[danjl]

Placing so much blame on individuals like Zuck and Sandberg is already a stretch. Though leaders have a huge influence, and should bear the responsibility, this piece tries to make it seem like it is those individuals that caused the perceived problems. It even implies that they had "bad" motivations, which is really reaching. Describing the stock classes, the article implies an enormous amount of detailed control on company behavior via stock ownership, which is generally not the case at any large company. Corporate boards don't generally get into features and implementations and stick to strategy. The argument is further undermined by what seems like some sort of personal vendetta from the author.

[LightFog]

You are trying to suggest that Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t have a detailed knowledge and control over core Meta features, nor knowledge of the societal damage they can do?

[danjl]

No, I am not. You are employing a logical fallacy known as "Denying the antecedent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

[zaphirplane]

My casual reading of the thread says you are falling for a variance of the fallacy

Someone isn’t knowledgeable and responsible for every detail of every feature means they are responsible and knowledgeable for none

[parineum]

> Placing so much blame on individuals like Zuck and Sandberg is already a stretch.

This clearly implies that sime blame is warranted.

[LightFog]

Not intentionally if so - I must be missing something more subtle in your comment.

[firecall]

I read it exactly as you did.

Not sure how your response can be framed as 'Denying the antecedent'. :-/

[zaphirplane]

CEO sets the culture of a company, the how to get to the generic make money target. They are not the best engineer, sales or accountant. They have a massive influence on how those are done on across dimensions like ethics, risk, legal