Mark Zuckerberg finally came out to talk about how they "made mistakes" with users' data. Clearly Facebook is trying to win back it's users' trust as a London based firm Cambridge Analytica whom they are claiming worked with the Trump presidential campaign accessing 50 million users without their permission. This on the heels of another apparent "mistake" that somehow the social media giant allowed to fly by regarding pedophiles. Odd right? https://steemit.com/facebook/@artistiquejewels/facebook-asks-users-if-they-should-allow-adults-to-ask-minors-for-sexual-images-are-you-kidding-me-yet-good-people-are-banned

Days went by and people were wondering where Mark was. Why wasn't he giving a statement? According to Investor Place, Mark made this response.

"For its part, Facebook repeatedly has argued that what happened is not a “data breach.” Facebook wasn’t hacked. The data was given willingly by users. The data itself was used incorrectly, and under current terms of service, the situation could not repeat. For its part, Cambridge Analytica told Reuters that it didn’t use the data in the Trump campaign. And it insisted that it had deleted the data it had received, as Facebook requested.

https://investorplace.com/2018/03/facebook-inc-fb-stock-plunges-may-have-further-to-fall/

Zuckerberg states he is committed to correcting these issues where users' privacy is being breached. After all he had assured us from the launch that our privacy would be protected. Did he mean what he said? In a 2009 interview with the BBC Zuckerberg stated he would never share people’s info. He claimed “the person who’s putting the content on Facebook owns the content.” Interviewer says so you’re not going to sell or share any of the information on Facebook? He referred to the terms that weren’t going to share the information except with the people they’ve asked to share it with.

See his interview with Laura Trevelyan here

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43481019/zuckerberg-in-2009-facebook-privacy-is-central

Other questions floating around social media platforms and threads include, did Mark sell us all out? Was it intentional? Has he knowingly sold data before whether it be to mining companies or for political purposes.

I do believe these collected images from IM's in the early days demonstrate what his goals, values and drive centered around. One must ask, was he looking out for the good of the people or the good of himself?

This is a series of screenshots from Business Insider. Mark's comms are in green and the responder in blue. I apologize in advance as language and derogatory comments were used quite often (many phrases fb won't allow today), but proof must be shown.

Here is one that hits home right away where he talks about all of those who are his, shall I say "farm" possibly? This was shortly after he launched facebook and joked about how odd it was people were so willing to give over their info freely. In all fairness he had a point. . .just as all globalists and controllers do. They HAVE to TELL us What They Are Doing. It is part of their code of conduct. Their theory is, if we are too stupid to catch on, even with their hidden symbolism, twists and turns, then we deserve it. We are to them as stupid goyim, but our ole' pal Mark Zuckerberg puts it in his own terms!



This one is in two parts.





Then Zuckerberg had to decide whether or not to tell the Winklevosses, his school pals, he was working on a competing project. Here, he says he is going to F* them.

![Screen Shot 2018-03-24 at 2.41.47 PM.png]

( )

Here Zuckerberg refers to Edwardo Severin, his cofounder and first investor



As referred to later in this article with a link to the story, this ended up in court and these brothers did win a settlement.



This shows he has no problem hacking info



This demonstrates his skill set and what he allows himself to do with no thought of consequences or hardship to others. Don't forget, he divested his funds for "philanthropy!" This will be in two parts. Once again, apologies in advance for the language and the trash talk. We all acknowledge young people can choose to be immature, but we also realize it clearly demonstrates character and a value system when you allow yourself to dive into dumpster talk. What really shows true character, is what you say and do when you "think" no one is looking. This also makes me question the "genius" level as most involved in programming understand whatever you put on the internet, which was actually developed by DARPA as the Arpanet, doesn't go away! It is out there somewhere even when you THINK it is deleted. Perhaps if Mark would have understood this himself as the purported "boy genius", he could have passed this valuable, rather useful information along to his buddy Hillary (as you will see later in the article Mark was connected to her). I get it though, clearly they think they can control what comes up on social media sites through censorship. They don't realize it is too vast and even THEY can't control it all! I guess that doesn't stop them from trying as many ARE connected just as Mark and Google were in the early days and they still trade employees back and forth just like Facebook's COO who worked for google and the former DARPA's director Regina Dugan who worked both for Google and Facebook. Ah, good times, great memories, and still trying to make more...but at whose expense?





These show how he seems to enjoy manipulating. Are you still hearing the talk of cloned and hacked accounts on FB? Interesting!

This demonstrates how he premeditated his plans for booting his partner Severin and wanted control. What else do you suppose he would like to control? Keep in mind he has investors like Microsoft, more of the "boy genius" personality types working together.



This is quite revealing on how these people orchestrate their plans and know they can do so without using their own money and having very little to no consequence for their actions upon themselves. The brunt of the fall-out always goes to someone else so it is seen as negligible to them. It clearly pays to be Connected!



This shows that instead of being loyal to a friend or a partner and working through conflict, he chose in this instance to get rid of the problem and be disloyal, then talked it out on how he would not have to deal with any repercussions from his back stabbing behavior.



To see more info you can go here http://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-mark-zuckerbergs-secret-ims-from-college-2012-5?op=1

Those were the earlier days. How much of his character and willingness to stab people in the back is carried on currently?

It is interesting to note that "Since 2018 Zuckerberg has sold off 5.4 million shares in Facebook, estimated to be worth $980 million." As stated by Finance. This saved him 70 million, as their stock plunged more than 7%. Wall Street analysts say there were regulatory filings, and they claim Zuckerberg was selling these shares to fund his philanthropy.

To see evidence of those he engages with for advice and input into his philanthropy we can look at this email from John Podesta to Sheryl Sandberg, who before joining Facebook as its COO, Sandberg was vice president of global online sales and operations at Google, and was involved in launching Google's philanthropic arm Google.org. Before Google, Sandberg served as chief of staff for United States Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers. Interesting connections here, but that would be for yet another article. Corruption and collusion for these elitists is so vast and overwhelming, which is what they count on for people not to poke around in the details and unearth their scandals and how closely they interrelate. Not to mention, they write the programs, entertainment all while cloaking a great deal of their activity in a well known umbrella of "philanthropy." All of this to keep us engaged in the distractions so we don't catch on to the Big Picture!

The email connecting Mark to Philanthropy of the Political leaning sort.



Their staying connected and working together continued in this message from Hillary's campaign manager and Facebooks COO and her response. You are able to find all of these on wikileaks under the Podesta emails for verification.





Here is one from Mark Zuckerberg to John Podesta (Hillary's campaign manager)



When looking at the philanthropy involving their own charity which started in 2015 called the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, it is interesting to find in the middle of their mission statement of helping others and all the good acts one would expect like exploring affordable housing and criminal justice reform, is this paragraph, "a new kind of philanthropic organization that brings together world-class engineering, grant-making, impact investing, policy, and advocacy work. Our initial areas of focus include supporting science through basic biomedical research and education through personalized learning." God is always in the details, or in this case He is missing from the details.

They make it clear they are participating in the long game with this statement, We make long-term investments because important breakthroughs often take decades, or even centuries." This seems to mirror statements and ideology made by other controlling factions.

Their leadership or people engaged in helping them achieve their goals reads like a "who's who" guest list of people connected to Obama like David Plouffe, who served as White House Senior Advisor to President Obama. Along with being a a veteran of several congressional, gubernatorial and presidential campaigns and served as Executive Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and senior staff member to Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://czi-wp-green.scivulcan.com/about

Having connections to Plouffe would have really been an asset when facebook helped data mine for Obama. As reported by many sources including Breitbart which states,"Earlier today, we reported on a former staffer for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign who admitted that the campaign had harvested mass amounts of Facebook data for targeted campaigning. In a 2013 interview, California congresswoman Maxine Waters revealed that Barack Obama possessed a “kind of database that no-one has ever seen before,” with “information about everything, on every individual.” Waters confirmed it was linked to Organizing for America, now called Organizing for Action.

Maxine Waters was not the only Obama supporter bragging about Obama's data mining capabilites. In a story that sounds all too familiar to the current situation in which facebook finds itself embroiled, "Obama’s 2012 media analytics director, Carol Davidsen, who oversaw the campaign’s data operations said they were able to “suck out the whole social graph” from Facebook during the 2012 campaign, allowing them to access the friend networks of every American user. “[Facebook] came to [our] office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side” admitted Davidsen."

In a series of tweets, Davidsen said that Facebook was “surprised” that the Obama campaign was able to “suck out the entire social graph” (the “social graph” is an individual’s network of friends on Facebook), but did nothing to stop them once they found out." Reported Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/19/flashback-maxine-waters-confirms-obama-has-database-with-information-on-every-individual/

Fast forward to March 2018 and we find Mark saying it was a mistake Facebook had allowed Aleksandr Kogan to access user data which was passed on to Cambridge Analytica all collected from his personal prediction app said to originally be for academic use.

Facebook is claiming it was deceived by Kogan. Were they really? Because there is evidence they knew exactly what they were doing prior to the data mining for Obama. Kogan states Facebook is simply using him as a scapegoat.

Is that possible? It is interesting to note that "Former Cambridge Analytica employee Chris Wylie has said the firm’s data and analysis helped shape the politically divisive tone of the Trump campaign." Upon research as to who Chris Wylie has been connected to, one quickly comes upon a headline that reads, "Trudeau Liberals used government funds to pay $100,000 to Facebook data whistleblower Christopher Wylie" found in the National Observer. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/21/news/trudeau-liberals-used-government-funds-pay-100000-facebook-data-whistleblower

There is a 2013 article from WND which refers to Maxine Waters letting information slip a few times. It describes a broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, "Now, Maxine Waters said that Obama had the most massive database ever collected in America. Information on everybody. It was unprecedented. Nobody had ever had any kind of a database like this. … Maxine Waters lets a lot of truth slip. She let it slip during a congressional hearing with some CEOs of some industry. (imitating Waters) ‘We want to nationalize. We want to take over your business.’ It was the oil industry. And the rest of the Democrats on the committee kind of hung their heads, ‘Oh, jeez,’ like she’s some sort of idiot.

“But instead, what they were doing, ‘Oh, come on, Maxine, shut up, what are you giving up the game for?’ Is what their reaction was,” he said.

Limbaugh continued, “Now, let me ask you this. People like Obama and his buddies, associates, the Democrat Party who want all this power, do you think that they could have it if they came to us and said, ‘This is what we want. We want you to elect us. We want you to support us because we want the power. We want to be able to control –’ Of course not. So how are they doing it? Well, there’s the Limbaugh Theorem to explain Obama’s detachment, but the trick is they have to mislead everybody as to their true ambition, as to their true desire, in order to acquire this power, because it is such anathema to the American human spirit and tradition.

You acquire all of this data on people, you think about how easy it is to manipulate low-information voters with this kind of information, this kind of data. The way this bunch does it is they claim to be the kings of compassion, the kings of love. All they want to do is help people. All they want to do is give you this and give you that, make sure that can’t be taken away from you and that, so forth, and what they’re ending up doing at the same time is the exact opposite.

Now, you know this, and this is why all of this is so upsetting. And once you realize it, it’s simple. It’s obvious to see. Then the frustration sets in, ‘Why don’t other people see it? Why don’t they believe it when I tell them about it?’ Because most people can’t conceive of wanting this kind of power. And the people seeking it never, ever give any indication that it’s what they want. Or they wouldn’t stand a chance,” he said.

Waters’ comments came even as the IRS was using apparently illegal tactics to block those groups that might reveal faults in Obama’s plans, the NSA was obtaining phone records on tens of millions of innocent Americans and the FBI was gaining access to reporters’ conversations, all scandals that have swamped the Obama administration over the last few weeks."

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/democrat-raves-about-obamas-epic-database/#ZCysHaoihWIXuB3r.99

Included on this list of leaders connected to Mark and his wive's charity are people connected to the Eugenics family, Gates like Jim Shelton, former Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. He was a director for a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Program. For more in depth concerning what Bill Gates is involved in I wrote a couple of articles earlier this year. One can be found here https://steemit.com/ai/@artistiquejewels/should-we-be-trusting-a-company-that-already-targets-people-for-censorship-to-join-forces-with-our-food-supply

Another involving his influence in Monsanto here https://steemit.com/guncontrol/@artistiquejewels/is-it-wise-to-take-advice-on-gun-control-from-leaders-involved-in-wanting-to-weed-out-the-population-control-our-food-supply-and

According to Yahoo Finance, "Facebook shareholders suing the company allege that Andreessen, an independent board member representing the company's stockholders, surreptitiously coached Zuckerberg through a multi-week negotiation process to win board approval for the stock change — something the stockholders argue is a major conflict of interest.

The text messages obtained in the lawsuit show that Andreessen and Zuckerberg kept a constant, behind the scenes dialogue going while the negotiations took place. Andreessen was an early investor in Facebook through his VC firm Andreessen Horowitz and also invested in two companies acquired by Facebook, Instagram and Oculus.

"This line of argument is not helping :)," Andreessen wrote Zuckerberg at one point. "They are both genuinely trying to get to the right answer," Andreessen added, referring to his two fellow committee members. "THIS is the key topic."

"NOW WE’RE COOKING WITH GAS," Andreessen then texted Zuckerberg in all caps. "I’ll push them on having a longer period at least for Sheryl and Chris. Don’t know if that’s helpful but.”

The negotiations centered around Zuckerberg's plan to sell off his highly valued Class-B shares so that he could fund his charity work while still maintaining his majority voting power at Facebook." See more in the article found here

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/behind-scenes-text-messages-between-000502766.html

There are also some questionable character and ethics involving an earlier investor in facebook and it's connections to globalist companies who show behavior consistent with padding the pockets and looking out for the interests of elitists rather than trying to better the lives of humanity and working class citizens. I am working on another article concerning this and some intelligence surrounding this topic that has been recently released in a Patriot known forum becoming more feared on MSM.

In conclusion, Mark Zuckerberg throughout his history has been involved in questionable, unethical, by some peoples standards even illegal practices. Do we see a pattern of behavior? Like the case which facebook and MSM desperately attempted to keep quiet in 2009, according to the Guardian, "The case came to court in July, and it seemed that the court judge would dismiss the case by ConnectU. Its owners alleged that Zuckerberg, who helped set up Facebook, stole the idea, technology, design and business plan while they were students at Harvard." When one starts researching you find stories of one of the classmates being on the phone with his father and discussing plans and technology that later became what we now know as Facebook.

Can Zuckerberg really continue to play the "I wasn't aware" card? When there is clear evidence he colluded with the Hillary Clinton and Obama campaigns. Why wasn't there an apology for this if he is apologizing about allowing a company to access user data for the Trump campaign? Why is Zuckerberg allowed to take a clear bias on his political beliefs, but users who have different beliefs are censored? Does his "take over, control, boot out, back stab" mindset from college still hold true today?

Does this article answer the question, did Mark Zuckerberg knowingly sell his users out for his own "philanthropy, political stance and ultimate gain?"

Perhaps the biggest question of all. . . is Mark Zuckerberg the next phase of trying to lay blame and impeach Trump? The Russian Collusion drum beat has not worked as well as the globalists had hoped. This seems to be a way to try and cast doubt on something once again the DNC i.e. the globalists have done themselves, yet point their fingers at everyone else in contempt. As stated before in my reports and articles, this is one of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals which many of these globalists have admitted to having as a guideline for their Modus Operandi.

If you are questioning whether Zuckerberg is a globalist. . .I believe his numerous comments in supporting and trying to drive a globalist approach speaks for itself. In a Washington Post article it states, "Progress in solving the world's problems can only be achieved through globalization, says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg."

What better way to carry out the globalists' mission of control than to have a purported social media master mind at the helm. Someone closely connected to Google, Microsoft and the globalist's vehicle the DNC. This is not to say Republicans in high places are not also part of their community. Some are! The important point to remember is connectivity. If they are able to just get one viewpoint across. .."Their viewpoint," through censorship it behooves them to be very connected to one another. Just as when Zuckerberg and Hillary's campaign manager, John Podesta discussed.

So I ask you, just who will Mark Zuckerberg protect? Must they be Connected to be Protected or will all be subject to those willing to prey upon them?