
Mark Zuckerberg Asserts Control of Facebook, Pushing Aside Dissenters - KKKKkkkk1
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-asserts-control-of-facebook-pushing-aside-dissenters-11588106984
======
heymijo
Board of directors are like courtiers of old in a monarch's court.

They are there for the proximity to power. They scheme, connive, and work to
improve their own position.

In the court of Zuckerberg, the courtiers exist at his behest, and his only.
The directors who forget this are banished.

In other courts, the courtiers have more power because they can remove the
CEO.

But even in courts where all of the power isn't concentrated in the CEO, heads
can roll, and sycophants can be installed. Steve Jobs' return to Apple comes
to mind.

~~~
koheripbal
I mean... this is an extremely negative connotation. What is it based on.

More generally, you could say that board members are just representatives of
blocks of shareholders (sometimes representing themselves). ...and that all of
them are in the same financial boat, and so work towards a common goal.

We can use all the same facts to paint a much more collaborative and friendly
picture.

Which is more correct? Well, I suppose we'd need some facts, right? It's
emotionally easier to imagine a sinister group if you're not part of that
club, right?

~~~
claudiawerner
> I mean... this is an extremely negative connotation. What is it based on.

It is a negative connotation, but that could be because it is negative[0].

[0] [https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/private-government-how-employers-
ru...](https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/private-government-how-employers-rule-our-
lives-and-why-we-dont-talk-about-it/)

~~~
koheripbal
This philosophy article doesn't even mention the board in question. You seem
to be making the assertion now that ALL boards are evil.

wow.

------
jgacook
I often read about the divides between Zuckerberg and other decision-makers in
the company, but I’m always unsure what the divides revolve around. Could
anyone in the know clarify what the stakes are here? What is Zuck’s vision?
What are dissenters unhappy with?

~~~
vpner
I think the writers know these stories get traction so they just keep doing a
variation on the same theme. They're not really in it to explain anything.
They just want the clicks and the engagement numbers to go up.

Speaking of which, I don't have a subscription and I think they paywall these
things. Does anyone have a summary so we can figure out why it's on the front
page?

~~~
discordance
[http://archive.is/R3ij5](http://archive.is/R3ij5)

~~~
jahn716
Appreciate it!

------
echelon
How did Zuckerberg maintain his majority voting power throughout every funding
round? VCs have to look at that very suspiciously.

Is it possible for founders today to retain the same level of control, or do
VCs outright refuse to fund such companies?

Are there good reading materials or strategies for maintaining control all the
way through possible IPO?

How did Travis Kalanick and Adam Neumann get removed? Did they not have the
same level of control that Zuckerberg did? Couldn't they have told their
dissenters to fuck off? Or could the same fate befall Zuckerberg should he
fall out of good graces or become involved in some controversy?

~~~
jasode
_> How did Zuckerberg maintain his majority voting power throughout every
funding round? VCs have to look at that very suspiciously._

MZ didn't actually have majority control through _every_ funding round. They
key is that other investors (e.g. Sean Parker, Accel Partners, etc) _gave
voting control of their shares_ to MZ.[0]

So the ingredients to maintain control (or eventually consolidate majority
control) is to have _leverage_ in some way. Multiple forms of leverage:

\+ startup has real revenue and is cash flow positive and thus is not
desperate for VC funding: Microsoft profits in 1981 would be an example. They
didn't actually need David Marquardt's VC money before their IPO in 1986.

\+ startup has exponential growth: Facebook is an example. Facebook was so
popular that Accel Partners sought out MZ and not the other way around.

\+ demonstrate amazing management skill: Jeff Bezos would be an example. He
doesn't have majority voting power via dual-class share structure. Instead,
other investors let JB control their votes. Even his ex-wife who he cheated on
recognizes that her Amazon shares she got in the divorce settlement would be
worth _less_ if someone else besides her ex-husband ran Amazon. So she signed
over her voting rights to him.

Another thing that worked out for MZ was the older Sean Parker acting as a
defacto "consigliere" to warn him how VCs strip power away from founders. And
as noted earlier, when Sean was kicked out of Facebook, he turned over his
voting rights to MZ.

[0] [https://venturebeat.com/2012/02/01/zuck-power-
play/](https://venturebeat.com/2012/02/01/zuck-power-play/)

~~~
gargarplex
You don’t know that he cheated on her. Bezos’s statements say that they were
already separated. Please don’t malign either’s reputation in a public forum.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/business/jeff-bezos-
wife-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/business/jeff-bezos-wife-
mackenzie-divorce.amp.html)

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
The cheater said he didn't cheat so no issue, gotcha.

He got caught texting his girlfriend while having a wife, his wife divorced
him and took $38 billion.

Call it whatever you want but he smeared his own reputation.

He made one of the worst social, moral, & financial decisions you could make
all at the same time.

~~~
viklove
On the flip side, $38B is a great deal

------
sailfast
This is a small part of the article but the whole "wartime leader" trope is
starting to wear thin.

Can we please acknowledge it for the euphemism that it is: Total control by
the executive to enable a narrow set of goals while tolerating greater losses
for those at the bottom of the chain, in order to achieve a narrow, high
priority objective at the expense of everything else (like "don't be evil" or
"ethics")

~~~
koheripbal
"while tolerating greater losses for those at the bottom of the chain"

Who are you referring to here? Employees? Americans? Everyone in the world?
The poor?

~~~
Lammy
All of the above?

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/facebook-employee-death-
was-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/facebook-employee-death-was-
suicide.html)

~~~
pc86
What exactly are you implying by linking this article?

~~~
Lammy
That Facebook has worked at least one employee literally to death.

~~~
koheripbal
This basis of that claim is so laughable...

> There are rumors that Qin may have endured bullying at Facebook, Young said.
> However, Young is not an employee at the company and he said that most of
> the protesters did not work there, either.

~~~
Lammy
I don’t really want to debate the case out of respect for Mr. Qin, but it was
easy to observe that he was a SEV owner at that time, and due to present at
SEV review, and fighting against a nag robot constantly enforcing a “due date”
a week ahead of what he needed and tried to configure in the task tracking
tool. Anything beyond that is of course my own speculation, but I feel
comfortable saying it is an extremely stressful and unhealthy environment.
Even more so when getting a bad performance review could cascade into you
losing your job, losing your visa, and having to wrap up your entire life and
GTFO within 30 (iirc?) days. Or find a new job within that short time frame
that will sponsor your visa. I don’t think you should be so quick to dismiss
such a case as merely a personal matter.

------
gfosco
Considering that he alone has the majority of the votes, I don't see how any
of these board member departures change anything (nor does the linked text
make any attempt at explaining this.)

~~~
roenxi
It is beyond outrageous that it is legal to have corporate structures other
than 1 share 1 vote.

~~~
nickff
Why? Not only is nobody forcing you to buy shares, but you have to pay to join
in. It's also often legal to sell your voting rights (by handing over a proxy
statement) anyway. What's the problem?

Having a 'visionary' in charge is often a benefit, so I would imagine many
would prefer to have Zuckerberg in charge rather than a board of activist
investors.

~~~
close04
> Having a 'visionary' in charge is often a benefit, many would prefer to have
> Zuckerberg in charge rather than a board of activist investors

Of course but not necessarily because he's 'visionary'. Rather he's shown a
considerable willingness to put any moral concerns aside in the interest of
increasing profits. If you have any doubts think of how many times he was
forced to come public with statements like "we'll do better" without actually
doing better. So it makes sense for many to hitch their wagon to him instead
of some dissident who may alleviate some of the moral issues at a cost.

------
ur-whale
[http://archive.is/R3ij5](http://archive.is/R3ij5)

------
lowdose
Why doesn't Zuckerberg make his goal the core functionality of his platform?

> My goal for the next decade isn’t to be liked but to be understood.

~~~
Aeolun
I like that. It sounds like a much more useful Facebook.

~~~
runedog
runedog understands your comment.

------
treebornfrog
Non paywall: [https://archive.is/R3ij5](https://archive.is/R3ij5)

------
smilekzs
Non-paywall:

[https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-
repor...](https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-reportedly-
overhauled-board-to-assert-more-control/)

~~~
teddyuk
This says that Facebook have built a test facility and if they detect the
virus then they do a full genome sequence. Facebook are doing genome
sequencing, this seems less than ideal.

~~~
Operyl
What? Am I missing something here?

EDIT: I see, you fell victim to CNET's "infinite scrolling." You scrolled into
another article. Furthermore, they're not sequencing human DNA in that article
you stumbled on, they're sequencing the virus. Furthermore, Facebook doesn't
own this, it's a group funded by Mark's charitable donations.

~~~
codethief
> Furthermore, they're not sequencing human DNA in that article you stumbled
> on, they're sequencing the virus. Furthermore, Facebook doesn't own this,
> it's a group funded by Mark's charitable donations.

AFAIK it's the group led by Joe DeRisi[1]. For those interested in further
details, there[2] is an absolutely fantastic interview with DeRisi that's
worth every minute of your time.

[1] [http://derisilab.ucsf.edu/](http://derisilab.ucsf.edu/)

[2] [https://www.tested.com/old-
categories/podcasts/854328-scarie...](https://www.tested.com/old-
categories/podcasts/854328-scariest-episode-yet-still-untitled-adam-savage-
project-103018/)

~~~
dmix
That podcast show was excellent, thanks for sharing.

Very relevant discussion of viruses with his snake story and randomly finding
Ebola variations and referencing his work on coronavirus (show was from 2018).

Id love to hear his views on the recent stuff that's happened.

This is the perfect kind of guy you want to give lots of money to do random
research and see what he comes up with. I'm happy Zuckerberg found him.

------
Isinlor
Shouldn't hackernews have some policy of marking paywalled articles? Something
like:

[paywall] Mark Zuckerberg Asserts Control of Facebook, Pushing Aside
Dissenters

It would be very helpful to avoid getting irritated by the paywalls. And maybe
collectively we could ignore paywalled sources.

~~~
tomhoward
The HN FAQs [1] state that paywalled articles are OK as long as there is a
known workaround so everyone can read it, even if it takes a little effort.

Someone usually posts a link to the workaround in the comments, i.e.:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23030502](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23030502)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23028577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23028577)

It's not ideal, but better than banning every site that might ever have a
paywall, which, aside from leading to the loss of a big chunk of quality
content, would create confusion relating to the fact that paywalls behave
differently based on regions, previous site visits, click origins etc.

So it's the least-worst solution.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

~~~
Isinlor
Still, it would be useful to have an indicator like [paywall], so that it's
easy to avoid paywalled articles.

~~~
tomhoward
I think Dang has long ago decided that wouldn't improve HN, and I tend to
agree.

Tagging an article as paywalled would imply that it's inaccessible to non-
subscribers, which isn't true; inaccessible content is banned from HN.

Paywalled content is only allowed if the paywall can easily be bypassed, so
tagging it as paywalled would just cause more confusion, not less.

Everyone accepts it's an imperfect situation. But it's still the least-worst
situation.

