> What “does his majority control over Facebook” have to do with the accusations about Facebook’s behavior? Would the behavior be ok if it were majority controlled by mutual funds?

It has to do with the fact that if you control something, you are directly responsible for it. By having sole control of FB, MZ is completely responsible for it, for better or worse.

So if it were controlled by mutual funds people would want mutual funds to be held responsible? Or would they turn to the CEO?

It also means if the board was comprised by a diverse set of people (which it is) they could oust him if they wanted (they can't). The public could put pressure on those people much easier than putting sole pressure on him.

So if Zuckerberg reinvested thru a mutual it would be ok?

Was the problem with Theranos that’s it’s board wasn’t diverse enough?

I wonder how a Facebook without Zuckerberg perform? Would it zip along for a while before slowing to irrelevance like the times Jobs left Apple?

The implicit assertion is that this behavior wouldn't happen if not for Zuckerberg personally causing the behavior.

As someone who has worked at large tech companies though, I find that to be an extremely questionable assertion.

FB has incentives. Zuckerberg didn't invent the dynamics surrounding their business, and I don't see how having a faceless bureaucracy in charge would lead to an organization that is more willing to reject its own incentives.

If anything it would seem like having more obscure and diffuse leadership would lead to less accountability, not more.

This week’s EconTalk talks about that concept a bit. It gets a little tedious in spitballing solutions but I guess someone has to start somewhere.

https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-reforming-governmen...