I would argue against that argument. Arguably, Zuckerberg was instrumental in getting FB to where it is today. It is not inconceivable that protecting him is protecting shareholder value.
I think you are right. It is not a guarantee, but in real life there are no guarantees. However, there are ways to make things more likely. And given that one of the best predictors for what person will do is what they have done..investors would likely be more assured that FB is with Zuckerberg at the helm than not.
> Arguably, Zuckerberg was instrumental in getting FB to where it is today.
I agree that it would not be where it is today, but they are a troubled massive corporation beset on all sides by issues. They duck and dodge any issues and responsibility without fixing root causes. He definitely helped with the rise, but he will definitely also be responsible if it falls.
From which alternate reality, where you were able to observe how a Facebook "fork" governed in a non-dictatorial fashion has turned out, did you learn this "arguable" information?
Now, we can argue how much of that increase should be given to Zuckerberg in the form of credit for directing the company, but I am relatively certain that the answer is not zero.
I stand by my initial post. It is very much arguable.
edit: Hatred of Zuckerberg really should not be blind. I mean there is enough there to dislike him for. There is no need to invent stuff.
> It is one thing for the media to say false things about my work, but it's crossing the line to say I'm riding an electric surfboard when that video clearly shows a hydrofoil that I'm pumping with my own legs.
Just read that incredibly smug quote from him in response to the many recent articles critiquing Facebook.. It is not blind hatred, I would say it is very well targeted hatred of someone who has an enormous impact on the world while only caring about Facebook. His denial and stubbornness is approaching that of a very recent ex president.
He could have protected himself by making his shares the same voting rights as common class and not selling them, signalling his loyalty to shareholders. It should be illegal to issue shares to public with lower voting rights in my view. Our world would be a different place if google/facebook had only one type of voting class and I dont think what I view is strictly political.
Sadly, our world could be decidedly worse as well.
I used to discuss putting obvious skinnerian and behavioral systems in games as a joke back in the day when Diablo 2 came out. Years later what I thought as an awful joke was the mobile gaming business model.
There are many jokes I can make about how to run Facebook more “efficiently”. How to take the wrong lessons from the many, many business propaganda efforts that have been successful.
Sorry, at this point I am a bit disheartened just thinking about it. I was trying to connect to your point, but I really can’t thin of anything positive to say anymore.
