[eezurr]

Interesting and disturbing. They are making an argument that Facebook/Meta is harmful to the global economy because it cant do [impossible task] of moderating its 3.5 billion users to stifle [unwanted behavior]. And because of that, their decisions are negatively impacting the modern investors distributed portfolios.

Because Mark Z. is not diversified (wealth is in Meta) and has total control over the company, his decisions create a conflict of interest to the modern investor.

Yet the article doesnt mention how his decisions directly impacted the economy. Maybe the lawsuit does, but Im not going to read that...

>the fiduciary implication of the fact that modern investors are generally diversified, so that their interests extend beyond (and may be in opposition to) the maximization of the value of future cash flows to be received from owning a company’s shares.

So it's fighting monopolistic behavior?

[etiennebausson]

It's fighting pursuit pursuit of benefits that negatively impact the global economy.

Nothing directly about monopolistic behavior here, though true monopolies end up harming global economy in their pursuit of benefits. Which is why they are regularly broken up, or merge prohibited I suppose.