This is an incredibly confusing post.
> I find this letter to be deeply cynical... I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.
As a matter of fact, this letter is hopeful, not cynical.
It's certainly hoping for something that you don't want, but that's entirely beside the point. No detached native English reader would objectively describe the tone of this piece as "cynical".
Additionally, "masquerade" implies deceit. Do you have any evidence that there aren't Zuckerberg's sincerely held beliefs?
> There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits
In what sense is this baked in?
On the contrary, the first couple paragraphs are devoted to motivating the global scale of what Zuckerberg perceives as humanity's most pressing challenges -- "...ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics...".
Zuckerberg isn't saying "we need global cooperation because it's an inherent good." He's identifying concrete problems facing humanity, and suggesting reasons why international cooperation is necessary to tackle those concrete problems.
A substantive response to Zuckerberg would like-wise address these concrete problems and discuss how his proposed solutions are ineffective or counter-productive, rather than rejecting the letter carte blanc in broad rhetorical strokes.
Again, you're free to disagree with Zuckerberg, but calling these "baked in assumptions" is a mis-comprehension.
> I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori.
OK, fair enough!
> There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance.
Where does Zuckerberg state otherwise?
> If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs.
Zuckerberg disagrees with you. He's stating that disagreement in a public forum.
Critically, he's NOT suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to have your opinion! He's just suggesting that your opinion is wrong and that we ought to go a different direction instead.
Existence of opposing political wills working publicly in good faith toward their goals (opposing or otherwise) is a foundation of democracy.
You're effectively suggesting that someone is anti-democractic because they openly oppose your policy agenda. Which is a deeply flawed argument.
> In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another.
All political projects are plots for domination. Even liberty-minded political projects aim to dominate opposing political forces in order to make room for their libertarian projects. Distribution of power is the whole point of politics.
Disparaging politics is fine, of course, but it's a confusing thing to do when you're taking the opposing side of a political battle...