4 ms·

That’s super pessimistic. What do you want him to say: “sucks all y’all lost your jobs but wasn’t my fault. Haha you’re unemployed now”. Like sure it’s not much

That’s super pessimistic. What do you want him to say: “sucks all y’all lost your jobs but wasn’t my fault. Haha you’re unemployed now”. Like sure it’s not much, but without owning your mistakes how do you get better and improve to prevent them from repeating?

fullshark 4y ago
I'd like him to say words that have actual meaning, and not words that resemble meaning after being filtered by a PR consultant.
andyjohnson0 4y ago
I think your confusng pessimism with scepticism. Either his claim to take responsibility means something, in terms of it actually leading to consequnces and/or actions, or it doesn't. If it's the former, then what are they? If it's the latter, then why? For example: do shareholders hold him to his responsibility? And if so, how? If they don't, who improves Meta's corporate governance to ensure that this self-admitted mistake doesnt reoccur and sexure their investment? I've never worked at a BigCorp. How does this stuff work?
triceratops 4y ago
He can resign. As CEO he's ultimately responsible for the share price. By that measure, he just might be the worst-performing employee at the company.
- javajosh 4y ago
  If it was poker, then Mark just lost a big hand because he made a bad call. But he's still got a big stack, so he's not going to walk away from the table.
  - eru 4y ago
    In poker you might even make the right move, but still lose. It's all probabilities. Business shares something with that.
- bombcar 4y ago
  He's also got full control of the company and arguably the shareholders not named Zucc want him, so he'd in some way be betraying them. IIRC, the owner/CEO has fired himself some times, Ford had something like it, and I think LEGO too, years ago.
  - lovich 4y ago
    The shareholders not named zucc have zero influence on him being ceo whether they want him or not. He pioneered the tactic of having multiple classes of stock that let him retain all the voting power while still selling off “stock” that let him get investment money. Imo that sort of setup should be illegal because it leads to the sort of societally damaging behavior we see from meta
    - texasbigdata 4y ago
      Societally damaging? Was AT&T labs societally damaging? Xerox park? Etc. Since when does HN care about the stock price of a random company? The share price reflected the ownership structure so the people that bought in were aware and not coerced to buy the security. We shit on corporate short sightedness and suddenly everyone and their dog has a highly opinionated high conviction bet on what a random company should do with its cash flow? Personally, I don’t care. If dude wants to try to build the jetsons space car, heck yeah. I’d rather someone in society try hard stuff (positive determinism) than more stock buy backs (like apple) or cash just sitting on the balance sheet idly (like historical google). Even if it 100% fails, society is better if we do research that doesn’t look outright obvious at first…that’s how we get better.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The other shareholders could sell at anytime if they don't like it; if they haven't sold, then they like him being CEO as far as we can tell.
      - triceratops 4y ago
        They have sold, in droves. The stock has fallen 73% this year. It's slightly absurd to say that "sell" is the only lever shareholders should have over public companies. It may be true in practical terms, but it's still a sad state of affairs.
- sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
  Do you have someone in mind?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fullshark 4y ago

I'd like him to say words that have actual meaning, and not words that resemble meaning after being filtered by a PR consultant.

andyjohnson0 4y ago

I think your confusng pessimism with scepticism. Either his claim to take responsibility means something, in terms of it actually leading to consequnces and/or actions, or it doesn't. If it's the former, then what are they? If it's the latter, then why? For example: do shareholders hold him to his responsibility? And if so, how? If they don't, who improves Meta's corporate governance to ensure that this self-admitted mistake doesnt reoccur and sexure their investment? I've never worked at a BigCorp. How does this stuff work?

triceratops 4y ago

He can resign. As CEO he's ultimately responsible for the share price. By that measure, he just might be the worst-performing employee at the company.

javajosh 4y ago
If it was poker, then Mark just lost a big hand because he made a bad call. But he's still got a big stack, so he's not going to walk away from the table.
- eru 4y ago
  In poker you might even make the right move, but still lose. It's all probabilities. Business shares something with that.
bombcar 4y ago
He's also got full control of the company and arguably the shareholders not named Zucc want him, so he'd in some way be betraying them. IIRC, the owner/CEO has fired himself some times, Ford had something like it, and I think LEGO too, years ago.
- lovich 4y ago
  The shareholders not named zucc have zero influence on him being ceo whether they want him or not. He pioneered the tactic of having multiple classes of stock that let him retain all the voting power while still selling off “stock” that let him get investment money. Imo that sort of setup should be illegal because it leads to the sort of societally damaging behavior we see from meta
  - texasbigdata 4y ago
    Societally damaging? Was AT&T labs societally damaging? Xerox park? Etc. Since when does HN care about the stock price of a random company? The share price reflected the ownership structure so the people that bought in were aware and not coerced to buy the security. We shit on corporate short sightedness and suddenly everyone and their dog has a highly opinionated high conviction bet on what a random company should do with its cash flow? Personally, I don’t care. If dude wants to try to build the jetsons space car, heck yeah. I’d rather someone in society try hard stuff (positive determinism) than more stock buy backs (like apple) or cash just sitting on the balance sheet idly (like historical google). Even if it 100% fails, society is better if we do research that doesn’t look outright obvious at first…that’s how we get better.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The other shareholders could sell at anytime if they don't like it; if they haven't sold, then they like him being CEO as far as we can tell.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      They have sold, in droves. The stock has fallen 73% this year. It's slightly absurd to say that "sell" is the only lever shareholders should have over public companies. It may be true in practical terms, but it's still a sad state of affairs.
sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
Do you have someone in mind?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]