Not least because those executives are only in charge of those organisations because their shareholders appointed them, in the expectation that the CEO's would

Not least because those executives are only in charge of those organisations because their shareholders appointed them, in the expectation that the CEO's would act in the shareholders' best interests [0]. Legally the CEO's cannot suddenly decide to go off and do something else [1]. So the article is a bit off-base. It's not the CEOs that we need to persuade to change tactic, but the shareholders. However, for a lot of institutional shareholders, they're tied to financial returns because they're managing funds full of other people's money with a legal obligation to maximise returns. There are "ethical" funds that could do this. Maybe we should be talking about this instead? An ethical fund with the specific aim of being an activist shareholder in Big Tech organisations? [0]You could make the case that this is in the shareholders' best interests, but I doubt a court would agree. [1]I have a feeling Zuckerberg is still a majority shareholder in FB, so maybe he can.