No. A CEO’s job is to provide value to shareholders. This doesn’t mean short terms profits at any cost.

Provide value to shareholders or work in the best interest of shareholders? I always took it as: don't enrich yourself to the detriment of shareholders.

Fiduciary duty is more about "do honest work and don't steal from stakeholders".

Nowhere does it state that the gambling bet (publicly listed company) has to optimize for returns of the gamblers (shareholders).

It isn't illegal. And even if it were, the key question is over what timeframe is profit maximised.

Next quarter can be made far more profitable by taking short-term actions that destroy future customer, employee and supplier goodwill. But that just digs a big hole for future profits.

This is about deliberate mind control and behavioral manipulation. For profit. It's disingenuous to claim it's all about free market consumers when you are brainwashing and twisting people. Keep in mind the users are really not the customers anymore. The people posting here are quite a bit higher on the intelligence scale than the general public, who don't really have good critical thinking skills. When you see what happened on Jan 6 I can't find an illustration to prove the point better. FB needs to be regulated for the safety of country. Unless we're all for nihilism. FB is a parasite.

No. Go read Ford v. Dodge. It’s about not actively and deliberately screwing shareholders.

"The Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford could not lower consumer prices and raise employee salaries."

Doesn't this just prove my point?

I oversimplified my statement but would it be legal for lord Zuck to come out tomorrow and say "we are reducing ads by 90% on the platform and here's a checkbox that will disable all tracking and remove all data we have about you that you didn't explicitly upload yourself" with no alternative revenue source presented which inevitably leads to lower revenue for FB which then inevitably means reduced dividends etc.

note: I understand the users are not the "customers" and the actual equivalent would be for Zuck to say to advertisers that the cost to display ads has dropped by 90% which would be even worse for users. My point is the outcome of "lower dividends" being evidently caused by a decision made by the CEO (to now show ads anymore, to not track users behind their backs anymore, etc.) as being in the end illegal.

No it is not. Especially when the CEO holds the majority of voting power (that means company bylaws or whatever it is can be changed by the CEO pretty much unilaterally).

No, absolutely not. And I find it very sad that apparently Big Finance has managed to convince people that it would be.

Profit does not just need to be money based, it can also be defined on mental health and well being no?

Bless your heart.

You should leave this site immediately and never dare return.

LoL why? surly we can measure profit in other forms then money. It's 2nd meaning is simply advantage, benefit. Example "there is no profit screaming at referees from the bench"

Of course "we" can, but we at this site certainly won't, and the relentless tide of half-baked rationalization to this end can drown the weak swimmer.

Sorry do you speak for all members of this website or just yourself. The weak swimmers are what exactly? people who value other people for who they are, not for how much they own? This is confusing.

You should work on your reading comprehension.

Yeah I am confused as it appears you agree with me and I'm debating against myself that is my confusion .