Posted by domhudson 2 hours ago
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.
Not everyone gets super voting shares, but everyone gets a life and has to live on the same planet.
> 'Vetinari, are we to believe that you knowingly put the most important bank in the city into the charge of a known bank robber?'
> [...] 'Should he have left it in the hands of unknown bank robbers?'
What is the author's model of a company?
Just not rewarding flexing, but creating and world improving?
We should reward quality of engagement, not just length of it.
All in all, it is actually one app that is beneficial or at least harmless.
Today on the shadow libraries, you have your pick of a number of self-teaching textbooks for free, allowing you to find an approach that fits your learning style. No need to rely on a dodgy corporate app.
Why care about the long term consequences if the world is going to be over in the next 20 years.
I very much doubt that they listen to countries in tier 1 and 2 also. If not for the fear of US's relatively stronger regulations, don't think Meta would even pay attention to any complaints in US either.
This would not change with the change in leadership in Meta simply because 18Bn is fairly affordable for Meta's scale, but they should be worried about setting the legal precedent (though they denied any wrong doing).
Other countries may not have the same ability to impose penalties owing to their weaker laws also.
>
> But if Meta is truly interested in prioritizing the safety of users [...]
Where did that "but" clause come from? Has that ever been a priority?
The CEO is the throughline in a history
of billion-dollar blunders
For comparison:
He outperformed the Nasdaq 100 which made 18% (plus dividends) in the same time.
And he way outperformed Warren Buffet who made 14% in the same time.