
Zuckerberg isn't accountable to anyone so it's time Congress to take his power - SirLJ
https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-should-ban-facebooks-dual-class-stock-structure-2018-11
======
methodover
If investors don’t like the dual stock structure, they don’t have to invest.
What am I missing? Why should congress step in to ban something that by virtue
of these existing investors, some people are fine with?

~~~
harry8
Why have laws in business at all? You don't like it don't do business. Perhaps
because we don't like the idea that the strongest should always get his way?
Although I totally take your point that it is utterly fatuous to suggest
shareholders are going to hold management to account on the general theme of
being ethical.

Total deregulation is every bit the same silly extreme as a command economy
and should be treated with the same withering contempt. The question should
always be "Is this regulation effective in making things better for more
people over the long term." If that answer is now, we have a regulation that
should go. Deregulation extremists somehow take the exact opposite point of
view when it comes to property rights, regulations that protect them. And of
course every single large company shouting de-regulation is really engaged in
a massive amount of regulatory capture. Those regulations need to go and we
need to fight back in a big way on that. Variations on that theme are why
Bernie and Donald are so much more popular than Hilary and Jeb. Still no
progress.

Anyway are these tech billionaires able to command super-voting rights with
their stakes because they're so great and wise and wonderful? Or is it because
they've secured a beachhead that commands a lot of economic rent and that
beachhead gives them the power and strength to get their way. I don't find
Zuck super impressive as a person, strategist or engineer. But hey he fought
off google trying to muscle into his beach head so he must be amazing unless
he, um, "has the high ground" OB1 stye.

Did Rupert Murdoch push the super voting rights regulations through so he
could keep total family control of news ltd & fox?

~~~
SamReidHughes
> The question should always be "Is this regulation effective in making things
> better for more people over the long term."

That's the Communist worldview. Complete utilitarian totalitarian morality.

~~~
harry8
Property rights are a regulation justified on this basis. Property rights are
not usually associated with communism and totalitarianism. But hey, without a
utilitarian justification for regulation we do still have two choices.
Theocracy is one, anarchy is the other. I'm as against both of those as i am
against communism & fascism. It's wonderfully radical to be so extreme as to
be against property rights or claim that Jesus had teachings on the principle.

~~~
SamReidHughes
You can justify property rights and all sorts of business regulations with
concepts of fairness and justice.

