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.
This. Otherwise it's just a fruitless game of whac-a-mole as new reptiles inevitably step up to sustain the profit opportunity.
I would rather make a lifelong campaign “don’t do drugs”… if you make national all-year-long donate-funded campaigns on every corner, social networks’ providers would need to regulate themselves as they’ll have higher churn rate.
Recent campaigns don’t work too much as they are endemic.
https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/
Building something as described in that article would cause people to drop all of the existing platforms almost overnight.
You can't compete against someone who is willing to cheat. You can't entice users to a better social network when their addiction to the old one has been engineered to near perfection. There's good reason that our present (and really truly good) alternative social networks haven't taken over Facebook's users. It's designed to be an addictive trap with no escape. You can't pull users away unless you're willing to be an even worse drug.
You have to force the other guy to stop cheating for competition to be possible.
No it's not.
> You can't entice users to a better social network when their addiction to the old one has been engineered to near perfection.
Sure, not with that attitude. But the article clearly articulates why better platforms could easily exist. Current platforms are filled with bots and slop that makes people hate themselves. The new platform would easily sell itself, and it need not be destructive like you're implying.
> There's good reason that our present (and really truly good) alternative social networks haven't taken over Facebook's users.
None of the existing alternatives are without problems, and the article spells this out in detail.
these days with what might as well be branch capture by these bazillionaire entities, id be very surprised to see any actions attempted at the regulatory level against zuck against meta against any of this class ever actually make it into law. am i jaded sure but im mostly stepping back and looking at the game board at this point. i will be very surprised if things ever balance / restore in my lifetime, for now i literally do think the rest of my life is not going to have any chapter where the law puts zuckerberg or meta in its place.
Not everyone gets super voting shares, but everyone gets a life and has to live on the same planet.
He only owns about 13% of Meta's voting shares, not a majority
But he owns 99.8% of Class B shares
Class A get one vote per share
Class B get 10 votes per share
No doubt the author is aware of Meta's voting structure hence her choice of the words "voluntarily resign"
The author suggests "the board" or "Meta", not the shareholders, some of whom are not on the board and do not work for Meta, ask Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign:
"But if Meta is truly interested in prioritizing the safety of users, the board should request the resignation of Mark Zuckerberg and restructure to put safety above profit."
"Beyond the courts, Meta could triage the situation by calling for Zuckerberg to voluntarily resign."
The author probably means the board when she uses the word "Meta" in the second example. (Zuckerberg serves as chair) It's possible she might mean employees. It's difficult to imagine she means non-employee shareholders
"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."
But the author appeals to "the board" and "Meta", not shareholders
Meta shareholders have been trying to change the voting structure since 2014
For example, look at Meta's last proxy statement
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026...
Most of the votes in favor of Proposals Five and Six came from Class A shares
Meta shareholders who profit from Meta's behaviour are in fact trying to change it
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS TO BE VOTED ON AT THE ANNUAL MEETING
Shareholder Proposals 67
Proposal Three: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on AI Data Usage Oversight 67
Proposal Four: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Annual Vote Regarding Executive Pay 70
Proposal Five: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Dual Class Capital Structure 71
Proposal Six: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Disclosure of Voting Results By Share Class 73
Proposal Seven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Human Rights Due Diligence 75
Proposal Eight: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Addressing Antisemitism and Hate in Online Platforms 77
Proposal Nine: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Climate Change-Related Commitments 79
Proposal Ten: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Integrating Child Safety Improvements into the Executive Compensation Program 81
Proposal Eleven: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Data Protection Impact Assessment on Generative AI Chatbots 83
Proposal Twelve: Shareholder Proposal Regarding Report on Risks of Anti-American Discrimination from H-1B Visa Program Use 85
The author calls on the board to make him resign. It is the second paragraph of the article, if you care to read it.
> "... the board should request the resignation of ..."
So, ask him to voluntarily resign, not "make him", just as GP wrote.
But the HN reply refers to "appealing to shareholders"