Why not? Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and made them invest in META.

Arguably there's forced investment by index fund holders but now the SP500 eschews companies with that structure, so even index investors can avoid this sort of thing.

Apparently the S&P 500 rule is recently changed:

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announ...

Oh! Well that weakens my point then doesn't it.

It came as a shock to learn this for me too! I thought it was a good rule when they introduced it a few years ago.

Any summary for those who don't execute random PDFs?

Thanks.

I'd argue that no single person should have that much power and wealth in this country. Why is it okay that Zuckerberg has absolute power over one of the most influential companies in the world? How does that benefit society as a whole?

> Why is it okay that Zuckerberg has absolute power over one of the most influential companies in the world?

Because that's the company he founded and owns. It wasn't one of the most influential companies in the world upon being founded, it became so with Zuck at the helm.

> How does that benefit society as a whole?

How does this have anything to do with anything? And how do you propose we measure it?

I'm not asking if it's legal, I'm asking why this system is what is best for society. Is having billionaires controlling our country a good thing?

I haven't mentioned a single thing about legality in my reply, and neither was it intended to imply anything about legality.

You stated that it's because it's the company he founded and owns, which is the legal reason.