I don't think you're overly pessimistic in this at all. Facebook does what's good for Facebook. So does Mark Zuckerberg.
Same shit happened when he pledged 99% of his stock charitable causes. Everyone was up in arms about how the organization was an LLC instead of a charity, claiming he did it purely for the tax benefits, despite that being bullshit.
I guess at the end of the day, once you are a billionaire for creating a successful company, everything you do is based entirely on greed. I'm sure we can come up with a self-interest reason Bill Gates is spending hundreds of millions eradicating malaria too.
Depends on the CEO and company. The behavior of a company reflects the behavior of its CEO. Microsoft and Facebook both have a a history of bad behavior.
A company is many cogs. The fact that Bill Gates was anti-competitive doesn't make him, the individual, a bad person. That's very clear from the work he's doing now. So assuming that all decisions stem from greed, from anyone, is a silly assumption.
For the rest of us, the relevant point is predicting their behavior, and in that context, the phrase certainly applies. As long as he's CEO and the largest shareholder, Facebook's actions are Zuckerberg's decision and responsibility.
That's not exactly it, but I would like if you could show me an example of a CEO doing something publicly which would go against the interest of their company.
The fact is, getting what I want and giving others what they want are usually not mutually exclusive. And anytime there is a conflict, there is usually an acceptable compromise.