Sure. But think about all the money they can make from selling ads if they know everything that people buy. Doesn't he have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value?
That's fine, assuming "everybody" is not the target audience.
Sarcasm and irony have been used in an enormous amount of major English-language texts since, well, there WERE English-language texts. Most of these texts don't take the time to spell things out to their less observant readers. Not assuming sarcasm will lead you to miss the point entirely. (This sounds terribly rude and elitist but it's true. And of course, little heed was given to those learning English as a second, or third, language, when these texts were written.)
Take the King James bible, for example. In Exodus, Moses is asked "Were there a lack of graves in Egypt, that you took us away to die in the wilderness?"
Hopefully this doesn't need to be explicitly flagged as sarcasm for you to understand its meaning.
Edit - It's actually Principle 4.1
As Zuckerberg has obviated any lawful means of removing him, by structuring the stock classes such that he holds the majority of votes, he should probably hire more personal security. If he's going to be someone that's completely unaccountable for his actions as head of the company from within the accepted structures, he should anticipate that someone will try to go outside those structures to get to him.
Ordinary people protect themselves from such attacks by not being untouchable jerkwads. He has already left that particular stratagem far behind.
And it’s one of the best things that ever happened in human history.
Rich people get kidnapped and held for ransom to fund rebellions or criminal cartels. It's a thing that happens. Even heads of state get assassinated from time to time. It's a thing that happens. At the level of super-rich that Zuckerberg inhabits, I'd guess he already gets at least 2 attempts at theft, robbery, blackmail, or extortion per year, and some of them might even be successful. It's a thing that happens. People don't like to talk about it, because the successes encourage further attempts.
There were even GTA 5 missions entirely about manipulating public stock prices by criminally compromising or killing a company's CEO. That's how the player can make all three of their player-characters multi-billionaires.
I'm simply saying that if the only way someone can get to you is via criminality, then that is the way someone will get to you. Most people would always try the "legitimate", peaceful option first, if there is one. That's the primary reason why people choose to leave themselves open to the law. Surrendering to the marshals or getting arrested by state professionals is a more favorable alternative than getting caught by an angry mob. Just ask Qaddafi.
It's just engineering. If your structure is designed to fail at one weak point, then you can monitor that possibility more carefully, and predict the behavior following that particular failure. You can purposefully put in a weak element, so that if the structure collapses at all, it will do so more slowly and in a safer direction. In a corporate structure, you allow yourself to be removed by majority vote, and the failure mode is that you get paid off and live on in semi-retirement. Remove that option, and you don't know how you'll leave your office. It might be a memento-mori-scale heart attack, or complete failure of the company, or a sudden black screen as "Don't Stop Believing" plays on the jukebox.
In the wake of the vote to remove him, Zuckerberg could either step down voluntarily, or increase his security. He won't do the former, so he should do the latter.
Would it have come across as less of a threat if he had quoted JFK ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable")? Was JFK threatening Latin America when he said that to their diplomats?
It applies on the small scale as easily as the grand. If you insult someone's mother, watch for and avoid the retaliatory punch. If you violate the privacy of a billion people, call them morons for trusting you, profit greatly from their personal information, and continue to demonstrate eroding ethics, then install a safe room in your house(s) and hire some bodyguards.
That said, individual violence is reasonable, after the non-violent and collectively-violent possibilities have been exhausted. There always has to be some way to effectively retaliate against anti-social behavior.
If that won't work because everyone else is on Facebook, then obviously most people don't share your opinion that Zuck is that big of a threat that needs to be ousted right? So you either have to accept that the majority of people are ok with it or convince them to ditch Facebook also.
Nowadays we seem to argue that since Mark Zuckerberg has not actually killed people with his bare hands, everything's fine. Everything is not fine. Facebook is a threat to humanity.
Let’s say you’re right. Even if you overthrow the majority they won’t like it. What are you advocating? That there’s a shortcut via authoritarianism because the majority can’t be trusted?
Democracy has no shortcuts. Convince the majority you are right or live with the majority opinion.
This is not to say that I condone corporate assassination, just to say that your appeal to the majority is woefully inaccurate.
Like your full name, job title, employer, email address, physical address, date of birth, social media profiles, family relations... the list goes on.
All of that associated information is often stored alongside your phone number. If one person you know does that, and also uses a facebook property and shares their address book through that (e.g. whatsapp), facebook has all that information about you.
If you're curious, check the list of additional fields you can add to a contact in your address book for how much Facebook could get about you
How do I keep it from Facebook if my colleague uses WhatsApp, by simply opting out from using Facebook myself?
Or to follow that on, if several people see what medication you've purchased in a shop, is that information now public information? Has the expectation of privacy gone out of the window because it was witnessed by another person? Does that then justify that information being shared with 1+ corporations to add to their profile of you?
This transient information is the category that modern surveillance is destroying. I think this is a useful category, as it allows for less stress of interaction, as each interaction is only relevant for a few days. Previously, it decayed over time as people forgot, or as tapes were overwritten. Soon, we are going to need mandatory data expiration policies to maintain this category of things that are public for a short time, and private afterward.