>You haven't been involved in a long list of public scandals because you've never done anything in your life that's publicly notable.
That's funny.
You genuinely think that doing something "publicly notable" is necessary and sufficient for being involved in multiple public scandals, as if notable people who aren't slimy asshats didn't exist.
It's a fine argument too. You can keep narrowing down what counts as "publicly notable" until it only includes "founding Meta" when counterexamples are pointed out to you.
That's how you can be so confident is saying "you've never done anything in your life that's publicly notable" without knowing who you're talking to.
>By tricking yourself into believing you sit on a higher moral pedestal you're simply easing the pain of comparison
What a beautiful example moving the goal posts with a personal attack while saying absolutely nothing that has any discernable meaning.
Easing the pain of comparison, huh?
It's not painful to compare an asshat who brags about betraying trust of people who thought he's a decent human being to anyone who finds that repulsive.
Particularly in the context of discussing how trustworthy that person is.
It's not about "morals", see.
It's that Mark Zuckerberg is the highest authority when it comes to talking about Mark Zuckerberg, —...
... — and he explicitly said that you'd be a dumb fuck to trust him with your personal data, which is what you do when you wear Meta's AI glasses.
These are the concrete, specific facts, not contrived examples about high school girls (on whose behalf you can't speak either).
