4 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares. It's his company, over which he specifically wanted to retain control. Therefore, calling on the board to re

by hpjev 27d ago

Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares. It's his company, over which he specifically wanted to retain control. Therefore, calling on the board to reign him in is... Misplaced. If you think the actions of Meta are wrong and should be prevented, you need to act on the regulatory level, not appeal to the very shareholders who profit off the behaviour.

gdiamos 27d ago
I liked how the article was aimed at Mark personally. Not everyone gets super voting shares, but everyone gets a life and has to live on the same planet.
deleted 27d ago
[deleted]
swed420 26d ago
> you need to act on the regulatory level This. Otherwise it's just a fruitless game of whac-a-mole as new reptiles inevitably step up to sustain the profit opportunity.
- trueno 26d ago
  tru, although i don't think there's anything at this point that can compel meta or zuck to do jack squat especially in the default country. as we've already seen. these days with what might as well be branch capture by these bazillionaire entities, id be very surprised to see any actions attempted at the regulatory level against zuck against meta against any of this class ever actually make it into law. am i jaded sure but im mostly stepping back and looking at the game board at this point. i will be very surprised if things ever balance / restore in my lifetime, for now i literally do think the rest of my life is not going to have any chapter where the law puts zuckerberg or meta in its place.
- sixtyj 26d ago
  Who wants to fight a battle that could be a lifelong one and along the way some lose their enthusiasm for the cause… I would rather make a lifelong campaign “don’t do drugs”… if you make national all-year-long donate-funded campaigns on every corner, social networks’ providers would need to regulate themselves as they’ll have higher churn rate. Recent campaigns don’t work too much as they are endemic.
  - swed420 26d ago
    When we have a captured government and unaccountable corporations like we do, it seems like the best route is to compete with them via carefully designed not-for-profit products which contain strictly good features and none of the enshittified ones, as brainstormed here: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ Building something as described in that article would cause people to drop all of the existing platforms almost overnight.
    - unrented7977 26d ago
      This is like suggesting fruit and veg could outcompete heroin. You can't compete against someone who is willing to cheat. You can't entice users to a better social network when their addiction to the old one has been engineered to near perfection. There's good reason that our present (and really truly good) alternative social networks haven't taken over Facebook's users. It's designed to be an addictive trap with no escape. You can't pull users away unless you're willing to be an even worse drug. You have to force the other guy to stop cheating for competition to be possible.
      - swed420 26d ago
        > This is like suggesting fruit and veg could outcompete heroin. No it's not. > You can't entice users to a better social network when their addiction to the old one has been engineered to near perfection. Sure, not with that attitude. But the article clearly articulates why better platforms could easily exist. Current platforms are filled with bots and slop that makes people hate themselves. The new platform would easily sell itself, and it need not be destructive like you're implying. > There's good reason that our present (and really truly good) alternative social networks haven't taken over Facebook's users. None of the existing alternatives are without problems, and the article spells this out in detail.
1vuio0pswjnm7 26d ago
"Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares." He only owns about 13% of Meta's voting shares, not a majority But he owns 99.8% of Class B shares Class A get one vote per share Class B get 10 votes per share No doubt the author is aware of Meta's voting structure hence her choice of the words "voluntarily resign" The author suggests "the board" or "Meta", not the shareholders, some of whom are not on the board and do not work for Meta, ask Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign: "But if Meta is truly interested in prioritizing the safety of users, the board should request the resignation of Mark Zuckerberg and restructure to put safety above profit." "Beyond the courts, Meta could triage the situation by calling for Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign." The author probably means the board when she uses the word "Meta" in the second example. (Zuckerberg serves as chair) It's possible she might mean employees. It's difficult to imagine she means non-employee shareholders "If you think the actions of Meta are wrong and should be prevented, you need to act on the regulatory level, not appeal to the very shareholders who profit off the behaviour." But the author appeals to "the board" and "Meta", not shareholders Meta shareholders have been trying to change the voting structure since 2014 For example, look at Meta's last proxy statement https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026025532/meta-20260416.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026... Most of the votes in favor of Proposals Five and Six came from Class A shares Meta shareholders who profit from Meta's behaviour are in fact trying to change it SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS TO BE VOTED ON AT THE ANNUAL MEETING Shareholder Proposals 67 Proposal Three: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on AI Data Usage Oversight 67 Proposal Four: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Annual Vote Regarding Executive Pay 70 Proposal Five: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Dual Class Capital Structure 71 Proposal Six: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Disclosure of Voting Results By Share Class 73 Proposal Seven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Human Rights Due Diligence 75 Proposal Eight: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Addressing Antisemitism and Hate in Online Platforms 77 Proposal Nine: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Climate Change-Related Commitments 79 Proposal Ten: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Integrating Child Safety Improvements into the Executive Compensation Program 81 Proposal Eleven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Data Protection Impact Assessment on Generative AI Chatbots 83 Proposal Twelve: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Risks of Anti-American Discrimination from H-1B Visa Program Use 85

by hpjev 27d ago

gdiamos 27d ago

I liked how the article was aimed at Mark personally. Not everyone gets super voting shares, but everyone gets a life and has to live on the same planet.

deleted 27d ago

[deleted]

swed420 26d ago

> you need to act on the regulatory level This. Otherwise it's just a fruitless game of whac-a-mole as new reptiles inevitably step up to sustain the profit opportunity.

trueno 26d ago
tru, although i don't think there's anything at this point that can compel meta or zuck to do jack squat especially in the default country. as we've already seen. these days with what might as well be branch capture by these bazillionaire entities, id be very surprised to see any actions attempted at the regulatory level against zuck against meta against any of this class ever actually make it into law. am i jaded sure but im mostly stepping back and looking at the game board at this point. i will be very surprised if things ever balance / restore in my lifetime, for now i literally do think the rest of my life is not going to have any chapter where the law puts zuckerberg or meta in its place.
sixtyj 26d ago
Who wants to fight a battle that could be a lifelong one and along the way some lose their enthusiasm for the cause… I would rather make a lifelong campaign “don’t do drugs”… if you make national all-year-long donate-funded campaigns on every corner, social networks’ providers would need to regulate themselves as they’ll have higher churn rate. Recent campaigns don’t work too much as they are endemic.
- swed420 26d ago
  When we have a captured government and unaccountable corporations like we do, it seems like the best route is to compete with them via carefully designed not-for-profit products which contain strictly good features and none of the enshittified ones, as brainstormed here: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ Building something as described in that article would cause people to drop all of the existing platforms almost overnight.
  - unrented7977 26d ago
    This is like suggesting fruit and veg could outcompete heroin. You can't compete against someone who is willing to cheat. You can't entice users to a better social network when their addiction to the old one has been engineered to near perfection. There's good reason that our present (and really truly good) alternative social networks haven't taken over Facebook's users. It's designed to be an addictive trap with no escape. You can't pull users away unless you're willing to be an even worse drug. You have to force the other guy to stop cheating for competition to be possible.
    - swed420 26d ago
      > This is like suggesting fruit and veg could outcompete heroin. No it's not. > You can't entice users to a better social network when their addiction to the old one has been engineered to near perfection. Sure, not with that attitude. But the article clearly articulates why better platforms could easily exist. Current platforms are filled with bots and slop that makes people hate themselves. The new platform would easily sell itself, and it need not be destructive like you're implying. > There's good reason that our present (and really truly good) alternative social networks haven't taken over Facebook's users. None of the existing alternatives are without problems, and the article spells this out in detail.

1vuio0pswjnm7 26d ago

"Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares." He only owns about 13% of Meta's voting shares, not a majority But he owns 99.8% of Class B shares Class A get one vote per share Class B get 10 votes per share No doubt the author is aware of Meta's voting structure hence her choice of the words "voluntarily resign" The author suggests "the board" or "Meta", not the shareholders, some of whom are not on the board and do not work for Meta, ask Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign: "But if Meta is truly interested in prioritizing the safety of users, the board should request the resignation of Mark Zuckerberg and restructure to put safety above profit." "Beyond the courts, Meta could triage the situation by calling for Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign." The author probably means the board when she uses the word "Meta" in the second example. (Zuckerberg serves as chair) It's possible she might mean employees. It's difficult to imagine she means non-employee shareholders "If you think the actions of Meta are wrong and should be prevented, you need to act on the regulatory level, not appeal to the very shareholders who profit off the behaviour." But the author appeals to "the board" and "Meta", not shareholders Meta shareholders have been trying to change the voting structure since 2014 For example, look at Meta's last proxy statement https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026025532/meta-20260416.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026... Most of the votes in favor of Proposals Five and Six came from Class A shares Meta shareholders who profit from Meta's behaviour are in fact trying to change it SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS TO BE VOTED ON AT THE ANNUAL MEETING Shareholder Proposals 67 Proposal Three: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on AI Data Usage Oversight 67 Proposal Four: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Annual Vote Regarding Executive Pay 70 Proposal Five: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Dual Class Capital Structure 71 Proposal Six: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Disclosure of Voting Results By Share Class 73 Proposal Seven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Human Rights Due Diligence 75 Proposal Eight: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Addressing Antisemitism and Hate in Online Platforms 77 Proposal Nine: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Climate Change-Related Commitments 79 Proposal Ten: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Integrating Child Safety Improvements into the Executive Compensation Program 81 Proposal Eleven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Data Protection Impact Assessment on Generative AI Chatbots 83 Proposal Twelve: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Risks of Anti-American Discrimination from H-1B Visa Program Use 85