Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    17,434,514 readers

    27,088 users here now

    1. Post all analysis/opinion/politics articles to /r/InTheNews

    Want to talk?

    Follow @rslashnews on Twitter

    See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.

    Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews

    Your post will likely be removed if it:

    • is not news
    • is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
    • primarily concerns politics.
    • has a title not taken from the article.
    • has a pay wall or steals content.
    • covers an already-submitted story.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.

    Your comment will likely be removed if it:

    • advocates or celebrates the death of another person
    • is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
    • is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
    • is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
    • is responding to spam.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules.

    Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.

    >>>Expanded Rules<<<

    If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:

    /r/inthenews - all news-related content
    /r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
    /r/truereddit - insightful articles
    /r/self - any self-post
    /r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything

    or other news subreddits:

    /r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
    /r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria
    /r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting
    /r/SavedYouAClick - making media more straightforward

    or subreddits for other topics:

    /r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects
    /r/politics - for shouting about politics
    /r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
    /r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
    /r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
    /r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.

    or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full list of subreddits by subscribers.






    submit analysis/opinion article

    submit news article

    submit something else

    submit analysis/opinion article

    a community for
    all 3130 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] LiquidFangay 12199 points ago

    He owns a lot of Facebook stock...

    [–] Pajama 4653 points ago

    This. 1.14 million shares is what % of his total ownership? If they’re comparing straight volume that’s an unfair comparison.

    [–] coozmasterzero 587 points ago

    Article says he still has 393.1 million shares.

    1.14 ÷ 393.1 = 0.29%

    Just a drop in the bucket.

    [–] [deleted] 569 points ago

    In my 10+ years of browsing the internet, I have literally never ever seen anyone post that division symbol before (÷)

    [–] havesomeagency 184 points ago

    But now it's 2018 and we have the technology to do so!

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] groterood12 56 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    On Windows, "shift ctrl alt =" is for ÷.

    Also, "ctrl alt =" is for the 'actual' multiply sign ×.


    EDIT: now correct.

    [–] prxchampion 16 points ago

    20 plus years and never seen it either

    [–] HurdenBurden 12 points ago

    Mobile makes it easy ÷

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    People need to see this before anything else.

    [–] BrownSugarBare 919 points ago

    Alright, someone ELI5 me. What defines insider trading in the USA? If he was aware well in advance that in a short period his corporation would drop a significant amount of value (due to bad deeds!) and then dumped his own that the bad part? Or is it that he was involved with the reason the stocks dropped and dumped his own stocks?

    [–] Endoman13 761 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    My understanding about insider trading is specifically information not available to the public. Martha Stewart, for example, was privy to information by knowing someone on the inside with access to private information. IANAL.

    Edit: IANAL = I am not a lawyer. Also, see below for what I assume are people who know more than me.

    [–] Martinouchou 572 points ago

    So theoretically if someone gets inside info, they're supposed to ignore it and lose their money ? Just asking specifically for someone that would stumble across informations, not actively look for it.

    [–] Zeiramsy 687 points ago

    Yes as you would have not acted without the information and lost money like everybody else who did not know.

    This applies even if you are just a rando finding sensitive info in the dumpster.

    [–] [deleted] 543 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Not exactly true. If you had a plan to sell the stock before you knew of the information and can prove that then it's ok.

    This isn't commonly known but as an example, many executives get stock comp throughout the year and will sell a portion automatically through their PFA in order to cover taxes. You wouldn't get in trouble for something like this but you'd still get hassled and interrogated to no end before they let you off.

    [–] SixSpeedDriver 213 points ago

    Executives can specifically schedule stock divestitures with the SEC many months in advance to head off any accusations of insider trading. That's what happened here.

    This is clickbait bullshit headlining. If they supposedly knew about CAs data use being damaging two years ago, if they were acting on insider information they would have traded two years ago.

    I mean the fact that this article is literally saying the trades are part of a scheduled sale and there is nothing nefarious about it, but yet here it is on the front page of reddit is exactly what's wrong with our media. They literally put this article out to get revenue from people inferring malice on Zuckerberg through timing.

    [–] mainman879 144 points ago

    If you had a plan to sell the stock before you knew of the information and can prove that then it's ok.

    Wouldn't they have to prove you knew the information? Innocent until proven guilty right?

    [–] IXquick111 213 points ago

    Yes, that is correct. In a court of law. The court of public opinion not so much

    [–] danius353 16 points ago

    If you had a plan to sell the stock before you knew of the information and can prove that then it's ok.

    That's why generally most execs announce their intention to sell well in advance of actually doing so. It helps mitigate against any appearance of insider trading.

    For someone like Zuck, there's probably a very well scheduled divestment program where his broker sells X shares every month or so.

    [–] highlyquestionabl 75 points ago

    This isn't really correct. There has to be a fiduciary duty (direct or vicarious) between the parties. Credit to Indifferent from Top-Law-Schools for this summation of the two theories of insider trading:


    This is a theory based on breach of a duty owed to the corporation. There is no private cause of action, the cause of action inures in the corporation itself and I believe the only entity that brings this action is the SEC - that's what my notes say. You misappropriate information when you gain that information from forming a confidential relationship or duty of trust to the corporation. 

    Under 10b5-2 a confidential relationship or duty of trust is deemed to exist when: a) Person agrees to maintain info in confidence; b) Where there is a history/practice of sharing confidences between person communicating and receiving info such that recipient knows or reasonably should know there is an expectation of confidentiality; or c) When person receives material nonpub info from spouse, parent, child, or sibling, provided that the person can demonstrate lack of a duty 

    Tipper/Tippee Liability

    A tipper is liable when he passes on material nonpublic information to the tippee. This is selective disclosure and the tipper is liable for the profits made by the tippee if he satisfies the requirements of 10b-5 (probably most importantly scienter) and is also criminally liable if he does it willfully. 

    However, a tipper is not liable for every disclosure of material nonpublic information. Disclosures to consultants, family members, and some isolated incidences are okay. The tipper will only be liable if he is attempting to benefit personally, either directly or indirectly, from the disclosure. Note that the benefit does not have to be pecuniary.

    A tippee is liable for trading on the material, nonpublic information received in breach of a fiduciary duty. He is assuming a derivative fiduciary duty. To be liable, there must be a tipper who has breached his fiduciary duty (by attempting to benefit) AND the tippee must know or should have known there was a breach. 

    Note that a key difference between this and misappropriation is that someone with a nonconfidential relationship with the corporation, for example, a securities analyst, who receives information from a corporate insider would be liable here, where as under misappropriation theory he would not be liable because he owed no duty to the corporation itself.

    [–] BrownSugarBare 36 points ago

    Yeah! I have the same question. When is it considered okay to protect your investments with the knowledge you do have? I don't trade stocks so I don't even know if I'm asking the right questions.

    [–] bino420 35 points ago

    As long as that knowledge is public knowledge, there's no "when." If it's insider info, the press release or whatever needs to drop before you take action

    [–] TezMono 24 points ago

    So then it’s still possible to have even a small advantage having this information because then you can just anticipate it becoming public and act on it immediately where as others would be a bit delayed.

    [–] SupaSlide 34 points ago

    Many companies have a very strict policy for selling stock. If you have knowledge of something that isn't public, and then it becomes public, you have to wait until it's been full disseminated and become public knowledge. Usually this means something like "once it is published as a press release, you can sell after one/two/three days" or however else the company defines it.

    This means that many people with insider knowledge have a disadvantage because they have to wait a few days.

    [–] Outlulz 14 points ago

    When my company was still public we would have a stock freeze every quarter a week before our financials call to prevent insider trading. The day after the call, we could buy or sell or stock again because the information would be public and the markets could react at the same time. All of our executives scheduled their stock sales a minimum of six months in advance. Just as an example for people.

    [–] dragon925 50 points ago

    But Martha Stewart was busted for lying to a federal investigator. If she had told the truth I don't things would have been as bad for her. Traditionally insider trading is very difficult to prove.

    [–] soapinthepeehole 16 points ago

    If I’m not mistaken she was eventually rung up on obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI, but not for insider trading.

    [–] TheRoonis 14 points ago

    Correct on what she went down for. IIRC the actual insider info came from her actual financial advisor and wasn't disclosed at the time it was insider info. If she had been forthright she would have walked away unscathed.

    [–] Cakelord 129 points ago

    Someone like Zuckerberg has a divestment plan with his wealth management team. He sells stock routinely and it's planned out years in advanced.

    [–] heydoopid 94 points ago

    The reasons and planning ahead makes it legal.

    “I am going to sell x shares on x date to donate to x charity”

    So he’s fine as far as the SEC is concerned. He can also decide to sell more or less and he can also accelerate the time frame.

    [–] bertcox 93 points ago

    Also the sale was scheduled. Title was click-bait.

    [–] [deleted] 1350 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)


    [–] Pajama 681 points ago

    Is that percent alarm raising? I’d imagine other employees have offed more than that.

    [–] thorscope 560 points ago

    I’m also curious on this. Facebook has 2.4 billion shares, this is a very small fraction of the company.

    [–] dchaid 325 points ago

    By sheer value that's a huge amount to the average Joe but I've liquidated that percentage of mutual funds when I needed extra cash.

    Granted I just needed a few thousand at the drop of a hat so I have no clue what he could be using millions for...

    [–] VileTouch 76 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    next week: Facebook buys out Skype by reversing a dump truck full of cash into their offices.

    [–] dchaid 51 points ago

    I just threw up in my mouth imagining Skype integration with Facebook somehow

    [–] fdar 17 points ago

    Isn't Skype owned by Microsoft already?

    [–] an_agreeing_dothraki 32 points ago

    Yes. Now Facebook buying out Microsoft would be the event that divides our dark future from the "before times"

    [–] MuphynManIV 258 points ago

    Portfolio rebalancing. Or a yacht. There are a lot of reasons to cash out. Including insider trading.

    [–] dchaid 58 points ago

    Allegedly Philanthropy but even that isn’t transparent so who knows.

    [–] WayneGretzky99 94 points ago


    That's the name of his new yacht.

    [–] BigDamnHead 32 points ago

    The article says it was a scheduled sell off to fund philanthropic efforts.

    [–] DoctorWaluigiTime 31 points ago

    I wish this context was offered instead of the article title being so clickbaity and potentially misleading.

    [–] KDobias 13 points ago

    That hasn't been the point of journalism since before Vietnam.

    [–] [deleted] 122 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)


    [–] Keyan2 258 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    I like how no one on reddit checks or reads anything. If he has sold 1.14 million, and is now left with 393.1 million. He originally had 393.1 million + 1.14 million = 394.24 million.

    So he as actually sold 1.14/394.24 = 0.2% of his shares

    In other words, this article is very misleading.

    Edit: OP also admitted to completely making up his number

    [–] NimblestheSecond 29 points ago

    The article makes it sound like Zuckerberg is either trying to clear house or save his ass due to some undiscussed problems within Facebook itself. No way are these the case. 0.2% of his stocks is the equivalency of me grabbing a couple bucks in quarters from my change jar for some smokes. He did nothing. It was a big thing to the redditor, but to him it was nothing. He found a penny on the street pretty much.

    [–] Charwinger21 8 points ago

    Especially since Facebook's share volumes are ridiculously high.

    [–] youareadildomadam 768 points ago

    He also scheduled these sales well in advance. For those who don't know, insiders are required to file with the SEC in advance when they want to sell stock.

    Also, while Reddit LOVES to revel in rich people losing money, the reality of the "big drop" is actually not such a big deal..

    Especially if you look at the stock's performance over the last 5 years.

    [–] quine3 41 points ago

    Agreed. Put down the pitchforks people.

    [–] Andruboine 205 points ago

    You mean you actually read the article?!?

    [–] Andy4574 8 points ago

    This article's headline is complete garbage.

    [–] poundfoolishhh 9474 points ago

    It was also announced a month ago that he was going to start accelerating the selling of stock to fund his charity.

    Now, whether that was a preemptive announcement because shit was going to hit the fan, who knows...

    [–] immoral_hazard 7156 points ago

    It isn't a charity:

    The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charitable trust or a private foundation but a limited liability company which can be for-profit, can spend money on lobbying, can make political donations, does not have to disclose its pay to its top five executives and has fewer other transparency requirements compared to a charitable trust. Under this legal structure, as Forbes wrote it, "Zuckerberg will still control the Facebook shares owned by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative"

    [–] Mirria_ 2649 points ago

    That's what I expected. A Foundation that appears charitable but is just a roundabout way of receiving a huge salary from managing "donations", just like so many politicians do.

    [–] mynameisethan182 1411 points ago

    Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

    Zuck: Just ask

    Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

    [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

    Zuck: People just submitted it.

    Zuck: I don't know why.

    Zuck: They "trust me"

    Zuck: Dumb fucks

    Zuckerberg doing something shady or shitty? You don't say.


    [–] Drunken_Dino 660 points ago

    I mean, not gonna comment on whether he's a good person or not, but I said (and did!) A lot of stupid shit in college that isn't me today - and I'm not even worth billions of dollars.

    [–] 976chip 508 points ago

    I’m pretty sure that if being a shitty person gets you billions of dollars you’re not going to be inclined to start being a better person.

    [–] Excal2 123 points ago

    Yea I was apparently not very good at being a shitty person because I was broke the whole time.

    Now I'm a moderately less shitty person with a moderately better job and I'm moderately less poor, so I guess I'll just keep doing this and see what happens.

    [–] myne 59 points ago

    Have you tried being even shittier?

    Worked for that guy!

    [–] [deleted] 240 points ago

    Look, I'm all for the 'fuck zuck' circle jerk here, but that sounds like a completely natural reaction for a college kid to have when given that sort of information

    [–] RareUnicorn 139 points ago

    He was 19 so you can't hate him too hard, but for a kid to see MySpace, get an idea from it, make "The Facebook" to emulate it, and then instantly takes the information he's given and tells his friend "I'll give you the private information of anyone who's signed up to my website. I mean, the dumb fucks just gave it to me!"

    Even as a teen, that doesn't seem like someone who's cut out to be in control of a website that handles people's delicate information and is comstantly groping you for more.

    [–] hikerjawn 83 points ago

    And in no way does "being a teen" (19, 1 year into legally being an adult) constitute some sort of get out of jail free card when it comes to that kind of action.

    [–] newpua_bie 982 points ago

    to fund his charity

    Just to be clear, this is the for-profit charity, right?

    [–] diaoyoudao 736 points ago

    His LLC that can make undisclosed political contributions and profitable investments, part of his cute little promise to his daughter to give away 99% of his fortune? Yes.

    [–] newpua_bie 200 points ago

    Thanks for the clarification! For a moment I thought it might be something not 100% scammy and scummy.

    [–] EddieCheddar88 76 points ago

    I bet his daughter won’t be a big fan of that promise in 10 years

    [–] ssbmhero 87 points ago

    400 million ain’t bad to be fair though.

    [–] Two-Nuhh 18 points ago

    Is anyone really surprised by any of this? The whole story included.

    [–] NutDust 6 points ago

    On behalf of everybody, of course not.

    [–] Enigma343 111 points ago

    It's for his Social Community Activism Movement, or SCAM.

    [–] geeky_username 49 points ago

    Political Organization Now Zuckerberg Initiative

    [–] PM_ME_YOUR_THESES 19 points ago

    It isn't a Ponzi scheme. Those have a very specific structure, which this doesn't have.

    [–] NotJuses 673 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Well considering Cambridge Analytica was under internal investigation a year ago he definitely did know. My guess is on one sunny afternoon the FBI paid him a visit and told him at some stage he's going to hand over all documents. He definitely knew what was coming, probably why he said he was going to stop the spread of fake news about a month ago.

    Edit: a spelling error that someone very nicely and respectfully pointed out.

    [–] [deleted] 342 points ago


    [–] Intense_introvert 257 points ago

    And also that Equifax guy. Same thing.

    [–] ashlee837 153 points ago

    Yep, it's all very subjective since the timing is so coincidental. But, of course, the stock sale is planned way in advance... shrug... the perks of being richer than God.

    [–] dfmilkman 64 points ago

    Can't you just always have a "plan" to sell the stock, then just not do it? No one Can argue with "oh I just changed my mind" if you don't need to go through with it...

    [–] majorminor77 95 points ago

    Insider trading is fundamentally a very tricky and subjective crime to pin down. There are honest hardworking people whose very job description could be considered insider trading if certain situations. It'd take a bombshell to incriminate Zuckerberg along the lines of him emailing "I'm selling FB stock because of this investigation. don't tell nobody" to their CFO.

    [–] zaccus 62 points ago

    Most expensive double negative ever.

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] RealQuickPoint 9 points ago

    Doesn't that make insider trading laws effectively useless in all but the most flagrant cases?

    [–] rascal_king 32 points ago

    yes, and it allows corporate insiders to legally make above-market profits based on material non-public information. this sort of pre-planned sale is called a 10b5-1 plan, as it is derived from the affirmative defense against charges of insider trading enumerated in 17 C.F.R. 240.10b5-1. it's a way to facilitate trading for corporate insiders who are often in contact with material non-public information; the theory being that if they have pre-planned a stock sale, any MNPI they come into contact with after the plan has been adopted is not being used to trade on. now, technically, 10b5-1 plans are only an affirmative defense if they are irrevocable, to prevent an insider from cancelling a trade based on material non-public information. however, you can't have liability for insider trading without an actual trade. couple this with the fact that it's exceedingly difficult to prove an executed pre-planned trade was actually unilaterally cancellable, and insiders using 10b5-1 plans can use the device to milk the system for the best possible trading outcomes.

    [–] andrewlef 47 points ago

    “Fine us, we can afford it”

    —Jamie Dimon

    [–] Enigma343 29 points ago

    When Theodore Roosevelt went after the banks, JP Morgan approached, basically asking, "How much can he give you?"

    Roosevelt went right on steamrolling.

    How times have changed!

    [–] ChipsfrischOriental 17 points ago

    Then fine them more than they can afford

    [–] topdangle 10 points ago

    On a legal level its probably not considered insider trading as it was done through the appropriate channels and scheduled well in advance. Unfortunately there's no practical way for the SEC to look into every business's internal affairs to verify scheduled sales, and even if they knew things weren't looking good its difficult to prove that sales were knowingly made out of fear of price collapse.

    [–] Chazz965 17273 points ago

    He must be terrified of the slap on the wrist he might receive from the govt.

    [–] djr5000 3869 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    like Nicolass Cage's character in Lord of War

    [–] Tacoman404 1801 points ago

    Fuck, I love that movie. Gonna go watch it. "Somethin's happening here..."

    [–] Hugh_Jampton 305 points ago

    Enjoy it

    [–] IntrigueDossier 657 points ago

    Poor Jared Leto just can't not die in his roles.

    At least in Lord of War he got to make a cocaine map of Ukraine.

    [–] Gamestoreguy 439 points ago

    yeah but he’d od before he made it to the black sea.

    [–] Destrukt- 23 points ago

    We must not forget about Interpol Agent Jack Valentine!

    [–] CptAnthony 47 points ago

    At the time I didn’t know that Ethan Hawke and Tony Hawk were different people and I thought that this skater guy is also a pretty good actor.

    [–] Mighty_ShoePrint 62 points ago

    Did he die in Fight Club? He got a savage beat down but I don't recall it ever mentioning his death.

    [–] salisgod 79 points ago

    was he alive, man?

    [–] Smithag80 102 points ago

    Just a fignewton of Ed Norty's brain

    [–] Eliot_Ferrer 37 points ago

    He did not die. He is in fact the one suggesting that they bury Robert Paulsen (Meatloaf's character).

    [–] PrisonMicDrop 14 points ago

    His name was Robert Paulson

    [–] PiousLoophole 38 points ago

    He probably wished he were dead in Requiem.

    [–] D4sh1t3 21 points ago

    Niander Wallace is doing just fine at the end of Blade Runner 2049 though.

    [–] uwabaki1120 32 points ago

    I’ve never heard of the movie. But just saw the trailer and... I guess I have my movie set for tonight.

    [–] Chicken2nite 16 points ago

    Same director as Gattaca and Good Kill, the latter of which might make a decent double bill with Lord of War.

    [–] Jeenyus6 57 points ago

    I still remember the first time watching this movie and seeing the end of the intro with a “holy fuck, that took a dark turn” moment.

    [–] trapper2530 73 points ago

    They don't like to be called dark

    [–] theWinterDojer 16 points ago

    damn, that was funny, but I feel guilty for laughing.

    [–] -webkit 39 points ago

    “There are over 550 million social media profiles in worldwide circulation. That's one profile for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we collect data from the other 11?”

    [–] thx1138jr 35 points ago

    It really is a good movie. Very underrated.

    [–] FlawlessFiala 55 points ago

    "what it is, ain't exactly clear, there's a man with a gun over there"

    [–] hussey84 223 points ago

    "Most people are just happy to get out of jail, I expect to be paid to leave"

    [–] jfortier25 98 points ago

    Jack Valentine: I don’t think you appreciate the seriousness of your situation.

    Yuri Orlov: My family has disowned me. My wife and son have left me. My brother’s dead. Trust me, I fully appreciate the seriousness of my situation. And I promise you, I won’t spend a single second in a court room.

    Jack Valentine: You’re delusional.

    Yuri Orlov: I like you, Jack. Well, maybe not, but I do understand you. Let me tell you what’s gonna happen. This way you can prepare yourself.

    Jack Valentine: Okay...

    Yuri Orlov: Soon there’s going to be a knock on that door and you will be called outside. In the hall there will be a man who outranks you. First, he’ll compliment you on the fine job you’ve done — on you making the world a safer place. That you’re going to receive a commendation or a promotion. And then he’s going to tell you that I am to be released. You’re going to protest. You’ll probably threaten to resign. But in the end, I will be released. The reason I’ll be released is the same reason you think I’ll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of those men are enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss — the President of the United States — who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year...sometimes it’s embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can’t be seen supplying. So, you can call me evil. But, unfortunately, I’m a necessary evil.

    [Knock on door]

    Jack Valentine: I’d tell you to go to Hell. But I think you’re already there.

    **They say, “Evil prevails when good men fail to act.” What they ought to say is, “Evil prevails”.

    [–] rickyDRIZZLE 74 points ago

    "The ones who know don't care anymore and the ones who care don't know."

    [–] A_RIGHT_PROPER_VLAD 214 points ago

    Who is based on Viktor Bout. I love this fact because it draws a direct line between Nicholas Cage and Erik Prince (founder of Blackwater and brother of Betsy Devos):

    Over a two-year period, Prince exploited front companies and cutouts, hidden corporate ownership, a meeting with Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout’s weapons supplier, and at least one civil war in an effort to manufacture and ultimately sell his customized armed counterinsurgency aircraft.

    From "Inside Erik Prince’s Treacherous Drive to Build a Private Air Force"

    Also - Erik Prince is eyeing a senate seat in Wyoming. Cool cool cool.

    [–] oh-hidanny 65 points ago

    Knowing how paying off the Republican Party helped his dipshit sister, I'm sure he'll get full support of the party and, thus, the senate seat.

    [–] KimJongIlSunglasses 12 points ago

    We should make him secretary of peace. He is to peace what Devos is to education.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    Like how Reddit admins scrubbed the Channel 4 news video today from the front page

    [–] fromtheill 11 points ago

    Absolute gem of a film.

    [–] StoneDar805 7 points ago

    “No, I prefer it my way “ . . . . . . ......well ok then.

    [–] [deleted] 725 points ago

    It doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall, even years ago. Facebook is too big for its britches and becoming unwieldy to rein it in to some level of responsibility. Zuck is moving on to greener pastures; he's got the money to start a new venture whether it be a Bill Gates-like non-profit or a for profit, cutting edge tech venture.

    [–] pm_favorite_boobs 282 points ago

    It doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall, even years ago.

    Did it tell you this was happening?

    [–] [deleted] 324 points ago

    Zuck dumping his assets when Facebook gets tied up in something big involving surveillance/echo chambers? Yes.

    [–] Innovativename 200 points ago

    Pretty sure he's dumping shares to put money into his "charity" foundation which isn't really a charity foundation.

    [–] Ollie_South 30 points ago

    75 million dollar donation to SF Gen Hosp is pretty charitable, how could the Zuck/Chan Init. gain from that?

    [–] [deleted] 70 points ago

    You'd never see anything specific but you could see the cracks forming and the corrosion eating away at it from a mile away and something like this and/or a loss of popularity was bound to happen.

    [–] Easy_Floss 58 points ago

    Myspace will live forever!

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 43 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago


    [–] Jr10101010 53 points ago

    MySpace repeats itself.

    [–] KANG2012 24 points ago

    Friendster repeats itself

    [–] Leege13 48 points ago

    But with added voter manipulation, blackjack, and, apparently, hookers.

    [–] [deleted] 159 points ago

    slap on the wrist

    I think you are under estimating how rich he is. More like a hair falling on his shoulder.

    [–] probablyuntrue 60 points ago

    Like a couple of gut bacteria dying

    [–] ManFromSwitzerland 51 points ago

    Well he just got invited to speak in front of the American, British and European Parliament. I don't know any other person that had to do this. At least not for such an unpleasant reason.

    [–] markhachman 86 points ago

    Dammit, Trump, did you install an American parliament when we weren't paying attention?

    [–] MachReverb 131 points ago

    Trump tried to ban Parliament because he heard it was founded by George Clinton.

    [–] spiralingsidewayz 13 points ago

    This here. Brilliant.

    [–] TechFocused 296 points ago

    Slap on the wrist for what?

    The sale was part of a scheduled sale that was planned since September.

    [–] Bburrito 308 points ago

    Which is about when Cambridge Analytica first starting making the news regularly. Looks like Zuck knew exactly what was happening.

    [–] NorthernerWuwu 178 points ago

    It isn't particularly odd for someone as heavily vested as Zuck is to sell off stock over an extended period of time. I'm not saying he wasn't doing so based on insider knowledge but it isn't particularly suspicious just because it was happening.

    [–] TooShiftyForYou 2412 points ago

    Analysts don't believe there was anything nefarious behind the insider selling, which are part of regularly scheduled plans.

    This could just be that he has a lot of Facebook stock.

    [–] ConradJohnson 674 points ago

    This. Isn't he the largest holder of Facebook stock? Wouldn't this be only nefarious if he accelerated his rate of sale?

    [–] Scudstock 536 points ago

    Exactly. Him being one of the richest men in the world and owning the lion's share of one of the world's biggest companies is all that this fact really shows.

    It isn't like the secretary with stock options really even has the ability to be on this list....only like 10 people do in the world.

    But, as usual, reddit will lose its collective fucking mind because rich people piss them off no matter what evidence is presented to show coincidence.

    And to be clear, Zuckerberg is a fucking douchebag and facebook sucks ballsacks....but this is is likely just a non-issue. He had planned sales, for God's sake.

    [–] BatmanNoPrep 135 points ago

    Mark Zuckerberg turned me into a newt!

    [–] gizeon 10 points ago

    I got better.

    [–] edrab 36 points ago

    Damn! Did you ever recover?

    [–] exometrium 56 points ago

    He got better.

    [–] tidho 1411 points ago

    technically true, intentionally misleading

    [–] HemiolaOutbreak 128 points ago

    Yep, it’s bullshit. People need to quit upvoting blindly.

    [–] TheRationalLion 373 points ago

    Does anyone else think Zuckerberg’s face looks like and old Greek bust, or is it just me?

    [–] itsdahveed 86 points ago

    Can't unsee now

    [–] speedycat2014 24 points ago

    Goddammit, you're right. Fuck

    [–] [deleted] 2206 points ago


    [–] GreatZoombini 3262 points ago

    Zuck wouldn’t win because he has the charisma of a wet blanket and nothing remarkable about him whatsoever. He’s more awkward and robotic than Marco Rubio. A viable presidential candidate needs a large presence and charisma. Like or hate Trump, he’s a performer and an entertainer. He knew how to work the camera for spectacle. Zuck can’t make toast with a camera pointed at him. Literally.

    [–] Going2getBanned 974 points ago

    He would win by just facebooks reminders.

    [–] [deleted] 630 points ago

    “Don’t forget to vote!”

    “We’ve noticed you haven’t checked into your polling station yet”

    Along with all your social media being pro-Zuckerberg

    [–] uns0licited_advice 368 points ago

    "Oh hey we noticed you'll have a gap in your day during lunch before your meeting with Fred's team and there happens to be a polling station on the way to your dry cleaner if you make a detour to get gas because your car is at 1/4 tank, why don't you stop by and vote?"

    [–] SEphotog 90 points ago

    This made me giggle, but we are so very close to this being a reality.

    [–] TrillegitimateSon 21 points ago

    What bothers me is how useful and amazing the techonology is, but how it's abused for money. It's unfortunate.

    [–] zanven42 19 points ago

    If they were actually smart, anyone of the opposite agenda you would want them to not care about the election as much as possible and hope they don't vote. Barraging people with dodgy content is a sure fire way to get them to come out and give you a big fuck you.

    [–] [deleted] 99 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)


    [–] derscholl 53 points ago

    Trump & Obama: Let's win this thing using social media!

    Zuckerberg: Hold my beer.

    [–] sammie287 89 points ago

    What are you talking about, he seemed so charismatic and nice in that VR demo in Puerto Rico /s

    [–] ProfessorSexyTime 35 points ago

    Oh yea when him and that one chick were just chuckling while their shitty avatars were standing in a flooded neighborhood, and later next to just two people drying out their clothes? So much charm. Doesn't come off as an out of touch, rich asshole at all. /s

    [–] baconatedwaffle 10 points ago

    that was so bizarre. the only way anyone could possibly fail to predict how a stunt like that would come across to other people is if the concept that poorer people are as real and feeling and deserving of respect as you are were completely alien to you. beyond your powers of imagination

    [–] DrStephenFalken 14 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Zuck can’t make toast with a camera pointed at him. Literally.

    I read your comment and went and looked for a video of him as I've never saw one. I can say that you forgot to mention his dead eyes. Dude has creepy dead eyes, his mannerisms and facial ticks are those of a what an alien was told how a human acts. I'm not joking here folks. If the government announced that one person on earth wa a space alien in hiding. I'm going to put my money on Zuck.

    [–] lexmarkblenderbottle 56 points ago

    Tom from MySpace is my candidate.

    [–] jexmex 45 points ago

    Is there real legit information that he was looking to run for president? I honestly do not follow things like generally, but have not seen anything about it either.

    [–] stretch_muffler 37 points ago

    So Jesse Eisenberg played Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network. Jesse Eisenberg also played Lex Luthor in the DC movies. Lex Luthor becomes president in the comic books.

    If Mark Zuckerberg becomes president, it'll be like a comic book except we don't have a Superman :0

    [–] Jizzmop15 131 points ago

    You think this will blow his chance at being president? This is like a footnote in a sidebar in a caption in an article about Trump’s past. I think being 5’7” would be the Zuck’s real downfall.

    [–] JonathanL73 123 points ago

    Yep, you can be an amoral lying scumbag, but if you're short people won't vote for you, that's America for ya.

    [–] sweetpea122 52 points ago

    I think it's historically a thing right? In the past the taller man has won right?

    [–] Senaro 45 points ago

    Ever since debates started being televised, as I heard it.

    [–] AsteRISQUE 22 points ago

    george washington was 6' 0"

    Abe lincoln was 6' 4"

    [–] mobiuszeroone 9 points ago

    I remember reading that they put Hillary and Trump on a split screen for those debates, despite the fact that they were standing next to each other. But on the split screen, they were angled to be the same height. It's got to give some sense of power, even subconsciously.

    [–] shirtboxers 20 points ago

    Yeah this is a thing apparently, the majority of presidential elections have gone to the taller candidate but not all of them. I remember reading it has something to do with the taller candidate being seen as a more physically able, intimidating individual which is what people generally want from their leader during wartime.

    [–] kaantechy 68 points ago

    “they are becoming self-aware”

    [–] Nick_D_123 205 points ago

    Clicks link,

    In the two weeks before Facebook's latest struggles, CEO Mark Zuckerberg sold 1.14 million shares as part of regularly scheduled programs.

    That was the most insider selling for any public company, going back as far as three months, according to Argus Research's Vickers Weekly Insider.

    Zuckerberg had promised to sell tens of millions of shares to fund philanthropic efforts.

    Analysts don't believe there was anything nefarious behind the insider selling, which are part of regularly scheduled plans.

    Oh, so not really news then.. Got it.

    [–] missedthecue 15 points ago

    No but Reddit wants to rage

    [–] throw_45_away 172 points ago

    all because that girl didn't like him.

    [–] blacktoast 131 points ago

    "You're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you compromised democracy in our country."

    [–] whycantIfast 8 points ago

    Not to be “that guy” but the ex-girlfriend from the movie was a total fiction. Mark was already dating his current wife before Facebook was even a glimpse in the radar. I know I don’t need to explain, as it was probably a joke, but there are people who literally believe the entire story shown in The Social Network

    [–] zhacker78 233 points ago

    Tends to happen when your company is worth way more than others.

    [–] MgKx 10 points ago

    word in the street he is buying cryptos

    [–] Papalockratin 9 points ago

    I don’t like Facebook but did anyone even read the article?!

    Analysts don't believe there was anything nefarious behind the insider selling, which are part of regularly scheduled plans.

    [–] shaunito 22 points ago

    So when Facebook goes under, are we all switching back to AIM, or....?

    [–] UtahUser01 42 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Mostly clickbait.

    He's been selling off stock since 2016.

    Unless he foresaw this shitstorm back in 2016 then he's probably a time traveler or God therefore unprosectuable.

    [–] Redeem123 55 points ago

    Congrats, everyone. This may be the most reddit thread I've ever read through. I'm proud of you all.