I cant help but see a difference in the moral standard to which Jensen is being held compared to the moral standard that someone like Elon is being held. Why can one get away with shocking moral behaviour, but the other has to step down for a mild affair. If Jensen didnt have the affair, or it never came to light, would all of this still have taken place?

When Cambridge Analytica happened, no one kicked Mark out of Facebook/Meta.

Not making excuses for Jensen, at his status and power level, this stuff goes with the territory. But I cant help but see a double standard here.

Elon and Zuck set themselves in a position where they are 51% and cannot be ousted by the board by construction.

Jensen messed up by splitting the power between all board members equally, and not getting a bunch of his family on a board.

The lesson is that if you do the right, non-authoritarian thing, you get punished

Jensen isn't stepping down for the affair. He's stepping down because the affair was with a Chinese spy, and his words and actions appear to have facilitated circumvention of exports bans to China, and he concealed it.

Shareholders don't care that he's having sex outside his marriage.

First, I think it’s important we all remember that NVIDIA issued this resignation. NVIDIA’s board != Meta’s or any other company’s board. So there is no double standard because it’s not the same people.

Second, there is no proof that any moral standard is being applied at all. This could (and in my opinion likely) have nothing to do with a moral standard and more to do with extenuating information uncovered in the investigation or a strategic shift to protect against the current admin. There is likely so much happening behind the scenes and so many people have so much money to lose, I think it’s prudent for us to first exhaust all non-moral possibilities (unfortunately).

I do think a lot of people are projecting their societal and marriage expectations onto Jensen. They're expecting that he should follow the same set of standards they follow with their partner. Yes, monogamy is the societal norm - but it is not a requirement of a relationship. And, it is certainly not a requirement of a relationship that you're not a participant in.

In my eyes, this all comes down to the perception that someone is able to be compromised by non-monogamy. Jensen came out, apologized to his wife, and (at least publicly) communicated that he broke the expectations and boundaries of their relationship. This clearly communicated that a secret relationship compromises his position. And, should there be more secret relationships they'd continue to be used as leverage.

Musk isn't subject to this leverage because it's pretty clear that his relationships are not built on traditional definitions. Non-monogamy is either a clearly defined boundary in his relationship or simply not something that concerns him as leverage.

No one really cares, in the grand scheme, that he had affairs. He's being ousted because he potentially compromised national objectives. The NVDA board knows that senate hearings are coming, and want to make sure they have distanced the company from him before that happens (and all the text messages, emails, and details come to light).

The biggest questions are:

1. Did Jensen knowingly compromise national security (criminal implications) 2. What is the fallout / impact in the AI arms race

> the moral standard that someone like Elon is being held

Elon’s comparable fuck-up was betraying Ukraine with his Starlink intervention. It’s a huge deal. Unlike Nvidia, he has no Board to hold him accountable, it will have to be done by the Congress and states. (Europe will be useless as usual.)

As a result, that hammer will fall much more directly on his companies. It will just take more time to do so.

Zuckerberg, to my knowledge, hasn’t compromised American security in a comparable way to these two.

I think the main issue is Jensen crossed the bright red line of national security. Whatever Zuck or Elon did they were nowhere near as political damaging.

Let's put aside that American "free market" scam for now.

Actually, problems where the ownership structure causes CEOs to be removed have been happening over the past 10 years or so.

For example: OpenAI's Altman, Musk, and so on.

Therefore, the ownership structure of Musk's new company SpaceX, which allows him to keep the company firmly under his control, is a very smart approach.

I think a large portion of new companies in the future will become like this.

I think they're both turds, and so are Gates and Bezos for cheating on their wives.

I feel like it might be a cover up for something deeper? I honestly have no clue, it just seems off

This is about national security, not morals.

You’re glossing over (or rather, not even mentioning) the fact that one of the women is a Chinese spy and the other is an exec.

Why do you think Elon has involved himself so directly and closely in politics? He spent almost half a billion to ingratiate himself with Trump and co.

Zuck has a supermajority voting structure. He cannot be fired regardless of what he does.

Corporate governance was apparently not a strength of Mr Huang.

Having an affair with a Chinese Spy and potentially skirting an export ban to sell chips to China AND having an affair with your direct report are not remotely morally or legally comparable to anything Elon or Mark have done. Shocking you would even consider that.

Skin color. Can you imagine if Jensen were even remotely associated with Epstein file?

Musk's companies are overvalued BECAUSE of his unethical behavior. Facebook makes much of its revenue BECAUSE of Zuck's unethical business practices.

Slippery slope ?

this isn't about a moral standard; no one cares about the affairs

the board must know that the risk of Jensen staying on (likely due to whatever hasn't yet been brought to light) is greater than the risk of instability by firing him; whatever is unknown to us must be pretty serious (again, not in terms of more affairs, but other stuff, like selling chips to China or whatever)

Meta's board probably would have fired Zuck over the CA scandal but they were unable to because of the company structure

Elon Musk has no accountability. He has effective control over the boards of his companies. Shareholders know that the value of their shares is predicated largely on this one man, so removing him would destroy their value.

Government could hold him accountable, and some of those gears have been turning over the last decade. In response he has spent a lot of money trying to steer elections and gain the influence of the ones in power to try to avoid accountability from that direction as well.

The double standard is that if you play capitalism well enough you are shielded from the consequences that others would face.

Elon made Tesla using Chinese automation, and China was its second biggest market (and largest for some models). Even though there are the same export controls for Chinese EVs, Elon managed to get around it politically. And lastly, Detroit isn't as shameless and ruthless as Ant/OpenAI are.

I mean the guy tried to break a national security law.

Yes Elon and Zuck are abhorrent, but when they have tried to break the law, they have been held accountable in some sense. Not to the extent that they deserve it, but still.

If they become as big a libility to their businesses, even their controling shares won't save them

Musk and Zuck should both be in jail.

[flagged]