5 ms·

Zuckerberg has always made it clear to investors and employees that Facebook is not a democracy. Mark is in charge and has full control of the company to do as

Zuckerberg has always made it clear to investors and employees that Facebook is not a democracy. Mark is in charge and has full control of the company to do as he pleases when he pleases. When they IPOed he made it clear that’s how the company works. IPO materials made it clear that if you don’t like that don’t invest in it. Not saying I agree with his actions (or inactions) and decisions but he’s been very clear about how Facebook works as a company and who’s in charge. Part of the big issue I see here with these “employee protests” at Facebook is that it seems employees didn’t pay attention to what they were signing up for when they joined. Mark is doing exactly what he said he would do in running the company. It’s not a democracy.

newacct583 6y ago
That's somsething of a sideways argument though. I mean, it's speciously true of any organization that isn't actually a democracy. Google isn't a democracy. Apple isn't a democracy. But most corporate environments act at least a little like democracies anyway. And that's not by choice, it's a darwinian thing. Companies that can't motivate their employees to work towards shared goals don't tend to succeed. And so on some level you absolutely do have to do what your employees want to do. And if you don't, they quit and work somewhere else. Which is literally what the linked article is about. That thing up there in the headline? That's democracy in action. At Facebook.
- code4tee 6y ago
  Most large corporate environments don’t have the CEO as the sole controlling shareholder in the company. While CEOs are powerful and have a lot of autonomy on day-to-day decision making they too are generally employees employed at the discretion of the board. The board itself exists and is populated by individuals at the pleasure of a diverse set of shareholders. There’s real accountability. That’s not the case at Facebook. Again not saying that’s good or bad but the model was no secret when people signed on.
wrren 6y ago
Even a dictatorship can be put under pressure if enough of its subjects take a stand. The relationship between employer and employee is a continuous negotiation. Facebook has put something new on the table: we expect you to look the other way when Trump calls for violence. If enough employees push back it's very likely that Facebook will change its stance, regardless of whatever power Mark thinks he has.
- bananamerica 6y ago
  I am not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a dictatorship is necessarily illegitimate. A legitimate non-democratic rule may be unfair and perverse, but it’s not the same as a dictatorship.
ck425 6y ago
If anything that makes the actions of employees even more powerful. As CEO he doesn't need to keep investors happy as he has full control. But he still needs (and always will need) employees to run the company. Employee protests are one of the few things that can directly impact Zuckerberg. Employment is a two way street. They signed up knowing Zuck was in charge but expecting certain behaviour from him. Now that he's breaking that behaviour employees are protesting.
deathgrips 6y ago
> Mark is in charge and has full control of the company to do as he pleases when he pleases. Which is why we need to break it up. Facebook has massive unaccountable influence over elections.
weareconvo 6y ago
True, but there may also be a national interest in him not being in charge anymore.

newacct583 6y ago

That's somsething of a sideways argument though. I mean, it's speciously true of any organization that isn't actually a democracy. Google isn't a democracy. Apple isn't a democracy. But most corporate environments act at least a little like democracies anyway. And that's not by choice, it's a darwinian thing. Companies that can't motivate their employees to work towards shared goals don't tend to succeed. And so on some level you absolutely do have to do what your employees want to do. And if you don't, they quit and work somewhere else. Which is literally what the linked article is about. That thing up there in the headline? That's democracy in action. At Facebook.

code4tee 6y ago
Most large corporate environments don’t have the CEO as the sole controlling shareholder in the company. While CEOs are powerful and have a lot of autonomy on day-to-day decision making they too are generally employees employed at the discretion of the board. The board itself exists and is populated by individuals at the pleasure of a diverse set of shareholders. There’s real accountability. That’s not the case at Facebook. Again not saying that’s good or bad but the model was no secret when people signed on.

wrren 6y ago

Even a dictatorship can be put under pressure if enough of its subjects take a stand. The relationship between employer and employee is a continuous negotiation. Facebook has put something new on the table: we expect you to look the other way when Trump calls for violence. If enough employees push back it's very likely that Facebook will change its stance, regardless of whatever power Mark thinks he has.

bananamerica 6y ago
I am not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a dictatorship is necessarily illegitimate. A legitimate non-democratic rule may be unfair and perverse, but it’s not the same as a dictatorship.

ck425 6y ago

If anything that makes the actions of employees even more powerful. As CEO he doesn't need to keep investors happy as he has full control. But he still needs (and always will need) employees to run the company. Employee protests are one of the few things that can directly impact Zuckerberg. Employment is a two way street. They signed up knowing Zuck was in charge but expecting certain behaviour from him. Now that he's breaking that behaviour employees are protesting.

deathgrips 6y ago

> Mark is in charge and has full control of the company to do as he pleases when he pleases. Which is why we need to break it up. Facebook has massive unaccountable influence over elections.

weareconvo 6y ago

True, but there may also be a national interest in him not being in charge anymore.