Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#111

Post by swed420 »

sixtyj wrote: post #107
swed420 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you need to act on the regulatory level This. Otherwise it's just a fruitless game of whac-a-mole as new reptiles inevitably step up to sustain the profit opportunity.

Who wants to fight a battle that could be a lifelong one and along the way some lose their enthusiasm for the cause… I would rather make a lifelong campaign “don’t do drugs”… if you make national all-year-long donate-funded campaigns on every corner, social networks’ providers would need to regulate themselves as they’ll have higher churn rate. Recent campaigns don’t work too much as they are endemic.

When we have a captured government and unaccountable corporations like we do, it seems like the best route is to compete with them via carefully designed not-for-profit products which contain strictly good features and none of the enshittified ones, as brainstormed here:

https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/

Building something as described in that article would cause people to drop all of the existing platforms almost overnight.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#112

Post by Amezarak »

_ink_ wrote: post #100
Amezarak wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the rise of fascism and hate is due to people being able to talk to each other on Facebook with insufficient censorship, it seems your actual problem is the system of governance that gives everyone a right to vote, even if they do it based on some nonsense they read online.

You are romantizising what Facebook and Instagram have become. The problem is not that people talk to each other. The problem is, that they created algos that optimize for maximal engagement and they get that by triggering the basic human feelings that create the biggest reaction: fear and anger. They literally hacked the human brain chemistry. And they don't stop when they detect that the human is struggling and get…

"How long and often" people engage with content is a perfectly reasonable metric to optimize and a very close correlate of interest. There are, in fact, plenty of things going on in the world people should get mad about, or that they should worry about. Some people think that's climate change, some people think that's migration, some people think that's rising fascism, some people think that's Mamdami opening grocery stores. The fundamental problem people have is when other people get mad about stuff they like. That's the "fear", "anger", "hate." People who get mad about the things I like are obviously just irrational, emotionally driven puppets of The Algorithm whereas I am Englightened, Rational, and came to my opinions only through Reason and Logic.

What people don't like is huge masses of people coming together and having opinions that counter our modern mainstream elite consensus. Because elites are generally pretty smart that means a lot of these opinions are, frankly, dumb. Some of them simply represent different values (pro vs anti immigration, as one example.) Both are considered intolerable.

It is also perfectly true that people spend lots of time on non-politicized content. Baby videos, cat videos, feel-good human interest stories, all sorts of positive stuff is also massively popular on these platforms. That gets ignored in favor of inveighing for tight control over the political discourse because social media spreads crimethink.

The Western democratic ideal is that you have to convince the masses you're right - a disturbingly large portion of the movers and shakers have decided that instead, we should control what the masses are allowed to say and know, so we don't have to fight those battles.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#113

Post by thih9 »

bluebarbet wrote: post #110
thih9 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you’re not accepting the cookie banners in a meaningful way. Accept all cookies and never clear them - then you see no cookie banners.

That assumes that you never visit a new site. Indeed it's why I think twice before clicking links to new sites. Honest question: Are you happy with the current state of affairs, really , and just waiting patiently for all the world's websites to decide to comply with EU law so that we can have a usable web again?

About visiting new sites, that's not a problem in practice, even HN mostly shows the same websites.

About my experience, I am relatively happy with the current state of affairs. I don't want websites to use my personal information without my consent. I still like cookie banners more than ads, in particular ads that follow me across websites or devices. Also note that many websites don't track their users - and these don't show cookie banners.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#114

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

hpjev wrote: post #40

Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares. It's his company, over which he specifically wanted to retain control. Therefore, calling on the board to reign him in is... Misplaced. 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.

"Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares."

He only owns about 13% of Meta's voting shares, not a majority

But he owns 99.8% of Class B shares

Class A get one vote per share

Class B get 10 votes per share

No doubt the author is aware of Meta's voting structure hence her choice of the words "voluntarily resign"

The author suggests "the board" or "Meta", not the shareholders, some of whom are not on the board and do not work for Meta, ask Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign:

"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."

"Beyond the courts, Meta could triage the situation by calling for Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign."

The author probably means the board when she uses the word "Meta" in the second example. (Zuckerberg serves as chair) It's possible she might mean employees. It's difficult to imagine she means non-employee shareholders

"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."

But the author appeals to "the board" and "Meta", not shareholders

Meta shareholders have been trying to change the voting structure since 2014

For example, look at Meta's last proxy statement

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026...

Most of the votes in favor of Proposals Five and Six came from Class A shares

Meta shareholders who profit from Meta's behaviour are in fact trying to change it

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS TO BE VOTED ON AT THE ANNUAL MEETING

Shareholder Proposals 67

Proposal Three: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on AI Data Usage Oversight 67

Proposal Four: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Annual Vote Regarding Executive Pay 70

Proposal Five: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Dual Class Capital Structure 71

Proposal Six: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Disclosure of Voting Results By Share Class 73

Proposal Seven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Human Rights Due Diligence 75

Proposal Eight: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Addressing Antisemitism and Hate in Online Platforms 77

Proposal Nine: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Climate Change-Related Commitments 79

Proposal Ten: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Integrating Child Safety Improvements into the Executive Compensation Program 81

Proposal Eleven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Data Protection Impact Assessment on Generative AI Chatbots 83

Proposal Twelve: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Risks of Anti-American Discrimination from H-1B Visa Program Use 85

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#115

Post by eudamoniac »

watwut wrote: post #89
TFNA wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did you use it? It was a more authentic language-learning tool in the beginning, but was then gradually enshittified in order to maximize engagement on the platform, not actual language mastery. A lot of the most competent language-consultant staff were let go, too. Today on the shadow libraries, you have your pick of a number of self-teaching textbooks for free, allowing you to find an approach that fits your l…

After it was "gradually enshittified in order to maximize engagement on the platform, not actual language mastery". I used it first time years before, stopped, came back after supposed enshittification, started entirely different language and had actual success with it. > Today on the shadow libraries, you have your pick of a number of self-teaching textbooks for free No, self teaching textbooks are not better for me…

What is "actual success?" Because I'd find it pretty unbelievable that you got even close to being able to hold a conversation or read a YA novel from Duolingo.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#116

Post by upupupandaway »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #114
hpjev wrote: post #40

Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares. It's his company, over which he specifically wanted to retain control. Therefore, calling on the board to reign him in is... Misplaced. 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.

"Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares." He only owns about 13% of Meta's voting shares, not a majority But he owns 99.8% of Class B shares Class A get one vote per share Class B get 10 votes per share No doubt the author is aware of Meta's voting structure hence her choice of the words "voluntarily resign" The author suggests "the board" or "Meta", not the shareholders, some of whom are not on the board…

>True, but that's not what the author suggested

The author calls on the board to make him resign. It is the second paragraph of the article, if you care to read it.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#117

Post by upupupandaway »

herbst wrote: post #65
dmortin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's different by location. E. g. in Europe many people uses Facebook, many under 40s too. In the US: 25–34 years: Around 25.7% to 25.9% (the largest single demographic group).

Central Europe here myself (Switzerland to be precise) signal and telegram are the dominant IM and Instagram is just as dead as Facebook, sure some might use it but nobody expects anyone else to to.

Signal is not the most popular/dominant IM even in Signal's HQ. It has 2% global market share. You are extrapolating from your bubble.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#118

Post by unrented7977 »

swed420 wrote: post #111
sixtyj wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to fight a battle that could be a lifelong one and along the way some lose their enthusiasm for the cause… I would rather make a lifelong campaign “don’t do drugs”… if you make national all-year-long donate-funded campaigns on every corner, social networks’ providers would need to regulate themselves as they’ll have higher churn rate. Recent campaigns don’t work too much as they are endemic.

When we have a captured government and unaccountable corporations like we do, it seems like the best route is to compete with them via carefully designed not-for-profit products which contain strictly good features and none of the enshittified ones, as brainstormed here: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ Building something as described in that article would cause people to drop all of the existi…

This is like suggesting fruit and veg could outcompete heroin.

You can't compete against someone who is willing to cheat. You can't entice users to a better social network when their addiction to the old one has been engineered to near perfection. There's good reason that our present (and really truly good) alternative social networks haven't taken over Facebook's users. It's designed to be an addictive trap with no escape. You can't pull users away unless you're willing to be an even worse drug.

You have to force the other guy to stop cheating for competition to be possible.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#119

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #114
hpjev wrote: post #40

Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares. It's his company, over which he specifically wanted to retain control. Therefore, calling on the board to reign him in is... Misplaced. 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.

"Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares." He only owns about 13% of Meta's voting shares, not a majority But he owns 99.8% of Class B shares Class A get one vote per share Class B get 10 votes per share No doubt the author is aware of Meta's voting structure hence her choice of the words "voluntarily resign" The author suggests "the board" or "Meta", not the shareholders, some of whom are not on the board…

The author calls on the board to ask Zuckerberg to "voluntarily" resign. The board cannot "make" him resign

But the HN reply refers to "appealing to shareholders"

Post reply on HN