3 ms·

It seems a bit funny to compare a company to North Korea for refusing to censor one of it's user's.

by yadco 6y ago

smt88 6y ago
The article is referring not to Facebook's specific policies being NK-like, but rather the complete control Zuckerberg exerts. Some people argue that a large company should be regulated by the market, but what if that company is a near-monopoly with a single, unwavering leader? There's also something troubling about the Mark Zuckerberg, one of the most powerful people alive, having secret talks with Donald Trump, arguably the most powerful person alive. One article suggested they have a non-aggression pact: Trump tamps down attempts to regulate FB, and FB gives him and his campaign the most powerful megaphone in history without any editing.
- ralph84 6y ago
  All CEOs are essentially dictators. At least Zuckerberg is a founder and the largest shareholder, so he should have more of the company’s long-term interests in mind than your typical carpetbagging CEO who’s in it to juice the stock price for a few years and then exit.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - smt88 6y ago
    > All CEOs are essentially dictators. No, they're not. Very few are. All CEOs serve at the mercy of the voting shareholders. In a minority of companies, all of the votes are controlled by one person. Facebook is one of those. Zuckerberg may be able and incentivized to think long-term, but that doesn't mean his vision is a good one. He isn't infallible just because his incentives are as good for the company as they can be. And none of that even addresses the question of whether what is good for FB's bottom line is good for society.
    - ralph84 6y ago
      Yes in theory the CEO reports to the board and the board reports to shareholders. In reality shareholders have zero say over what the CEO does, regardless of the share voting structure. They get the chance once a year to rubber-stamp the CEO's board nominations and that's it. The exception is activist shareholders who acquire enough stock to get a board seat and then start agitating for change. They tend to be short-term players: once whatever merger or spinoff or dividend they were agitating for happens they move on to the next company.

It seems a bit funny to compare a company to North Korea for refusing to censor one of it's user's.

by yadco 6y ago

It seems a bit funny to compare a company to North Korea for refusing to censor one of it's user's.

The article is referring not to Facebook's specific policies being NK-like, but rather the complete control Zuckerberg exerts. Some people argue that a large company should be regulated by the market, but what if that company is a near-monopoly with a single, unwavering leader? There's also something troubling about the Mark Zuckerberg, one of the most powerful people alive, having secret talks with Donald Trump, arguably the most powerful person alive. One article suggested they have a non-aggression pact: Trump tamps down attempts to regulate FB, and FB gives him and his campaign the most powerful megaphone in history without any editing.

ralph84 6y ago
All CEOs are essentially dictators. At least Zuckerberg is a founder and the largest shareholder, so he should have more of the company’s long-term interests in mind than your typical carpetbagging CEO who’s in it to juice the stock price for a few years and then exit.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- smt88 6y ago
  > All CEOs are essentially dictators. No, they're not. Very few are. All CEOs serve at the mercy of the voting shareholders. In a minority of companies, all of the votes are controlled by one person. Facebook is one of those. Zuckerberg may be able and incentivized to think long-term, but that doesn't mean his vision is a good one. He isn't infallible just because his incentives are as good for the company as they can be. And none of that even addresses the question of whether what is good for FB's bottom line is good for society.
  - ralph84 6y ago
    Yes in theory the CEO reports to the board and the board reports to shareholders. In reality shareholders have zero say over what the CEO does, regardless of the share voting structure. They get the chance once a year to rubber-stamp the CEO's board nominations and that's it. The exception is activist shareholders who acquire enough stock to get a board seat and then start agitating for change. They tend to be short-term players: once whatever merger or spinoff or dividend they were agitating for happens they move on to the next company.