At the level of average employees the company has all the power, but in the higher levels of corporate governance (the board) there is some element of pluralism. The design is set up to avoid autocrats, which is why CEOs can get fired.
At this point in facebook’s history, having a board captured by Zuckerberg is a disastrous mistake. If I were an active share holder in FB I would be furious at him.
Part of the point of a board is to advise and temper the passions of the executives. This is why having board members subservient to the executives is always a warning sign, yes-men get the negative reputation they deserve.
When one person owns a majority of the voting shares, the board is just an advisory group. They have no power over him, except they have his attention and ear.
At this point network effect is on Zuckerberg's side, the only disruption that I hope is coming is a decentralized Facebook, but it's too early for that right now.
Zuck does whatever the hell he wants to. He knows his baby is too big to fail now. It's like he owns the only cigarette company in the world where people are addicted to it by design. Facebook, a 500 billion dollar company, is nothing actually but a spam website pretending to be a social network. I recently installed a browser extension that hides sponsored posts and found my feed literally empty!
I can speculate for hours but my initial impression is that people do this under stress when faced with overwhelming critism and lack the appropriate coping mechanisms to handle said stress. It almost always is an early indicator of absolute breakdown in the individual and subsequently the organization tied to such an individual. Yes organizations can move on, however usually and specifically in this case the person responsible wields too much power and is directly implementing systems that undermine the resiliency of the orginzation to respond effectively to systemic threats.
In the recent-ish drama about FB's memo regarding their culture that valued "connecting people" regardless of the cost (even safety), some employee comments[1] were almost cult-like and seemed to confuse "integrity" with "loyalty".
> “I look forward to working with Mark and the other directors as the company builds new and inspiring ways to help people connect and build community.”
26 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 70.3 ms ] threadI get the impression there are few (if any) limits laid down as far as what Facebook does or doesn't do.
Install(v): place (someone) in a new position of authority, especially with ceremony.
Please don't editorialize titles on HN.
I can speculate for hours but my initial impression is that people do this under stress when faced with overwhelming critism and lack the appropriate coping mechanisms to handle said stress. It almost always is an early indicator of absolute breakdown in the individual and subsequently the organization tied to such an individual. Yes organizations can move on, however usually and specifically in this case the person responsible wields too much power and is directly implementing systems that undermine the resiliency of the orginzation to respond effectively to systemic threats.
> “I look forward to working with Mark and the other directors as the company builds new and inspiring ways to help people connect and build community.”
It appears their priorities haven't changed.
[1] I included a few interesting quotes here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19232909
[I should probably disclose that the one regret I have in life is giving the author of that memo (Boz) his first programming lessons]