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

Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#61

Post by p_l »

closewith wrote: post #20
dimal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes deeper than that. All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine [0] to do stuff like this. If something returns value for shareholders (and monopolies do) then a CEO must do it. This is how the whole system is supposed to work. Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but this is the toxic form of capitalism that we've unwittingly chosen. Thiel just…

It may be an obligation, but it's certainly not a moral one.

It's something untrue that people are told to believe - but it's in no way a real obligation, and isn't part of any fiduciary duty - it's just Friedman philosophying and selling it

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#63

Post by bwb »

neves wrote: post #46
bwb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: Some things are hard to prosecute if done under the table, and are not fine if spoken out loud :) Ethics are essential in every decision, not because you can get in trouble legally, but because you are part of a society of people like you.

The problem is if money justify everything in the society where you live.

Then it becomes more imp to show people the right path. I've never found a society where money justifies everything, only people who have no ethics.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#64

Post by wanderingstan »

andrewaylett wrote: post #22

The article talks about writing things down as if it's a negative, but surely we should applaud it? I don't want the lesson to be "don't write things down", I want it to be "don't break the law".

Negative only for Zuckerberg. The implication is that he was so arrogant and incompetent that he made a mistake (writing) that monopolists in other fields knew to avoid. Incriminating talk “should” happen only in person or on the phone if you don’t want to get busted.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#65

Post by sgc »

jampekka wrote: post #30
dimal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes deeper than that. All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine [0] to do stuff like this. If something returns value for shareholders (and monopolies do) then a CEO must do it. This is how the whole system is supposed to work. Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but this is the toxic form of capitalism that we've unwittingly chosen. Thiel just…

> Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way There kinda is. Capital is allocated to where it makes most profits, and most profits go to companies maximizing shareholder value. In aggregate this makes the profit maximizing companies more likely to survive. Sure this can be perhaps mitigated by e.g. legislating other duties to companies, but I'd say it's very hard even in theory, let alone in p…

> Capital is allocated to where it makes most profits

We have worked ourselves into this frenzy over the past several hundred years, but especially over the past 25. We even describe it like you did, as an axiom or a law. But human action is people doing things, and modern economics masks unbridled greed as rules of 'science'.

It is enough to make a good living doing something worthwhile. There is no need to constantly seek highest returns. Nobility in action is possible. Capital does nothing, people do things with capital. Better choices are possible. All is not lost.

And of course, roughly 30% of all modern work-related activity is government. That part of our societal activity should be focused on creating guide rails to make sure that people do not pursue modern economic theory in the real world, but actually work to do good things.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#66

Post by xyst »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

“Competition is for losers” - A talk from Peter Thiel hosted by Y combinator ( https://youtu.be/3Fx5Q8xGU8k?si=3anUMopHSJ4nKk2R ) Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles” Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has d…

Thiel is such a disgusting person. People like him, greedy fucking capitalists, are the reason the world is slowly burning down.

All of this so he and his other billionaire friends can turn society into “network states” (privatized entities/corporate towns).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#67

Post by shoeb00m »

mattbuilds wrote: post #42
dimal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes deeper than that. All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine [0] to do stuff like this. If something returns value for shareholders (and monopolies do) then a CEO must do it. This is how the whole system is supposed to work. Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but this is the toxic form of capitalism that we've unwittingly chosen. Thiel just…

That is not a moral obligation, it is in fact the opposite. It is a lie that people tell themselves and the world to allow themselves to make immoral decisions for their own benefit. I’m not saying running a company is easy and I know that many gray areas exist in the decision making. I do think companies can exist, profit, and be a net good for the world. However, we need to remove the notion that the duty to shareh…

It is the fiduciary duty of the CEO to do what’s in the best interest of shareholders.

In a working system it should be the governments responsibility to limit what a company can do

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#68

Post by [deleted] »

closewith wrote: post #20
dimal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes deeper than that. All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine [0] to do stuff like this. If something returns value for shareholders (and monopolies do) then a CEO must do it. This is how the whole system is supposed to work. Of course, there's no reason that capitalism must to work this way, but this is the toxic form of capitalism that we've unwittingly chosen. Thiel just…

It may be an obligation, but it's certainly not a moral one.

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#69

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

“Competition is for losers” - A talk from Peter Thiel hosted by Y combinator ( https://youtu.be/3Fx5Q8xGU8k?si=3anUMopHSJ4nKk2R ) Timestamp 13:50: “If you’re a startup, and you want to get to a monopoly, start with a really small market and you take over that whole market and then you find ways to expand that market in concentric circles” Last I checked Zuckerberg is doing precisely what Thiel taught him to and has d…

You're correct, this has been the prevailing culture in tech. This is the playbook.

But this isn't a good excuse. Players gonna play - we want them to play to win as hard as they can. But when we have safety guardrails and boundaries like antitrust, they're not supposed to just break through them.

Was he 'taught' by Thiel is that a thing that happened?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

#70

Post by caboteria »

EchoVivaldi45 wrote: post #35

This article is trying way too hard to dunk on Zuckerberg for… doing normal CEO things. The whole premise seems to be that writing down your thoughts, asking questions, or being transparent in internal emails is somehow a huge self-own. But that’s just how people work—especially when you’re running a massive company and making fast, complex decisions. You write things down, explore ideas, get feedback. Acting like th…

I'll defer to Stringer Bell:

> Is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?

"Normal CEO things" don't include committing crimes, and they are only a "huge self-own" when they document those crimes.

Post reply on HN