I wouldn't put it above Zuckerberg himself to do it.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/facebook/14625/are-users-dumb-fucks...

From that article:

During the conversation, Zuckerberg writes: "Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS."

When the friend asks him how he got the information, Zuckerberg replies: "People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks."

He's almost certainly still the asshole he was then, but there's a pretty large gap between abusing access to a website you run in college and abusing access to a website you're payed to be the CEO of in your 30s.

Do you think he might have changed in 13 years? I don't really feel quite the same as I did 13 years ago.

Maybe,

But publicly denying your platform[0] did not affect the recent election; After research have confirmed prior to the election that Facebook have a fake news problem.

Does not do his credibility any good.

[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11...

based on his public appearances, no

Zuck bragged about access, but there is no proof (or even indication) that he actually shared that info.

This is not similar to stalking.

Yeah it's worse. Using a privileged position to discredit opposition under the cover of "lolz."

No... it really isn't. This is abusing power to attempt to manipulate public opinion on a message board. Stalking is a horrible invasion of privacy that has a tendency to escalate into violence. And even when it doesn't, it results in drastically increased anxiety and fear for the person being stalked if they find out.

Someone could certainly suffer anxiety and fear if their public messages were altered in the appropriate manner. And it could escalate.

"in the appropriate manner"

But if we focus on the manner that actually occurred, the only additional harm vs. a reply of "no u" is to reddit's reputation.