[cycomanic]

I'm surprised that nobody is questioning this. Zuckerberg owns ~17% of Meta shares, so it quite clearly not "his" company where he can do whatever he pleases. Primarily he is an employee and has a responsibility to the owners (which does include him) to do his job, arguably looking at button padding is not part of his job description.

[colinmhayes]

Zuckerberg has a voting majority. As long as he believes he is acting in the companies best interests he can do whatever he likes.

[henryfjordan]

This isn't strictly true, Zuckerberg has to act in the interests of the minority shareholders as well. He can't take a deal that helps himself while hurting all other shareholders.

Getting involved in button padding issues isn't one of those cases though. He can spend all the time in the world on that if he likes.

[fleetwoodsnack]

Not really. The role of the fiduciary is to act in the best interests of the organization, including seeking counsel and advice from experts. “I was doing what I thought was best,” is not an affirmative defense, and has been successfully argued to be a dereliction of duty in corporate and contract law.

[tsimionescu]

That's irrelevant when discussing ownership. He owns 17% of Meta. That he retains control of 90% of Meta doesn't mean that he has the moral right to ignore his responsibilities to his co-owners.

[colinmhayes]

No one has the moral right to do anything since the entire idea of moral rights is absurd. Yes, Zuckerberg has a duty to act in the best interest of shareholders. Courts have repeatedly ruled that good faith belief is all that requires. Unless you think his interest in button ui is somehow in self interest over company interest he didn’t do anything wrong.

[t_mann]

17% of stocks != 17% of voting rights. I don't know the current numbers, but Zuck was known for aggressive use of priority shares to retain voting control of the company as he was selling shares.

[KptMarchewa]

>17% of stocks != 17% of voting rights

Stock classes are the biggest robbery of modern times.

[lotsofpulp]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbery

> larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat

How does Facebook’s share offering meet the definition of robbery?

That Zuckerberg was selling a product with such high demand and so little supply that he was able to sell at a very high price does not qualify as Zuckerberg robbing others. It is not even bread for a starving person, it is equity to chase returns.

[texaslonghorn5]

It seemed obvious to me that robbery was being used in the colloquial sense (rip off)

[ahtihn]

It's not like people aren't aware of stock classes when they buy it.

[koolba]

Share of stock class != Share of stock class

Zuck controls 90% of the voting rights of FB: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1061237/how-facebook-si...