4 ms·

Of course he did: Zuckerberg has shown countless times that he's morally bankrupt: Each time, when given the choice (and regulatory landscape is gray) even with

Of course he did: Zuckerberg has shown countless times that he's morally bankrupt: Each time, when given the choice (and regulatory landscape is gray) even with full knowledge of internal experts advising him against, he chose profits, even if "move fast and break things" includes the very society he and we all live in. (<- see current state of the world)

CrossVR 8mo ago
[flagged]
- dreadnip 8mo ago
  > It's his fiduciary duty to investors to choose the most profitable option even if that option is detrimental to society. Do you realize how insane this sounds?
  - deafpolygon 8mo ago
    It does, but without regulatory oversight— this is how capitalism works.
    - actionfromafar 8mo ago
      Without regulatory oversight, capitalism doesn't exist. In fact, cannot.
      - nandomrumber 8mo ago
        Without regulatory oversight, what evolves[1] is exactly what we have now. 1. At least in our case. And China in its case, and Europe in theirs, and Russia in Russia’s.
        actionfromafar 8mo ago
        Yeah, well, that's incredibly accurate. :)
        nandomrumber 8mo ago
        What I mean is: the current standard is the result of anarchy. We had anarchy, people decide they could do better, iterated, and came up with this.
  - CrossVR 8mo ago
    I do, but that's the unfortunate reality we find ourselves in. It's why you should never trust a publicly traded company that promises to self-regulate, it is impossible for them to do so. If a CEO consistently passes up large profits to protect society then investors will attempt to put a new CEO in charge.
- lores 8mo ago
  This is the most toxic of urban legends. Fiduciary duty to shareholders means acting in the interests of the company rather than your own. There is no duty to maximise profits against all morals. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty
  - CrossVR 8mo ago
    You're absolutely right, but the line between acting in the interest of the company and acting to maximize profits is so thin it might as well not exist. It can be in the company's interest to act for the good of society and a CEO can claim that it is his fudiciary duty to act in the interest of society. But when society's interests are in direct conflict with the interests of the company you cannot expect a CEO to act in the interest of society. Even if a CEO is perfectly within their rights to act against the interests of the company, it doesn't change the fact that investors might replace him if the CEO does so consistently.
    - b112 8mo ago
      Not even remotely true. This is an urban myth.
      - CrossVR 8mo ago
        So the reason companies act against the interests of society is just a personal moral failing of the CEO and nothing else?
        disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        Its because they make more money, not because they have a fiduciary duty.
        CrossVR 8mo ago
        So you have a fudiciary duty to put the company's interest first and you have no legal duty to put the public interest first (as long as no crimes are being committed). What do you expect to happen in such a system?
- Msurrow 8mo ago
  That that is exactly why [more] regulation is necessary! Regulation is not done with the purpose of preventing companies from profits. It is done because companies cannot be expected to act in society’s best interest, so society has to make demands of companies, ie regulation.
conductr 8mo ago
Aren’t some things just inherent with the product though. These are unhealthy products, they should be allowed to exist for what they are instead of trying to make them something they’re not. And I say this as a very light social media user, I never enjoyed it and it always felt unhealthy so I just kept off it. As I’ve watch it all unfold, was in college during facebooks college only explosion and now people are on tiktok. It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media just as bad as zuck wants them addicted to social media. And an instagram without filters is like porn without nudity.
- rsynnott 8mo ago
  Should they, tho? Laudanum (morphine in alcohol; a lot of ‘patent medicines’/snake oil were basically just laudanum) is an unhealthy product. It is not, in any meaningful sense, allowed to exist these days.
  - conductr 8mo ago
    Then ban social media as a whole, cherry picking features to ban is silly. Banning features that only harm young users that probably shouldn’t even be using the app due to their age is misguided. If it’s unhealthy for kids, ban kids use.
    - rsynnott 8mo ago
      "Then ban medicine as a whole, cherry picking medicines to ban is silly." Like, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. _This_ is social media, but probably would not make sense to ban (merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something).
      - conductr 8mo ago
        > merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something I think we're talking about it's large scale impact on youth mental health, slightly more reason than 'merely...irritating' I do think it's sad that we have to ban it, because that means parents aren't doing their job - but that's the reality of it
vasco 8mo ago
Yeah but if he listened to a single wellness expert they'd probably tell him to shut down most or all of social media, so what's the point of articles like these. Unless it's unlawful and they get fined nothing changes. But on this specific topic I'm curious what the wellness experts think about make-up, or even worse purely cosmetic plastic surgery. If digital filters are wrong, surgery should get the death penalty in comparison.
interludead 8mo ago
What's troubling in these cases isn't just one person's intent, but that the system seems to consistently resolve internal debates in favor of engagement when there's a tradeoff
storus 8mo ago
I'll bite: Who is a wellbeing expert? What is the ground for calling some people wellbeing experts? How does one earn it? How general is their expertise? Would you trust your psychologist with everything they say? Or even a group of psychologists that align with some contemporary majority opinion? How often in the past did accepted "facts" change completely?
- AniseAbyss 8mo ago
  [dead]
brnt 8mo ago
> includes the very society he [..] live in. He lives in a very different society from you and me. Not saying you don't know this, but it's staggering that so many people don't realize how different the world is for billionaires and the rest. I know few can experience this first hand, but it's not difficult to read/see/understand that the difference is vast. If and when aliens ever land, I think the difference between them and us will be smaller than between us and the 0.01%.

CrossVR 8mo ago

[flagged]

dreadnip 8mo ago
> It's his fiduciary duty to investors to choose the most profitable option even if that option is detrimental to society. Do you realize how insane this sounds?
- deafpolygon 8mo ago
  It does, but without regulatory oversight— this is how capitalism works.
  - actionfromafar 8mo ago
    Without regulatory oversight, capitalism doesn't exist. In fact, cannot.
    - nandomrumber 8mo ago
      Without regulatory oversight, what evolves[1] is exactly what we have now. 1. At least in our case. And China in its case, and Europe in theirs, and Russia in Russia’s.
      - actionfromafar 8mo ago
        Yeah, well, that's incredibly accurate. :)
        nandomrumber 8mo ago
        What I mean is: the current standard is the result of anarchy. We had anarchy, people decide they could do better, iterated, and came up with this.
- CrossVR 8mo ago
  I do, but that's the unfortunate reality we find ourselves in. It's why you should never trust a publicly traded company that promises to self-regulate, it is impossible for them to do so. If a CEO consistently passes up large profits to protect society then investors will attempt to put a new CEO in charge.
lores 8mo ago
This is the most toxic of urban legends. Fiduciary duty to shareholders means acting in the interests of the company rather than your own. There is no duty to maximise profits against all morals. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty
- CrossVR 8mo ago
  You're absolutely right, but the line between acting in the interest of the company and acting to maximize profits is so thin it might as well not exist. It can be in the company's interest to act for the good of society and a CEO can claim that it is his fudiciary duty to act in the interest of society. But when society's interests are in direct conflict with the interests of the company you cannot expect a CEO to act in the interest of society. Even if a CEO is perfectly within their rights to act against the interests of the company, it doesn't change the fact that investors might replace him if the CEO does so consistently.
  - b112 8mo ago
    Not even remotely true. This is an urban myth.
    - CrossVR 8mo ago
      So the reason companies act against the interests of society is just a personal moral failing of the CEO and nothing else?
      - disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        Its because they make more money, not because they have a fiduciary duty.
        CrossVR 8mo ago
        So you have a fudiciary duty to put the company's interest first and you have no legal duty to put the public interest first (as long as no crimes are being committed). What do you expect to happen in such a system?
Msurrow 8mo ago
That that is exactly why [more] regulation is necessary! Regulation is not done with the purpose of preventing companies from profits. It is done because companies cannot be expected to act in society’s best interest, so society has to make demands of companies, ie regulation.

conductr 8mo ago

Aren’t some things just inherent with the product though. These are unhealthy products, they should be allowed to exist for what they are instead of trying to make them something they’re not. And I say this as a very light social media user, I never enjoyed it and it always felt unhealthy so I just kept off it. As I’ve watch it all unfold, was in college during facebooks college only explosion and now people are on tiktok. It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media just as bad as zuck wants them addicted to social media. And an instagram without filters is like porn without nudity.

rsynnott 8mo ago
Should they, tho? Laudanum (morphine in alcohol; a lot of ‘patent medicines’/snake oil were basically just laudanum) is an unhealthy product. It is not, in any meaningful sense, allowed to exist these days.
- conductr 8mo ago
  Then ban social media as a whole, cherry picking features to ban is silly. Banning features that only harm young users that probably shouldn’t even be using the app due to their age is misguided. If it’s unhealthy for kids, ban kids use.
  - rsynnott 8mo ago
    "Then ban medicine as a whole, cherry picking medicines to ban is silly." Like, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. _This_ is social media, but probably would not make sense to ban (merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something).
    - conductr 8mo ago
      > merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something I think we're talking about it's large scale impact on youth mental health, slightly more reason than 'merely...irritating' I do think it's sad that we have to ban it, because that means parents aren't doing their job - but that's the reality of it

vasco 8mo ago

Yeah but if he listened to a single wellness expert they'd probably tell him to shut down most or all of social media, so what's the point of articles like these. Unless it's unlawful and they get fined nothing changes. But on this specific topic I'm curious what the wellness experts think about make-up, or even worse purely cosmetic plastic surgery. If digital filters are wrong, surgery should get the death penalty in comparison.

interludead 8mo ago

What's troubling in these cases isn't just one person's intent, but that the system seems to consistently resolve internal debates in favor of engagement when there's a tradeoff

storus 8mo ago

I'll bite: Who is a wellbeing expert? What is the ground for calling some people wellbeing experts? How does one earn it? How general is their expertise? Would you trust your psychologist with everything they say? Or even a group of psychologists that align with some contemporary majority opinion? How often in the past did accepted "facts" change completely?

AniseAbyss 8mo ago
[dead]

brnt 8mo ago

> includes the very society he [..] live in. He lives in a very different society from you and me. Not saying you don't know this, but it's staggering that so many people don't realize how different the world is for billionaires and the rest. I know few can experience this first hand, but it's not difficult to read/see/understand that the difference is vast. If and when aliens ever land, I think the difference between them and us will be smaller than between us and the 0.01%.