This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: he was never hired by the board and they've never had a chance to fire him. Investors can sell the stock if they don't like what he does, but that is not a "professional advisor" relationship.

It's mostly a cult of personality relationship, and you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.

Independently on what you think of Zuckerberg as a human being, on the basis of acquisitions alone, he can be judged as an insanely effective CEO. The way Meta managed the shift from Facebook to Instagram is impressive from a strategic point of view.

Heck, Meta literally controls the world most popular chat application. I never liked social media, spent most of the past fifteen years avoiding them as much I could while maintaining just enough presence to stay reachable and a Meta application still remain my most used one.

Let's not forget that Google, for all their billions, utterly failed to significantly attack Meta market.

> This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case:

I already agreed with the correction - he has voting control.

What is still incorrect is imagining that billions of dollars gets you advisors who know how to run a company - and those people aren't just high level executives already running companies.

> you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.

The burden is on you to show a successful CEO for over a decade is actually an idiot.