31–40 of 156 posts
Stepping down as CEO would do nothing, so unless you plan on forcing him to sell his share IDK what the point of the article is.
Mark Zuckerberg (13.68% equity; 61.2% voting)[1]
> But if Meta is truly interested in prioritizing the safety of users, the board should request the resignation of Mark Zuckerberg and restructure to put safety above profit. It is singularly idiotic that people think people, companies, boards, governments, or anyone else should be "good", and that society will progress by rooting out "evil" ones, as adjudicated by their own standards. People and by extension compani…
> through every scandal, Zuckerberg’s net worth has climbed to nearly $200bn, according to Forbes. Fines mean nothing to those with wealth like his, so the first step to safeguard society is to give Meta a fresh start without Zuckerberg’s influence on future products. What is the author's model of a company?
I wonder what's the net value Meta offers for the world today. I had a similar thought about Elon the other day, for all his billions, only several million people use Tesla or Starlink, and SpaceX is cool I guess, but value and wealth don't seem to be strongly coupled. How many Tesla investors have managed to cash out and how many of Facebook's advertisers managed to turn a profit?
Honestly, the world has grown past the need for Meta. I would not cry if it completely shut down, problem is, what will fill the void? It would be nice to have something not controlled by Big American Corporation (or Chinese, or any, for that matter), but somehow I don't see it happening.
Interestingly I did learn of a niche which is completely unserved except by Meta recently: child-locked messaging apps.
Messenger for Kids basically does everything you want it to - restricted functionality, restricted contact lists etc. I won't use it, but I only found out about it because I was hoping someone had built a Signal client which did exactly that.
Absolutely idiotic take. Why is the Guardian peddling this opinion piece? Stepping down as CEO would do nothing, so unless you plan on forcing him to sell his share IDK what the point of the article is. Mark Zuckerberg (13.68% equity; 61.2% voting)[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms
The CEO is the throughline in a history
of billion-dollar blunders
For comparison:
He outperformed the Nasdaq 100 which made 18% (plus dividends) in the same time.
And he way outperformed Warren Buffet who made 14% in the same time.
Honestly, the world has grown past the need for Meta. I would not cry if it completely shut down, problem is, what will fill the void? It would be nice to have something not controlled by Big American Corporation (or Chinese, or any, for that matter), but somehow I don't see it happening.
What void tho? The majority of people _I know_ below 40 don't use Facebook or any related service at all.
> through every scandal, Zuckerberg’s net worth has climbed to nearly $200bn, according to Forbes. Fines mean nothing to those with wealth like his, so the first step to safeguard society is to give Meta a fresh start without Zuckerberg’s influence on future products. What is the author's model of a company?
It’s The Guardian - they just propose left-wing hyperbolic noise with no connection to the real world rather than offer any kind of solutions. Not even aware that Zuck is the biggest shareholder and has all the voting rights, it’s his baby and he owns it, he doesn’t have to resign to make the world a better place in The Guardian’s favour.
If you think the actions of Meta are wrong and should be prevented, you need to act on the regulatory level, not appeal to the very shareholders who profit off the behaviour.