I'm not sure if you're being facetious. The board of directors role is to look after the shareholders' interests. A good board is exactly that - the representatives of the shareholders.

Care to explain why?

ah, well, I'll just have to take your word for it, since you've articulated no form of case whatsoever

The argument is that the shareholders who own the majority of a company's stock (by value, not voting rights) should be able to control the company, not a minority owner. It is the corporate structure that allows guaranteed minority control (e.g. Zuckerberg owns something like 13% of Meta, but controls 60% of the voting power). In a free market, why should publicly traded companies be allowed to sell "shares" that are not ownership in the traditional sense?

So if you don't want to to happen just don't issue shares on the stock market ?

It's entirely fair to think that, given what I said, that I would mean to do this without some form of legal basis. Not so!

Is it my view that Meta has engaged in a sustained course of unlawful conduct that persists despite the judgements the law has already applied, and will persist into the future. As a corporation who is consistently in court, and based in Delaware, it surely seems to me the bar has been passed -- the AG of the state would be well within their rights to revoke their charter. Meta's entire basis of being at this point is to control public discourse. That's direct harm to the state and the public at large.

What happens to their assets afterwards is a job for the courts. Applying existing law is "retroactive authoritarian". Pfft, please. Ignorance of the law is not a defense against it.

What is it that you’re actually trying to say here.

I think you’re confused on the essence of what he was trying to say.

The comparison was drawn because when you are such a position of power, your actions have such a monumental sway. Thousands, millions of people’s of lives are impacted, for better or for worse. In Jensen’s case, that’s up to the court of public opinion.

However the thinking is that when you are in that position, a just and fair society would probably want to keep just and fair and morally tact people in those positions.

IMHO I don’t care what way you want to spin it, when you have that level of influence over one of the major drivers of the AI boom, you have INCREDIBLE power compared to what most people think of when you say “private citizen”.

You're missing the point of the commenter which is that neoliberal social order confounds the empirical evidence. The framing of "x approach is better for a company's success" is a non-question, it is beside the point. Distribution of power "under neoliberalism" is a self contradictory model.

You don't have to agree with leftists but ignoring the premise just lets you talk past the point.