I don't think cynicism and criticism are the same here. This is the man that about a decade ago who called his users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their personal data [1]. The same man who used failed password logins to Facebook to access a journalist's email address [2].

Now he's giving 99% of his wealth to a charity he controls. This is an awesome step: dynastic wealth is stupid. However, it will take a few more good deeds to convince me that he's grown out of his youthful moral indiscretions.

1. http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...

2. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-in...

You should not accept such a blatant PR stunt at face value.

Why the Rich Give to Charity[1]

Some give out of vanity. Some out of guilt. Some for the tax breaks. Some give out of conviction that their success in business makes them equally expert in solving the world’s problems. Yet perhaps the most powerful and common reason why the rich give is the idea most commonly referred to as “legacy.”

would you rather be remembered as that guy who build the biggest and meanest personal data collection machine, tracking people, extending global surveillance, pushing to destroy the foundation of the internet and made a fortune out of it (and a little stock trickery), or as the guy who gave most of his billions of money to charity ?

[1]:http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/08/why-the-rich-give-to-...

Man evades taxes, scams his coworkers, conceals a press release as "letter to daughter" and is greeted with "He just wants to do good".

Welcome to Hacker News.

Not money, shares.

Any public letters are carefully crafted pieces of PR, intention notwithstanding. The criticism probably stemmed from that angle.