I don’t think it’s that simple — yes maybe in private you could say that, but this would set them up for an investor revolt or make them come across as huge assholes if they say things like that.

They may be true, but telling it to everyone is definitely not always better.

Making shit up to obscure the truth is a way bigger asshole move than just telling the truth.

What did they lie about?

Of course. It's not about the best move or what looks better. Nobody cares for that.

It's about the truth. That's what people care about in the end. And if none of it was said here, parent is pointing out that Mark is truly an ass. Something like "laying off people because other companies are doing it" is pretty fucked up.

zuck did say “I want to take accountability for these decisions and for how we got here.”

Is he laying off himself too? Because simply saying "I take accountability" without any actual consequences isn't taking accountability.

he lost 75% of his personal wealth, so there have been pretty real consequences for him already

What does that even mean? He won't have to work for a few centuries instead of a millennium? Lol.

Compared to his employees' livelihoods, a billionaire losing some bit of their immeasurable wealth is irrelevant. He made a stupid bet and doesn't suffer any real consequences for it because Meta has no real accountability.

If we want to treat the numbers as meaningful and make low effort quips about wealth inequality being bad for society when they go up then we must also concede that it is meaningfully bad for him when the numbers go down if we are to be logically consistent.

Personally I think beyond a couple billion it serves no purpose for quality of life for anyone and we only care in order to crudely "keep score" of who's in charge of more "stuff" since it can't really be liquidated or repurposed other endeavors efficiently and these people are de-factor world leaders in some capacity (a private industry analogue to GDP if you will).

It's not a logical inconsistency to point out that dollars matter a lot less once you have enough.

The difference between having a dollar and ten dollars a day is huge. The difference between a hundred and a thousand a day is still big, sure, but you're probably not going to die of starvation either way. And once you're in dev salary land and higher, you're counting bedrooms, acres, cars, vacations, yachts...

The wealth inequality thing matters not because Bezos has spaceships and Zuckerberg only has 3d glasses. It's that we still have millions of people with food and shelter insecurity, regardless of how much the richest have.

It's not a linear thing. Zuckerberg losing a few million is utterly meaningless vs a regular family losing a few thousand.

> If we want to treat the numbers as meaningful and make low effort quips about wealth inequality being bad for society when they go up then we must also concede that it is meaningfully bad for him when the numbers go down if we are to be logically consistent.

No. If wealth inequality is bad, that does not imply wealth is good.

If we simply assume inequality is the bad thing, then we could deduce that the best society would be hunter gatherers with zero wealth, and Zuck losing wealth is a good thing, because it makes society more equal.

It is therefore logically consistent to say "wealth inequality is bad and Zuck losing wealth is good".

That wealth is not “immeasurable”. It’s just hard for someone to understand when their point of comparison is personal finances.

It directly impacts his ability to start new companies, new charities, etc. This is on the scale of wiping out the abilities to create fabs, do infrastructure projects, etc.

Sounds like a good thing. Last thing we need is billionaires owning more things.

It has nothing to do with ownership being good or bad. It’s having people with vision and acumen for financially sustainable businesses setting up these projects for success.

Look at how much the Gates foundation has done for Malaria. What government institution has been able to compete on that level with or without sucking down involuntary tax dollars to support it?

Capitalism is just as often not the meritocracy you think it is, but just capital buying up production...

Not sure what you're getting at with the Gates foundation. Throw enough money and good people at a problem and chances are they'll eventually arrive at a solution. National Parks, Manhattan Project, Apollo, Interstates, dams, the B52 or F22, darpanet, etc. Republicans starving the beast is what kills government. It works fine in many other countries or even ours in past decades.

Losing 75% of wealth is the consequence of holding meta stocks, but it does not make him immune to accountability.

For better or worse (obviously for worse) his relationship with the company is fundamentally different than that of every other employee. He’s a founder and holds a majority of voting equity. That makes him inherently unaccountable in a way that is nearly without precedent in the modern corporate era.

Losing 70% of his net worth makes him directly accountable to the success of the company (lack thereof).

What does taking accountability mean for a permanent CEO who cannot be fired by anyone?

As much as “thoughts and prayers”. It mainly makes the CEO feel better.

It means writing a really heartfelt form letter.

Even if he did, would anyone believe it? This is Zuckerberg we’re talking about.

And who else is accountable? He's the top dog. And apparently well paid to state the obvious.

Typical Gavin Belson move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u48vYSLvKNQ

Of course it has been done for millennia.

How does a CEO with enough class B shares to control shareholder voting take accountability?

Self flagellation perhaps?

Would telling the truth be better if the real truth was “We’ve been waiting for a good excuse to drop a bunch of people and boost the bottom line short-term so we can get some loans”?

p.s. I’m making up a scenario based on other businesses, I have no idea what meta is doing these days

> I have no idea what meta is doing these days

What you said, but in a Second Life clone.

The tech industry labor market has been cooling rapidly this year, it's not only ad-tech companies, and certainly not only in companies who might have over-hired due to betting everything on metaverse.

Or the fed increased interest rates and the economy is forced into recession too stop inflation.

Are you trolling? that would be worse for literally everyone involved. Have you held yourself to this standard in your professional life? it seems so absurd

Yeah, in 2008 I saw the writing on the wall. Told my team we'd all be laid off soon. I finished the project I was on first and was the first laid off due to no more work.

> the truth is always better

A favourite Mr. Robot scenes has everybody at the AllSafe office wearing a giant badge with their most fundamental truth written on it. It mocks a "post-privacy" some fools advocate, via the cynical eyes of Esmail's hacker character Elliot.

Point being; human relations don't work on "truths" but on carefully managed mutually secured fictions and personas to protect us and preserve power relations. Traditionally we call those "manners" (tactical lying so others can save face etc). But for the comedy of unexpectedly volunteered truths, who wouldn't enjoy a Mufti Day, where everyone at work gets to speak the unvarnished truth with absolute impunity for a day?

Many people can't handle the truth. That's why see weird situations that don't make sense(i.e religion, populist leaders, snakeoil etc)