaper that broke the story is egregiously scummy -- i'm talking like richard nixon level of brutal sliminess. these are the actions of a criminal organization trying to escape punishment for their wrongdoing -- or at least that's what it looks like from the outside.

>Overall, it’s fairly positive, I would say.

does your appraisal include:

involuntary surveillance of non-users

passing information to (malevolent or otherwise) governments regarding their citizens

non-consensual experimentation on users' emotions (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-...)?

what about being a willing accomplice in Chinese censorship, if they were allowed to operate in the country at all (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo...)?

oh yeah, and what about causing negative emotions intrinsically via using the platform (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-... and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 & an extensive amount of similar evidence)? or is this somehow acceptable despite the galaxy of evidence that explicitly links FB to worse quality of life?

what about tax evasion (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-...)? tax evasion is typically not prosocial behavior.

what about political censorship in kashmir (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-...)?

or maybe political censorship of the kurds (http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201308240040-0023000)?

or religious and political censorship in pakistan (http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-post...)?

what about the censorship of the rohingya trying to tell the world about their persecution (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/20/facebook-...)?

---

i guess the bigger philosophical question is: at what point do you take responsibility for your actions in the context of facebook as a company? i understand that companies are often unethical in tiny steps until they're a monster, and it's hard to tell from the inside when things are happening. i can't imagine that i would have quit the company after any two of the things i listed. but there's more than two things. all the evidence is there, now.

what's your move?

PS: exhibiting restraint in this post was . . . difficult.