7 ms·

Good to have more people expose the greedy, dictatorial, detrimental shitshow that is single individuals having an outsized control over important technology. A

Good to have more people expose the greedy, dictatorial, detrimental shitshow that is single individuals having an outsized control over important technology. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... I had one moment of eyebrow-raising while reading the article. On the risk of blaming someone who was mind controlled into caring too much about ultimately unimportant, spiritually toxic shit: > Wynn-Williams’ critiques aren’t limited to Zuckerberg. She describes the working culture under Sandberg as so intense that Wynn-Williams felt pressured to send her talking points while in labor, her feet in stirrups. My thinking is... can you put this 100% on Sandberg? I mean, I get that the culture is bad, but there's two in this game. Maybe... turn off your phone for a day when you're giving birth?!

pixxel 2y ago
[dead]
max_ 2y ago
>Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... What should be the maximum of how big someone should be? Humans are not perfect, whether "big" or "small".
- kelnos 2y ago
  Certainly the "maximum big level" is something that reasonable people could disagree about, but I don't think a society is healthy when people can get as big as Zuckerberg, Musk, Altman, and Bezos have gotten. Individuals should not have that much power. It's not healthy.
  - max_ 2y ago
    It is definitely not healthy. But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. I think the real problem is abuse of power, not accumulation of it. Power cannot be eliminated. It will either end up in the hand of politicians (who are genuinely more evil than tech bros) or remain in hands of wealth creators. What we should do is focus of punishingpeople who abuse thier power.
    - palata 2y ago
      > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. Of course you can. Those billionaires don't pay much taxes, but normal people do. And we don't call that communism. > It will either end up in the hand of politicians (who are genuinely more evil than tech bros) This is a very weird take. In a functioning democracy (which the US are not at the moment), politicians are elected to represent the people. If they are evil, we change them. Tech bros are not elected, period. > What we should do is focus of punishingpeople who abuse thier power. That's where you completely miss the problem: the problem is that when people get too powerful, we cannot punish them anymore. Similar with companies: you have to prevent companies to become as big as the FAANGs before they do. Otherwise they become too powerful and do whatever they want.
    - vnorilo 2y ago
      > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. In communism, an individual can not own any means of production - effectively 0% of the society's total capital. I don't think it follows that any non-communist system must permit any single individual to gain up to 100% of the society's wealth. I don't know what the limit could look like or how to make it work, but societies commonly called capitalist already implement various brakes on free trade, from regulation to capital and immigration controls, subsidies, tariffs...
    - js8 2y ago
      > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. What is wrong with calling it communism? It's just a name.. You so much internalized "communism bad" that you look at a good idea and think it is bad because it reminds you something else that was implemented badly. And by the way, you can also call it democratic socialism (democratic is really redundant).
    - piaste 2y ago
      > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. Is that your actual objection? It sounds more like a smear by association. Famously, the USA under Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 90% on income over $200K - "merely" a few million dollars in modern-day money. Was the Eisenhower administration Communist? If it wasn't, would it have become Communist if they had gone a bit further and added a marginal rate of 99% for income over oh, let's say $20M (a few hundred million dollars nowadays)? I think if you traveled back in time and proposed such a bill, the reaction from folks like Senator McCarthy would not have been "that's Communism" but more likely "that's a ridiculous and useless bill, how could anyone ever accumulate that much personal wealth? It would be absurd".
- fire_lake 2y ago
  Presumably this is intended to lead into an argument that because we disagree on exactly where the limit should be we shouldn’t have a limit at all. We could make the same case against drunk driving, speed limits, age of consent laws, maximum sentencing…
  - ratmice 2y ago
    Yeah, I don't know why we would need a limit, I'm sure if a temper tantrum devolves into one of them building their own robo army. The others will follow suit and it will all just balance itself out.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cjfd 2y ago
  The imperfections of 'big' people have much more ramifications than the imperfections of 'small' people. Humans work best together in much more egalitarian groups where the imperfections of individuals are compensated by the strengths of other individuals.
- palata 2y ago
  > Humans are not perfect, whether "big" or "small". Still, I've never seen a poor human becoming an oligarch. The problem is not that those billionaires are not perfect, rather that they have too much power.
- js8 2y ago
  > What should be the maximum of how big someone should be? In democracy, the maximum should be 1. One vote per person. That's it. In practice, we can delegate stuff, but I don't see reason why should people (as adults) accept any sort of authoritarianism in their lives.
  - johnecheck 2y ago
    Ah, but this wasn't the question. You've confused formal political input with the broader idea of power. In this hypothetical perfectly fair democracy, the ones with power would be the ones best able to sway the populace. Popularity, rhetoric, and control over media would skew the true distribution of power away from the perfectly flat one you might be hoping for. Instead of aiming for perfection, we should oppose the systems that result in power becoming more concentrated over time. Our goal is an equilibrium where power is spread broadly and the most powerful are the most deserving (e.g, a scientist's voice has power because their expertise is respected). One person, one vote is a good place to start. But it isn't the whole solution.
- mola 2y ago
  You probably don't have an issue with limiting government power. Why is limiting an individual reaching power of governments so difficult to fathom? The problem is power accumulation, "small" people have a harder time limiting my freedoms by abusing their power. I don't want a king, whether they got to be king by swords or money.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  I don't know what the maximum wealth should be, but I do know that it is lower than one billion dollars. So let's start there. Billionaires are bad for society.
kelnos 2y ago
> My thinking is... can you put this 100% on Sandberg? I mean, I get that the culture is bad, but there's two in this game. Maybe... turn off your phone for a day when you're giving birth?! Sure, but you can look at this in one of two ways. One is the way you seem to be angling for, where we have an employee who is so disturbingly eager to please that she continues to do work at absurd times when no one should ever expect to be working. The other way is of an employee who has seen how her boss treats employees, and believes that her position, career, and livelihood would be in jeopardy if she wasn't working even in situations where no one should be expected to be working. I think the second take is more likely. And even if we think it's bizarre that someone could get to the point where they believe that kind of devotion to their job is necessary, it's still alarming and raises red flags that a company culture could cause someone to get to the point that they'd feel that way.
- raverbashing 2y ago
  > The other way is of an employee who has seen how her boss treats employees, and believes that her position, career, and livelihood would be in jeopardy if she wasn't working even in situations where no one should be expected to be working. Honestly, they need to grow a pair This kind of pressure (might) have worked for me if I was just out of university and such. But with experience you get to learn your boundaries You're a top-level executive and you're afraid of being let go by such a silly thing? They can't wait 2 or 3 days for "top level bullet points"? Seems like they depend on you more than you depend on them
  - amval 2y ago
    Big companies tend to develop cult dynamics. This is not an exaggeration, but a consequence of how humans tend to operate in large amounts. And I'd wager that in the case of Silicon Valley tech companies, this is also something that they embrace and nurture. I don't think this is a controversial take at all, and rather obvious. She was probably not "afraid of being let go" (fired), but had convinced herself that it was of the utmost importance to have this level of committment. The book probably reads similar to those books of someone who leaves their church or cult.
jocaal 2y ago
None of the people you mentioned's companies sell products your life depends on. If you don't like them, don't use or buy their products. I'm of the opinion that AWS, facebook and tesla cars are genuine trash. I don't know why people use that stuff.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Because your opinion is wrong. Problems with social media notwithstanding, just because you don't like the person who's running/ruining/most associated with the brand, doesn't make the product itself bad. Most people don't give two fraks about who Bezos or Musk or Zuckerberg are, and they definitely don't think of them when using products and services from the companies you mentioned.
  - HenryBemis 2y ago
    > Because your opinion is wrong. I was having a strong argument/discussion yesterday with a friend who is a communist. A real "I want hammer and sickle" kinda guy. He owns two homes, works for big-pharma, his wife works for big-logistic, scuba-diving vacations across the planet, very 'communist' way of life. His opinions (just as the parent-commenter) are not 'wrong'. His/her/our/their (not pronouns, just groups of people) are different to ours. They got a different vision of this world (which of course it costs them nothing - until Communism settles and they are beheaded for having two homes, SP500 investments, and going scuba-diving across the planet!!) > Most people don't give two fraks "What are you talking about dude?? I got all these Gmail, and OneDrive, and Webex stuff for free!! It's like modern day communism!!" /s
    - kubb 2y ago
      This post is such a cocktail of confusion with a dash of McCarthyism that I have to say thank you for existing, and keeping the torch of this muddled thinking all the way from the post-war period. Thank you for never learning what communism means, for staying embattled and internalising the narrative, for your anecdotes about your rich friend who doesn't realize that communists are lurking out there, waiting to kill him and everyone with wealth, once they get in power. I'd ask you to never change, but I know that you won't, you'll paint your future thoughts through the same stencil that I've heard and seen so many times. When you express this it feels like I get a taste of the real America, a trailer park with the metheads, the uncle that just got back from jail, educating his young nephew about how the world works. "You see son, there are rich people and they are good. And there are bad folks called communists that are jealous and want to kill the good rich folks. Be sure to carry your gun with you and if you see any of them communists, shoot them up. Because we will be rich one day. God bless America."
touwer 2y ago
Don't foget the less visible guys (yes, it's a gender issue ;) like Thiel, Andreeeesssssen etc
blitzar 2y ago
It's Facebook though - I can not think of a lower stakes workplace. Should the photo grid be 3 wide or 5 wide... Thank god ChatGPT can now pump out the mindless talking points for them.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  It's Facebook - a website that is a large part of life to over 3 billion users. A website that can influence elections in major countries, that sometimes shows fake ads and is responsible for (roughly) millions of frauds caused by them, that incited genocides in African countries. I don't think the stakes are that low.
  - avgd 2y ago
    > website that can influence elections in major countries, I think this sort of power transferred to twitter, with most of the users who haven't left facebook being boomers who keep reposting AI slop over and over and over. The rare times I look at my facebook account, all I see is the older members of my family spamming AI garbage like shrimp jesus, "look at this nice dog sculpture I made out of wood" (that I didn't actually make), videos of random nonsense like dogs taking care of toddlers and behaving like humans etc. FB has become AI slop no man's land. I don't even understand how facebook continues to operate at this point.
    - hobofan 2y ago
      > this sort of power transferred to twitter Twitter is not the place where the masses are being influenced. Especially outside the US, as in most other countries Twitter barely found adoption outside of tech and journalist circles. The majority of voting people (= old people) are still on Facebook. And besides Facebook, Meta also own Instagram. Meta is definitely the single company with the most encompassing political influence tool, should it choose to use it.
    - coliveira 2y ago
      I think people still use FB because it given them something to feel better. In Twitter/X you see all kinds of bad things happening, but in FB they sign up for groups that send only the things they like to see (most of that being fake, anyway).
smokel 2y ago
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Might it be an option that correlation and causation are reversed here? Given the amount of criticsm a typical leader of a large company, or even a country, gets these days, it is no wonder that people with narcissistic traits have an advantage. Somewhat more empathetic people would've given up already, either when they received a large enough reward, or whenever they got serious criticsm on bad practices. Free tip for a better society: stop worshipping success.
wodenokoto 2y ago
> My thinking is... can you put this 100% on Sandberg? I mean, I get that the culture is bad, but there's two in this game. Maybe... turn off your phone for a day when you're giving birth?! Kind of reminds me of this Simpsons joke: "Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen."
roywashere 2y ago
> Good to have more people expose the greedy, dictatorial, detrimental shitshow that is single individuals having an outsized control over important technology. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... People amassing more money than entire countries just should not happen. "Eat the rich"!
- hermannj314 2y ago
  Tuvalu has a GDP of $70 million. Is that the line? It is a very small country.
  - ubercore 2y ago
    You're trying pretty hard to miss the point here.
  - FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
    Honestly that seems high enough, yeah.
MarceliusK 2y ago
It's not just about one individual pushing for more... it's the entire system that values work over personal well-being and creates an environment where people feel they can't step away, even during life-changing events.
frereubu 2y ago
These kinds of amoral corporate hierarchies will by their nature promote people who give themselves over entirely to the business. It's not that everyone who works there turns into that kind of corporate drone, it just weeds out the people who value more of a work/life balance. If someone is willing to send talking point while they're in labour, a company with the corporate culture of Facebook isn't going to stop them, they're going to be rewarded.
Galanwe 2y ago
> Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... There should be a level of market cap where you company has to split, period. Megacorps create oligarchs, ruin competition and cheat antitrust.
- latexr 2y ago
  Or have a tax bracket after which you pay 100%.
- coliveira 2y ago
  There is a whole industry in the US to celebrate that some people are getting richer. And it is literally funded by some of the richest people in that list.
KaiserPro 2y ago
> My thinking is... can you put this 100% on Sandberg? I mean, I get that the culture is bad, but there's two in this game. Maybe... turn off your phone for a day when you're giving birth?! Do you want your job still? sure you can take "holiday", but if you don't please your capricious master, you'll not have a job to come back to. I can well believe that Sandberg is someone who lacks empathy of her immediate underlings, the mission comes first after all.
PaulRobinson 2y ago
Blaming victims for the abuse they suffer is a common theme in modern society. The fact she felt she could not turn her phone off without there being consequences is the core point here.
- DontchaKnowit 2y ago
  At a certain point ones unwillingness to accept consequences is capitulation pure and simple and it is what allows people to continue to behave shittily. Takes 2 to tango.
mkoubaa 2y ago
The more I learn about Sandberg the more I think she's actually psychotic

pixxel 2y ago

[dead]

max_ 2y ago

>Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... What should be the maximum of how big someone should be? Humans are not perfect, whether "big" or "small".

kelnos 2y ago
Certainly the "maximum big level" is something that reasonable people could disagree about, but I don't think a society is healthy when people can get as big as Zuckerberg, Musk, Altman, and Bezos have gotten. Individuals should not have that much power. It's not healthy.
- max_ 2y ago
  It is definitely not healthy. But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. I think the real problem is abuse of power, not accumulation of it. Power cannot be eliminated. It will either end up in the hand of politicians (who are genuinely more evil than tech bros) or remain in hands of wealth creators. What we should do is focus of punishingpeople who abuse thier power.
  - palata 2y ago
    > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. Of course you can. Those billionaires don't pay much taxes, but normal people do. And we don't call that communism. > It will either end up in the hand of politicians (who are genuinely more evil than tech bros) This is a very weird take. In a functioning democracy (which the US are not at the moment), politicians are elected to represent the people. If they are evil, we change them. Tech bros are not elected, period. > What we should do is focus of punishingpeople who abuse thier power. That's where you completely miss the problem: the problem is that when people get too powerful, we cannot punish them anymore. Similar with companies: you have to prevent companies to become as big as the FAANGs before they do. Otherwise they become too powerful and do whatever they want.
  - vnorilo 2y ago
    > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. In communism, an individual can not own any means of production - effectively 0% of the society's total capital. I don't think it follows that any non-communist system must permit any single individual to gain up to 100% of the society's wealth. I don't know what the limit could look like or how to make it work, but societies commonly called capitalist already implement various brakes on free trade, from regulation to capital and immigration controls, subsidies, tariffs...
  - js8 2y ago
    > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. What is wrong with calling it communism? It's just a name.. You so much internalized "communism bad" that you look at a good idea and think it is bad because it reminds you something else that was implemented badly. And by the way, you can also call it democratic socialism (democratic is really redundant).
  - piaste 2y ago
    > But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism. Is that your actual objection? It sounds more like a smear by association. Famously, the USA under Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 90% on income over $200K - "merely" a few million dollars in modern-day money. Was the Eisenhower administration Communist? If it wasn't, would it have become Communist if they had gone a bit further and added a marginal rate of 99% for income over oh, let's say $20M (a few hundred million dollars nowadays)? I think if you traveled back in time and proposed such a bill, the reaction from folks like Senator McCarthy would not have been "that's Communism" but more likely "that's a ridiculous and useless bill, how could anyone ever accumulate that much personal wealth? It would be absurd".
fire_lake 2y ago
Presumably this is intended to lead into an argument that because we disagree on exactly where the limit should be we shouldn’t have a limit at all. We could make the same case against drunk driving, speed limits, age of consent laws, maximum sentencing…
- ratmice 2y ago
  Yeah, I don't know why we would need a limit, I'm sure if a temper tantrum devolves into one of them building their own robo army. The others will follow suit and it will all just balance itself out.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cjfd 2y ago
The imperfections of 'big' people have much more ramifications than the imperfections of 'small' people. Humans work best together in much more egalitarian groups where the imperfections of individuals are compensated by the strengths of other individuals.
palata 2y ago
> Humans are not perfect, whether "big" or "small". Still, I've never seen a poor human becoming an oligarch. The problem is not that those billionaires are not perfect, rather that they have too much power.
js8 2y ago
> What should be the maximum of how big someone should be? In democracy, the maximum should be 1. One vote per person. That's it. In practice, we can delegate stuff, but I don't see reason why should people (as adults) accept any sort of authoritarianism in their lives.
- johnecheck 2y ago
  Ah, but this wasn't the question. You've confused formal political input with the broader idea of power. In this hypothetical perfectly fair democracy, the ones with power would be the ones best able to sway the populace. Popularity, rhetoric, and control over media would skew the true distribution of power away from the perfectly flat one you might be hoping for. Instead of aiming for perfection, we should oppose the systems that result in power becoming more concentrated over time. Our goal is an equilibrium where power is spread broadly and the most powerful are the most deserving (e.g, a scientist's voice has power because their expertise is respected). One person, one vote is a good place to start. But it isn't the whole solution.
mola 2y ago
You probably don't have an issue with limiting government power. Why is limiting an individual reaching power of governments so difficult to fathom? The problem is power accumulation, "small" people have a harder time limiting my freedoms by abusing their power. I don't want a king, whether they got to be king by swords or money.
UncleMeat 2y ago
I don't know what the maximum wealth should be, but I do know that it is lower than one billion dollars. So let's start there. Billionaires are bad for society.

kelnos 2y ago

> My thinking is... can you put this 100% on Sandberg? I mean, I get that the culture is bad, but there's two in this game. Maybe... turn off your phone for a day when you're giving birth?! Sure, but you can look at this in one of two ways. One is the way you seem to be angling for, where we have an employee who is so disturbingly eager to please that she continues to do work at absurd times when no one should ever expect to be working. The other way is of an employee who has seen how her boss treats employees, and believes that her position, career, and livelihood would be in jeopardy if she wasn't working even in situations where no one should be expected to be working. I think the second take is more likely. And even if we think it's bizarre that someone could get to the point where they believe that kind of devotion to their job is necessary, it's still alarming and raises red flags that a company culture could cause someone to get to the point that they'd feel that way.

raverbashing 2y ago
> The other way is of an employee who has seen how her boss treats employees, and believes that her position, career, and livelihood would be in jeopardy if she wasn't working even in situations where no one should be expected to be working. Honestly, they need to grow a pair This kind of pressure (might) have worked for me if I was just out of university and such. But with experience you get to learn your boundaries You're a top-level executive and you're afraid of being let go by such a silly thing? They can't wait 2 or 3 days for "top level bullet points"? Seems like they depend on you more than you depend on them
- amval 2y ago
  Big companies tend to develop cult dynamics. This is not an exaggeration, but a consequence of how humans tend to operate in large amounts. And I'd wager that in the case of Silicon Valley tech companies, this is also something that they embrace and nurture. I don't think this is a controversial take at all, and rather obvious. She was probably not "afraid of being let go" (fired), but had convinced herself that it was of the utmost importance to have this level of committment. The book probably reads similar to those books of someone who leaves their church or cult.

jocaal 2y ago

None of the people you mentioned's companies sell products your life depends on. If you don't like them, don't use or buy their products. I'm of the opinion that AWS, facebook and tesla cars are genuine trash. I don't know why people use that stuff.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Because your opinion is wrong. Problems with social media notwithstanding, just because you don't like the person who's running/ruining/most associated with the brand, doesn't make the product itself bad. Most people don't give two fraks about who Bezos or Musk or Zuckerberg are, and they definitely don't think of them when using products and services from the companies you mentioned.
- HenryBemis 2y ago
  > Because your opinion is wrong. I was having a strong argument/discussion yesterday with a friend who is a communist. A real "I want hammer and sickle" kinda guy. He owns two homes, works for big-pharma, his wife works for big-logistic, scuba-diving vacations across the planet, very 'communist' way of life. His opinions (just as the parent-commenter) are not 'wrong'. His/her/our/their (not pronouns, just groups of people) are different to ours. They got a different vision of this world (which of course it costs them nothing - until Communism settles and they are beheaded for having two homes, SP500 investments, and going scuba-diving across the planet!!) > Most people don't give two fraks "What are you talking about dude?? I got all these Gmail, and OneDrive, and Webex stuff for free!! It's like modern day communism!!" /s
  - kubb 2y ago
    This post is such a cocktail of confusion with a dash of McCarthyism that I have to say thank you for existing, and keeping the torch of this muddled thinking all the way from the post-war period. Thank you for never learning what communism means, for staying embattled and internalising the narrative, for your anecdotes about your rich friend who doesn't realize that communists are lurking out there, waiting to kill him and everyone with wealth, once they get in power. I'd ask you to never change, but I know that you won't, you'll paint your future thoughts through the same stencil that I've heard and seen so many times. When you express this it feels like I get a taste of the real America, a trailer park with the metheads, the uncle that just got back from jail, educating his young nephew about how the world works. "You see son, there are rich people and they are good. And there are bad folks called communists that are jealous and want to kill the good rich folks. Be sure to carry your gun with you and if you see any of them communists, shoot them up. Because we will be rich one day. God bless America."

touwer 2y ago

Don't foget the less visible guys (yes, it's a gender issue ;) like Thiel, Andreeeesssssen etc

blitzar 2y ago

It's Facebook though - I can not think of a lower stakes workplace. Should the photo grid be 3 wide or 5 wide... Thank god ChatGPT can now pump out the mindless talking points for them.

poincaredisk 2y ago
It's Facebook - a website that is a large part of life to over 3 billion users. A website that can influence elections in major countries, that sometimes shows fake ads and is responsible for (roughly) millions of frauds caused by them, that incited genocides in African countries. I don't think the stakes are that low.
- avgd 2y ago
  > website that can influence elections in major countries, I think this sort of power transferred to twitter, with most of the users who haven't left facebook being boomers who keep reposting AI slop over and over and over. The rare times I look at my facebook account, all I see is the older members of my family spamming AI garbage like shrimp jesus, "look at this nice dog sculpture I made out of wood" (that I didn't actually make), videos of random nonsense like dogs taking care of toddlers and behaving like humans etc. FB has become AI slop no man's land. I don't even understand how facebook continues to operate at this point.
  - hobofan 2y ago
    > this sort of power transferred to twitter Twitter is not the place where the masses are being influenced. Especially outside the US, as in most other countries Twitter barely found adoption outside of tech and journalist circles. The majority of voting people (= old people) are still on Facebook. And besides Facebook, Meta also own Instagram. Meta is definitely the single company with the most encompassing political influence tool, should it choose to use it.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    I think people still use FB because it given them something to feel better. In Twitter/X you see all kinds of bad things happening, but in FB they sign up for groups that send only the things they like to see (most of that being fake, anyway).

smokel 2y ago

> Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Might it be an option that correlation and causation are reversed here? Given the amount of criticsm a typical leader of a large company, or even a country, gets these days, it is no wonder that people with narcissistic traits have an advantage. Somewhat more empathetic people would've given up already, either when they received a large enough reward, or whenever they got serious criticsm on bad practices. Free tip for a better society: stop worshipping success.

wodenokoto 2y ago

roywashere 2y ago

> Good to have more people expose the greedy, dictatorial, detrimental shitshow that is single individuals having an outsized control over important technology. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... People amassing more money than entire countries just should not happen. "Eat the rich"!

hermannj314 2y ago
Tuvalu has a GDP of $70 million. Is that the line? It is a very small country.
- ubercore 2y ago
  You're trying pretty hard to miss the point here.
- FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
  Honestly that seems high enough, yeah.

MarceliusK 2y ago

It's not just about one individual pushing for more... it's the entire system that values work over personal well-being and creates an environment where people feel they can't step away, even during life-changing events.

frereubu 2y ago

These kinds of amoral corporate hierarchies will by their nature promote people who give themselves over entirely to the business. It's not that everyone who works there turns into that kind of corporate drone, it just weeds out the people who value more of a work/life balance. If someone is willing to send talking point while they're in labour, a company with the corporate culture of Facebook isn't going to stop them, they're going to be rewarded.

Galanwe 2y ago

> Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... There should be a level of market cap where you company has to split, period. Megacorps create oligarchs, ruin competition and cheat antitrust.

latexr 2y ago
Or have a tax bracket after which you pay 100%.
coliveira 2y ago
There is a whole industry in the US to celebrate that some people are getting richer. And it is literally funded by some of the richest people in that list.

KaiserPro 2y ago

> My thinking is... can you put this 100% on Sandberg? I mean, I get that the culture is bad, but there's two in this game. Maybe... turn off your phone for a day when you're giving birth?! Do you want your job still? sure you can take "holiday", but if you don't please your capricious master, you'll not have a job to come back to. I can well believe that Sandberg is someone who lacks empathy of her immediate underlings, the mission comes first after all.

PaulRobinson 2y ago

Blaming victims for the abuse they suffer is a common theme in modern society. The fact she felt she could not turn her phone off without there being consequences is the core point here.

DontchaKnowit 2y ago
At a certain point ones unwillingness to accept consequences is capitulation pure and simple and it is what allows people to continue to behave shittily. Takes 2 to tango.

mkoubaa 2y ago

The more I learn about Sandberg the more I think she's actually psychotic