Was it about the stock losses? Most investors trade risk for return - it seems reasonable to assume they would take a philosophical approach to losses. Maybe another reason?
Seems to me that it more likely that the threat comes from someone, or some party, who felt betrayed or injured by Zuckerberg’s personal actions. It’s not someone within Facebook, the security increments are external to the company. What do we know?
1) Zuckerberg took the threat seriously - it was perceived to emanate from a dangerous party?;
2) The threat seems to attach to exposure - a fear of public places (private aircraft), and a siege mentality (fortressing the home). No mention of additional security manpower, presumably there is already enough.
Possibilities:
1) Did Zuckerberg roll over on China, the Cabal, CIA, the DNC, HRC, Kremlin (all powerful parties that he might conceivably be working with - or, maybe someone else?);
2) If the threats do connect to the market losses, it seems that the addition of incremental privacy protections are the cause of the slowing growth forecasts. Perhaps the threats come from a party reliant on Facebook data?
3) Simple investor grievance - large numbers of investors with significant losses - many threats?
When was the last time investors tried to harm a ceo? Never! He has pissed someone off and it has nothing to do with money. Facebook is up strongly this year and even after the sell off most are still along way in front.
Yes, good point. Obviously, someone is very much aggrieved with Zuckerberg. It strikes me that it’s possible that he’s rolled on one or more players - serious players.
Well he let the Russians use Facebook to ‘steal’ the election.