[anvuong]

No, the difference is Meta is a publicly traded company, SpaceX is not. Meta don't want this kind of negative publicity since it directly affects their stocks price, mishandle these things can lead to lawsuit from investors. For SpaceX, they don't have to care about any of those things.

[etamatem]

> Meta don't want this kind of negative publicity

No, it does not, but it still happens. Most of our internal[1] Q&A discussions leak to the press (especially criticisms of leadership[2]), but Zuckerberg decided it's the cost of internal openness. I'm yet to hear of anyone fired for leaking company discussions, or even witch-hunts to find leakers. Musk is being a baby, I hope they bleed irreplaceable talent.

1. These have remained unchanged post-IPO, have nothing to do with public listing, and Meta would like them to be confidential

2. One of our recently-promoted execs was publicly and vociferously criticized by employees for something they did, and the critics are still employed, because the execs are not petty.

[colinmhayes]

I don't really think Zuckerberg cares that much about short term fluctuations in the stock price. He has majority control, the market has effectively zero power if he doesn't like its ideas.

[yellowapple]

> For SpaceX, they don't have to care about any of those things.

They do if they want customers. ULA and Blue Origin would love nothing more than for SpaceX's leadership to piss off NASA and burn some of those juicy government contract opportunities.

[gamblor956]

No, the difference is that Zuckerberg, for all his faults, is not a narcissitic sociopath.