How bad CEO, in your opinion, is Mark?
Instead he's running a giant meme tank feeding racist shit to win clicks and running fake AI ads boosting scam investments.
He's good at that. But is he actually any good at building things which enrich society without making him money?
Name one human for whom this answer would be true - just one please? (not defending Zuck, he is probably one of the most evil people in the history of the entire civilization)
This is legitimately hilarious. If only Hitler or Stalin knew that to really hit the top of the evil pyramid these days, you need to create a social network. Murdering millions just doesn't compare.
Mark is a mediocre innovator and a weak and ruthless leader. He has had the chance to claim ownership of Harvard Connection before Fb and purchase trendy platforms being a billionaire.
I sense more luck, opportunity, a huge team of advisors, and less skill, talent or chrisma.
The playbook now is get product-market fit -> own 99% market share -> build, buy, exterminate everything that could threaten this market share -> when the disruption comes, pivot to it.
Zuck inspired the playbook. He's done it to perfection. He's been in the ring for 20 years. Yahoo dominated for about 5-7 years. By no means is he a bad CEO.
Facebook's decline was always a part of his strategy, and whatever the employees say about there being a bazillion active daily users doesn't reflect that their time is near. But Instagram still runs strong and Threads has half a billion active users.
Managed not to lose it all on his stillborn metaverse or trying to outcompete AI startups too.
ii) I would disagree on this. Meta is king of low value ads. Google is great at targeted ads, but sometimes you want something to reach as many eyes as possible, as cheaply as possible.
They've barely avoided many of the dark patterns like chumboxes and forced repetition of screens, just because they have enough people scrolling through it. Of course, there's other dark patterns here, but I give them a B+ for low value ads.
The marketplaces and events still provide massive value to the world, for free, as long as they lasted. In the end, it's nearly a trillion dollar company, which is a remarkable thing to build on low value ads.
Instagram was clearly a great acquisition, much better than it looked at the time. But I'm not sure it's ever been as big or that it's destined to last longer or make more money. WhatApp is where it's at for me and a non-trivial number of others, and they're not making money off those conversations.
I mean that seriously. Sometimes when one asks a question the asking may be more insightful to you than the answer.
I mean, you'll get a bunch of answers here, reflecting a bunch of opinions. But why do you care about what they think? And what does it matter to you what Zuck is or not.
It doesn't sound like you're asking about billionaires in general (or the number of them, or the harm they are doing), and you're not asking about Facebook in general, but rather on Zuck himself.
Do you think the success of a person is based on their original ideas? Or is it on execution? Do you think he's a bad CEO because his company (and him) are visible? (Does your local accounting firm with 10 employees get the same scrutiny?)
Do you think a CEO operates in a vacuum? Is he the only one eith ideas? Is the the only one (inside meta) who makes bets, or buys companies?
All of which brings us back to, why do you care? Is your success delineated by his reputation? (Hey, maybe you're C level at meta aiming for his job.)
Honestly, I've found for me, caring about the success, or deservingness, of others (big or small) is meaningless to me. Their success doesn't make me fail. Their moral failings doesn't make me a success. My job is to be the best I can be, not compare myself to others. And my definition of success is what I want it to be, not some measure society offers (like absolute wealth.)
I'm objectively a bad golfer (outside the top 100 000 in my country, as my phone delights in telling me), but my measure for golfing success is how much fun I'm having. I don't hate on Rory for his success.
Tax law certainly doesn't require justification. Neither does public sentiment.
Personally I'm in the camp that wealth could be taxed far more aggressivly. But the current party with political power believes the opposite. My only actual power here is to vote and encourage others to do the same.
I wrote the reply so the asker could reflect on the motivation which in turn can lead to a more satisfying outcome than simple agreement.
Make what you wish of that information.
Meta is profitable and he can afford to lose bets and can pay off the fines if it means that Meta gets an extra $10B for the next quarter.