> "[Cook] has consistently criticized our business model and Mark has been equally clear he disagrees."<p>I'm fed up with some of Apple's recent choices, so I'm no Cook fanboy, and I actually <i>like</i> Facebook -- seriously, I enjoy using it and find it adds real value in making/maintaining some connections.<p>But I rolled my eyes so hard at the above statement; the idea that consistent disagreement with Cook's criticism is somehow an adequate response to the misaligned incentives of Facebook's model is bullshit to the point of being an insult to readers. So is the idea this is merely a disagreement.<p>Facebook as constituted over its lifetime has deeply built-in incentives to sell out users. An adequate response would show a deeply searching reckoning regarding that along with the strength of proposed solutions. In absence of that, it's easy to suppose the real reason why FB leadership "disagrees" with Cook's rather apt criticism is that it preserves a position that makes them influential and rich.<p>Recent news revealing that FB apparently sees this primarily as a PR problem to be approached by discrediting critics means that it's extra hard to believe there's even a genuine attempt to care about their users in any other sense than as an asset.<p>I continue to believe in the potential value of tools <i>like</i> FB, but at this point, I'm not sure FB's leadership would be worthwhile stewards of a 7/11 from a social trust standpoint, and it may well be the model itself is adversarial.