Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

Post by klabb3 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 1:14 PM UTC

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".

Post by hgomersall » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 1:41 PM UTC

shoeb00m wrote: post #67

mattbuilds wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by nailer » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 1:50 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #31

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…

> All publicly traded corporations are morally obligated by the Friedman Doctrine to do stuff like this. That's a strange way to put it. As though it is the Right and Good way to run a company — and also as though the Board's/CEO's hands are somehow tied.

Post by heresie-dabord » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 1:51 PM UTC

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…

Post by snovymgodym » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 2:00 PM UTC

diyftw wrote: post #19

rvz wrote: post #12

The anti-trust regulators have targeted almost all but one of the FAAMG companies and that is Microsoft, who certainly knows how to avoid a break-up of their entire company. The rest have not dealt with totally removing their cases entirely, so it makes sense for the FTC and the DOJ to target everyone else first before lastly bringing up a massive case against Microsoft. Perhaps that is their strategy in all of this.

There's a reason there's no M in FAANG. Unlike those "upstarts", Microsoft is more like the Lockheed Martin or GE of tech. There is so much Microsoft software in use in the gov't (especially the DoD) that it would be precarious to prosecute/regulate them.