F**k Zucc: the case for ousting Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook is a shit show and a cancer on society. It has a uncontrollable fake news and extremism and election meddling problem, it's designed to addict users and makes them depressed, because that's what makes the most ad revenue. Instead of innovating itself, Facebook gobbles up companies and shuts them down or copies their features and puts them out of business. Zucc won't rest until he gobbles up all the companies and harvests all the data nom nom nom. Facebook has more users than Christianity or any religion in human history. But instead of using this unparalleled influence for good, it's destroying the fabric of society across the globe. Simply put, Mark Zuckerberg has way too much power and it's bad for Facebook and it's bad for shareholders and it's bad for humanity.

Without reducing Zucc's power, there's no way to keep Facebook accountable because our politicians are too corrupt and quite frankly technologically retarded judging by the questions asked at congressional hearings. The market won't keep Facebook accountable because Facebook is a fucking monopoly. However, it's virtually impossible to oust Zuckerberg. Zucc is CEO, chairman of the board, and has 60% voting power. He's young af too, he could be CEO for another sixty years. There's no way that Zucc is out at CEO unless Zucc chooses to leave, which will never happen. And so the flaming dumpster fire that is Facebook will spread to every corner of the globe (except China, who had the common sense to ban this shit) in search of more ad revenue, and destabilize and fuck global society in the process.

How is Facebook fixable? Will Zucc ever be ousted? Should we break it (and/or the rest of FAANG) up? Is breaking it up even possible?

Comments (72)

3y
AMInPhase1, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I don't think that we should break FAANG up, but maybe there should be more regulation for things like data privacy and such

Array

  • 1
3y
Pug, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I agree here. This is not my original thought, I forgot who said this. Maybe Elon Musk. Anyway, AI seems to be the most pressing thing to advance right now. If we restrict FAANG from innovating here, someone else outside the US most certainly will.

As far as Facebook goes, I agree- fuck Facebook.

“The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.” - Nassim Taleb
  • 1
3y
6969, what's your opinion? Comment below:

In the long run, innovation is going to be stifled because FAANG, especially Google and the shitshow that is Facebook can just put their competitors out of business. If Snapchat, a giant in its own right, can't compete without Facebook stealing its innovation, then the little guys have no chance. They're monopolies, break them up!

2y
Pug, what's your opinion? Comment below:
Milton Friedchiecknman:
Dumb politicians who don't know shit about how data works.

Dumb politicians who don't know shit about how [insert any topic] works.

Fixed it for you.

“The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.” - Nassim Taleb
  • 2
Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
3y
m_1, what's your opinion? Comment below:

It's not Facebook's fault people are morons. Attack ads on TV are just as full of shit on the political end of things...

The only solution is public education that teaches people how to recognize things like fake news, bias, etc... and think critically. Unfortunately the public education system would rather you know completely worthless things like formulas you will literally never look at again in your life.

3y
Pug, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I think that's where a technology like Neuralink can step in. I deeply believe that we need to advance Artificial Intelligence at the fastest rate possible in order to advance civilization. I think this will free people of mundane jobs. Thus the only jobs left would be creative, interpersonal, or highly technical in nature. Implementing AI into our biology is the next natural step, allowing us to advance with the technology rather than be replaced by it. Those who willfully choose to not advance will get left behind.

“The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.” - Nassim Taleb
  • 2
3y
traderlife, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I agree and disagree. I believe in free speach and I don't want fb being the one to decide what's allowed. I also don't want congress to do it.

That being said we live in a world of information overload and it gets tough to sort thru everything.

3y
MMBanker14, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Lol at thinking China banning FB is due to common sense, and not a desire to limit freedom of speech. The gov't could break FB up any time in the coming years / decades, and end FB's huge reach.

While I don't like Zuck, this is a well thought out post. The alternatives are worse. https://lt3000.blogspot.com/2019/11/free-speech-mark-zuckerberg-and-online.html

3y
6969, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I don't use Facebook or Twitter but it's not like a personal negative habit like cigarettes, it's worse. It's the primary news source for billions of people, with no real mechanisms in place to control which content is real or fake. It's a platform which allows radicalization and extremism to thrive. In the absolute worst cases, it's literally used by terrorist groups like isis and used as a platform to sell slaves. It's really really really bad for society as a whole and it sucks that everyone is on the platform because of how powerful the network effect is.

3y
I quit this site because of censorship, what's your opinion? Comment below:
Lloyd BIankfein:
I don't use Facebook or Twitter but it's not like a personal negative habit like cigarettes, it's worse. It's the primary news source for billions of people, with no real mechanisms in place to control which content is real or fake.

This is not the purview of government. "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

It's not the government's business or its place to decide what is "real" and "fake" because what you'll get is some bureaucrat deciding that what he or she doesn't like is "fake." That's the only reason any gov't official cares about this topic--they want control over the flow of information rather than the marketplace having control. We already have laws and remedies against defamation, death threats, and incitement to violence.

Lloyd BIankfein:
It's a platform which allows radicalization and extremism to thrive.

Again, not the purview of gov't. I assure you what I think is radical is wildly different than what you think is radical. The communists murdered 100 million people in the 20th century. I consider the socialists to be radical, treasonous scumbags. But it's not my place to decide that they can't speak.

Lloyd BIankfein:
In the absolute worst cases, it's literally used by terrorist groups like isis and used as a platform to sell slaves.

This is already illegal. Enforce the law.

Lloyd BIankfein:
It's really really really bad for society as a whole and it sucks that everyone is on the platform because of how powerful the network effect is.

Yes, social media is horrible for society. But again, I turn to the wisdom of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people to peacably assemble."

Array

  • 6
3y
Skyywalker, what's your opinion? Comment below:

How is Facebook a monopoly? Every individual can simply just not use it

Gun rights activist
  • 3
  • Associate 2 in CorpDev
3y

Exactly! Also, how was Standard Oil a monopoly in 1900? People coulda just chose not to use oil

3y
Skyywalker, what's your opinion? Comment below:

They probably could've and I'm sure many went without oil for their lamps, there's also the fact that Facebook is free

Gun rights activist
3y
I quit this site because of censorship, what's your opinion? Comment below:
Associate 2 in CorpDev:
Exactly! Also, how was Standard Oil a monopoly in 1900? People coulda just chose not to use oil

This is the least analogous analogy ever. Congrats.

Array

Most Helpful
3y
thebrofessor, what's your opinion? Comment below:

full disclosure, I hate facebook. I deleted mine and haven't looked back.

however, I am absolutely against central planning, it has a worse track record than john hussman, the miami dolphins, and greg oden. just because we are upset with something does NOT mean that any institution will be better at solving the problem.

that said, I do think governments can institute some systems whereby abuses of power are harder to come by. I think antitrust legislation is appropriate, but only for the original idea (controls pricing & gouges people, no other viable options, collusion, etc.), not just because something is "big" (e.g. we don't need 100 aviation companies, we need 3 or 4 really good ones). for one, you can eliminate dual share classes. public markets provide founders with liquidity in exchange for control, I think it's bad to have your cake and eat it too here.

next, I think that just because you think something is harmful for people does not mean you should forcibly stop them from doing it. if this was the case, coke, pepsi, tobacco, arguably alcohol, general mills, mcdonalds, most pharma, video games, defense contractors, firearm companies and more would all be outlawed. I want to live in a world of choice, not top down planning. institutions should be responsible for informing the public so they make a decision, not making the decision. do I think facebook needs to be called out for exactly what they do and have common sense disclosures so people know what they're signing up for? fuck yeah, I don't think companies that have the privilege of operating under american capitalism should be able to lie/conceal information to the public in order to profit from it.

I can make an argument that processed foods, suburban real estate, big medicine, the internet, banks, etc., are all destroying the fabric of society and are "bad for humanity" but no one would dream of a government telling people where to live, what to eat, how to treat themselves, etc., that'd be communism. I think the mistake people make is in saying "oh well this is different." it's not. facebook is a company that you are free to use or go without. for those who say "well it's the only way to advertise," bullshit. I don't advertise, I've had my best year ever. many other small businesses don't need facebook to prosper. "oh, well it's the only way to keep in touch." bullshit, pick up the phone, send an annual family update email with pictures (the cost of file sharing is essentially zero so facebook albums are replaceable), people do it out of convenience. also, on your point of addiction, the same thing is true for added sugars, chapstick, alcohol, tobacco, video games, and smartphones. designing something to be addictive has been legal as long as there have been people. I say good riddance if someone is too weak to realize they're being played and succumbs to that.

finally, and this is the most important point, but I have no idea how to solve it. shareholders need to nut the fuck up. it's an abomination that vanguard, blackrock (ishares), state street, fidelity, t rowe, capgroup, etc., do fucking NOTHING come proxy time. even the passive investors I think deserve to speak up. the active folks sometimes do, but as the world moves more towards indexing, these guys cannot sit idly by otherwise they're guaranteed to vote the way the board votes, full stop.

TLDR - facebook sucks, zuck's a cuck, but central planning and top down solutions only make things worse

3y
6969, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I'm normally with you - I'm fiscally conservative and 100% against central planning in 99.9% of cases. But Google and Amazon and especially Facebook will destroy capitalism as we know it if we don't regulate them in some capacity.

3y
6969, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Might get MS for saying this, but conservative Americans are too macho about regulating big tech and high off of the notion that GOVERNMENT REGULATION ALWAYS EQUALS BAD to realize that we do need mechanisms to make sure that big tech acts responsibly because the invisible hand of the market cannot and will not regulate this shit responsibly. Even without purchasing any google services, people can't really opt out of Google getting all their personal data and using it for whatever the fuck they want.

3y
DickFuld, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I heard Elizabeth Warren's plan that is to be unveiled next week will institute a 100% wealth tax that phases in with a threshold of exactly $1 under Zuckerberg's wealth level and phases back to "2 cents" at $1 over his wealth level at the time, assuming the person ever had at least a $10 billion net worth. In fact, it is to be worded in that exact way so that every dollar he keeps going forward from future earnings will instantaneously get a 100% tax rate. Given the success of this thread, I think it will get her a lot of votes.

3y
financeabc, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I not sure if I would try to remove Zuck but there are lots of things I dislike about about Facebook. Why would anyone feel the need to tell their 1000 friends what he or she is doing at the moment?

3y
Yankee Doodle, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Social media companies should be regulated as telecoms. Much like how AT&T can't shut off your phone service because they don't like what you're saying over the phone, the same should apply to social media (especially YouTube).

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn

  • 1
3y
heister, what's your opinion? Comment below:

LOL, all of the complaining here is amazing. Zuckerberg is one of the only major social media CEOs that has any real balls. The rest cower to the wailing of a tiny minority of people and unelected government agents. I am all for these companies falling apart but the idea that we need to go in and have the government break them up is a terrible idea. It empowers the government to suppress speach on private networks. I am okay with laws that ensure that the platforms provide equal access to all parties who seek it, however the idea that this is what is going on here is a joke. Both sides really want the same thing, They are just coming at it from different perspectives.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • 2
3y
BillAckmansHair, what's your opinion? Comment below:

interesting and respectable take,

I think it will be very difficult to break up FAANG(probably exclude netflix now and put microsoft), because of the US hegemony in terms of cloud computing and internet data. I think department of defense plus lobbying would influence a dem prez to do otherwise

3y
I quit this site because of censorship, what's your opinion? Comment below:

This is exactly why these companies shouldn't be broken up in the name of anti-trust. One day Netflix was an unbeatable tier 1 company and the next day it is under existential assault by cunning and vicious rivals. 20 years ago the feds almost succeeded in knocking out Microsoft only for Microsoft to slip to a tier 2 company for an entire generation as newcomers knocked it off its perch.

Here is a lessen for you--bureaucrats cannot forecast the future, particularly the future of the economy, and especially not the tech sector. The tech sector will go twice around the world before a gov't bureaucrat gets his pants on.

Array

  • 2
3y
Dr. Rahma Dikhinmahas, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Why not just let Facebook do its thing. So there's fake news on there, so what. People can create all the fake news they want and put it on all the platforms they want. There's plenty of competing sources of news information to allow us to sort fact from fiction. Twitter, FB, traditional media, YouTube, podcasts . . list goes on and on. I see no valid reason to regulate the flow of information, real or fake.

People acting like lying was invented in the last few years. Very much the opposite. Ability to manipulate the media was much greater decades ago when newspapers were dominant. Let's not forget Hearst back in 1897 saying "you supply the pictures and I'll supply the war." Or just 30 years ago when a small handful of networks and newspapers dominated the narrative.

We have a much more open informational market now, the truth is safer than it ever was. That is, for the vast majority of us. If you're a member of a select few (like, oh I don't know, liberal politicians maybe?) you were better off under the less transparent news infrastructure we used to have.

3y
InVinoVeritas, what's your opinion? Comment below:

This problem extends beyond Facebook - all of mainstream media is cancer because outrage culture is the only viable market to target from a money perspective. Twitter also needs to be checked hard as they are arbitrarily censoring content with apparent bias, shifting the Overton window left as conservatives are disallowed from participating.

In my opinion social media should be declared a public utility and it should be illegal for these companies to actively violate the 1st amendment.

From a cultural perspective this becomes much more complex. I agree that social media is depressing society but how can this be fought against? People willingly choose to spend all day on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter chasing escapism and they are free to do so. I personally deleted all my social media years ago and am much happier as a result. However, this rabid thirst for escapism doesn't seem to be ending and virtual reality is the next frontier where growing numbers of humans, a majority of which are young single men, will spend most of their waking hours plugged into a headset. This escapist behavior is due to a complete loss of spirituality, the propagation of pornography, and the disconnect between real wage and GDP growth resulting in major hopelessness of young people finding it harder and harder to achieve the American dream.

The solution is to reject social media at an individual level and share this idea with others. Hoping that a corrupt bloated ineffective congress will get anything done in this political climate is a lost cause.

2y
Skyywalker, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Lol at Twitter censoring conservative when nazi Twitter is huge

Gun rights activist
3y
UFOinsider, what's your opinion? Comment below:

You're blaming Facebook for human nature, all of these problems exist already in every other part of society and media/cultural medium

Get busy living
3y
6969, what's your opinion? Comment below:

not wrong, but Facebook is like pouring barrels of gasoline on the flaming dumpster fire that is human nature

3y
6969, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Quas quas est ea unde est et similique. Voluptatem veniam possimus quis et. Nesciunt vero maiores repellat sunt. Voluptate repellendus saepe aliquam corrupti. Maiores natus ut ut ut.

Ex modi eos in sint sed molestiae. Dolor earum harum rem doloremque rem aperiam aliquam. A qui similique expedita ut esse. Praesentium autem impedit odio rem et ipsa quidem. Non molestiae beatae voluptatem et.

Start Discussion

Career Advancement Opportunities

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company (▲08) 99.6%
  • Lincoln International (= =) 99.3%
  • Financial Technology Partners (+ +) 98.9%
  • Evercore (▽01) 98.5%
  • Bank of America Merrill Lynch (▲01) 98.2%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • PJT Partners (= =) 99.6%
  • Evercore (▲02) 99.3%
  • Greenhill (▲05) 98.9%
  • Canaccord Genuity (▲15) 98.5%
  • William Blair (= =) 98.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • PwC Corporate Finance (▲14) 99.6%
  • Lincoln International (▲03) 99.3%
  • Jefferies & Company (▲04) 98.9%
  • William Blair (▽02) 98.5%
  • Evercore (▽01) 98.2%

Total Avg Compensation

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (10) $613
  • Vice President (38) $392
  • Associates (220) $255
  • 2nd Year Analyst (139) $163
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (19) $160
  • 1st Year Analyst (466) $153
  • Intern/Summer Associate (88) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (337) $92