Until Facebook starts executing dissenters with howitzers or packs of dogs, I think we can do without this style of hyperbole popularized by the current President of the United States.
The article is referring not to Facebook's specific policies being NK-like, but rather the complete control Zuckerberg exerts.
Some people argue that a large company should be regulated by the market, but what if that company is a near-monopoly with a single, unwavering leader?
There's also something troubling about the Mark Zuckerberg, one of the most powerful people alive, having secret talks with Donald Trump, arguably the most powerful person alive. One article suggested they have a non-aggression pact: Trump tamps down attempts to regulate FB, and FB gives him and his campaign the most powerful megaphone in history without any editing.
All CEOs are essentially dictators. At least Zuckerberg is a founder and the largest shareholder, so he should have more of the company’s long-term interests in mind than your typical carpetbagging CEO who’s in it to juice the stock price for a few years and then exit.
No, they're not. Very few are. All CEOs serve at the mercy of the voting shareholders.
In a minority of companies, all of the votes are controlled by one person. Facebook is one of those.
Zuckerberg may be able and incentivized to think long-term, but that doesn't mean his vision is a good one. He isn't infallible just because his incentives are as good for the company as they can be.
And none of that even addresses the question of whether what is good for FB's bottom line is good for society.
Yes in theory the CEO reports to the board and the board reports to shareholders. In reality shareholders have zero say over what the CEO does, regardless of the share voting structure. They get the chance once a year to rubber-stamp the CEO's board nominations and that's it.
The exception is activist shareholders who acquire enough stock to get a board seat and then start agitating for change. They tend to be short-term players: once whatever merger or spinoff or dividend they were agitating for happens they move on to the next company.
I’ve been tempted to build a website that features articles about journalists who use hyperbole like this to polarize and spin nasty narratives.
It’s damaging to our society and the virtual signaling is at an all time high. They go write an article like this, saying X is evil, but it’s so hypocritical.
How can journalists justify themselves when they do this?
So who thinks FB is a good corporate citizen and does not control speech on its site with arbitrary decisions based on "because that's how we see it" policies?
Coca-Cola, the company that intimidates, kidnaps, tortures and murders union leaders in South America. The company that over-exploits and destroys natural resources in India. The company that routinely does business with dictators and avoids taxes and sanctions.
That's the virtuous company putting pressure on Facebook to tackle "hate speech" during election year in the US. i.e. stop opponents of the far-left.
