I think your confusng pessimism with scepticism.

Either his claim to take responsibility means something, in terms of it actually leading to consequnces and/or actions, or it doesn't. If it's the former, then what are they? If it's the latter, then why?

For example: do shareholders hold him to his responsibility? And if so, how? If they don't, who improves Meta's corporate governance to ensure that this self-admitted mistake doesnt reoccur and sexure their investment?

I've never worked at a BigCorp. How does this stuff work?

I'd like him to say words that have actual meaning, and not words that resemble meaning after being filtered by a PR consultant.

He can resign. As CEO he's ultimately responsible for the share price. By that measure, he just might be the worst-performing employee at the company.

If it was poker, then Mark just lost a big hand because he made a bad call. But he's still got a big stack, so he's not going to walk away from the table.

In poker you might even make the right move, but still lose. It's all probabilities.

Business shares something with that.

He's also got full control of the company and arguably the shareholders not named Zucc want him, so he'd in some way be betraying them.

IIRC, the owner/CEO has fired himself some times, Ford had something like it, and I think LEGO too, years ago.

The shareholders not named zucc have zero influence on him being ceo whether they want him or not. He pioneered the tactic of having multiple classes of stock that let him retain all the voting power while still selling off “stock” that let him get investment money. Imo that sort of setup should be illegal because it leads to the sort of societally damaging behavior we see from meta

The other shareholders could sell at anytime if they don't like it; if they haven't sold, then they like him being CEO as far as we can tell.

They did sell. They literally had the largest losses in a single day in history by a single firm, but it doesn’t matter, he still controls the company

They have sold, in droves. The stock has fallen 73% this year.

It's slightly absurd to say that "sell" is the only lever shareholders should have over public companies. It may be true in practical terms, but it's still a sad state of affairs.

Businesses can be successful while simultaneously operating in ways that you don't personally approve of. You're free to avoid doing business with those organizations.

That has nothing to do with the idea that shareholders have a say on how meta operates

Meta shareholders don't have much say on how Zuck runs things, that's what you signed up for when you buy Meta shares.

How many people upset about Meta layoffs were equally fierce in condemning Zuck for Meta's stock performance over the last decade? Seems like yet another case of people wanting their cake and eating it too -- the only novelty is the people affected are some of the most privileged people in human history.

Societally damaging? Was AT&T labs societally damaging? Xerox park? Etc.

Since when does HN care about the stock price of a random company? The share price reflected the ownership structure so the people that bought in were aware and not coerced to buy the security. We shit on corporate short sightedness and suddenly everyone and their dog has a highly opinionated high conviction bet on what a random company should do with its cash flow?

Personally, I don’t care. If dude wants to try to build the jetsons space car, heck yeah. I’d rather someone in society try hard stuff (positive determinism) than more stock buy backs (like apple) or cash just sitting on the balance sheet idly (like historical google). Even if it 100% fails, society is better if we do research that doesn’t look outright obvious at first…that’s how we get better.

Do you have someone in mind?