Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Votes To Keep Peter Thiel On Facebook Board (gizmodo.com)
Mark Zuckerberg has decided to keep billionaire VC Peter Thiel on Facebook's board of directors. The decision comes after weeks of controversy over whether it was appropriate for billionaire Thiel, who recently admitted to secretly funding a campaign of third-party lawsuits to bankrupt Gawker Media (more relevant but paywalled link, to remain on the board of a company that now plays such a powerful role in publishing. From a Gizmodo report: At Facebook's annual shareholders meeting today, every board member was up for re-election. The decision was made by shareholder vote, but ultimately fell to Zuckerberg, who controls more than 60 percent of the total voting power on the Facebook board.
Well then, it wasn't really up to a vote then was it?
Captcha: Approval
"who recently admitted to secretly funding a campaign of third-party lawsuits to bankrupt Gawker Media"
Peter Thiel never admitted that, according to the articles linked. It was Jay Rosen, media critic and a professor of journalism at New York University who stated that opinion.
Also, half the links are from Gawker, which is obviously not an impartial actor in this spectacle.
I guess reporting on board positions isn't that exciting without spicing it up with gossipy speculation of a person's motives.
give everyone else the bird
Am I the only one who thinks it's wrong to scrutinize what people do during their own time, and then use that information to decide how they are to be treated on company time? If the shareholders are fine with the way Thiel is performing in his official Facebook role, that should be the only criteria. If he is doing a bad job and damaging Facebook in any way, he should be fired for that reason and only that reason.
I didn't like the way that prior Mozilla executive was treated either. His performance at Mozilla should have been his only employment criteria. What he did to be active in politics during his own time was no one else's business.
Anything else, and you get a very nasty "snitch" culture where conformity is everything and a tremendous chilling effect is applied to what really should be free expression.
Can't have them being accountable to the plebs.
Ah, democracy at it's best. Dozens, hundreds, thousands, or millions vote, but so few votes matter.
Perhaps it's time for a better voting system, you know, like one that actually gives everyone more than just a "say"? Maybe one that gives everyone some actual influence?
Just a thought. 5 million votes for A, 5 million and 1 votes for B. B wins. 5 million voters never ever ever get what they want, because as the minority, they have zero influence. Ah the 49% minority.
How about a MUCH better system for considering votes?
Facebook's not a publisher. They sell ads and user data, not any kind of publication at all.
So now we begin the purge of everyone with politics someone doesn't like? Is that how this is going to be? Decades of tolerance, but now we just throw that out the window for modern day purges?
The lawsuit only bankrupted Gawker because THEY DID WRONG AND IGNORED A COURT ORDER. They also basically admitted to being pedophiles that would publish sex tapes of anyone over FOUR. If they'd faced meritless suits, it'd be Thiel that would run out of money because yes, you can be declared a vexatious litigant and you can be liable for both court costs and reasonable attorneys fees depending on the judge's ruling and the specific type of lawsuit.
And... let's just ignore that this is exactly what the ACLU, etc. does. I don't see why "help the victims of Gawker" isn't a worthy cause as it fights to protect our privacy rights. But noooo, various scumbags in the media who love to sell out our privacy can't possibly support the idea that they might have to pay for their wrongdoing.
I hope he sues and bankrupts more scumbag, pedophile media outlets. The world would be a better place if more of them were in the unemployment line.
I love how all these guys sit on each others' boards of directors. A corporate board is supposed to put shareholders first. Instead, they vote each other huge raises, make sure the C-level execs are compensated like fucking Midas and have a big jerk-off circle when it comes to laying off employees.
Is there any reason why it should be legal to sit on the board of directors of more than one company?
You are welcome on my lawn.
It was a valid lawsuit. I could see hating on someone if they were funding a long, drug out, suit with lots of delay tactics over nothing to try and force a settlement or bankrupt the other side. However the Hogan suit went to trial, and Hogan won in short order.
I don't see anything bad with someone funding a legitimate suit.
Zuckerberg, who controls more than 60 percent of the total voting power
so... he controls 100% of the voting power then
J-Law n00dz = horrible invasion of privacy. Burn down the Internet!
Hulk's sex tape = fun for the whole family. We will not be censored!
The article may simply cite a third party, but Thiel did admit it in an interview.
When pressed on the matter, Mark Zuckerberg stated simply, "I felt like, you know, it's way less horrible than the stuff we do as a company at Facebook, so if anything, we should be giving him more responsibilities."
Just look at the way any company that Zuckerberg gets involved in abuses its own customers. Really what did you expect?
Why wouldn't you want to keep an adult that behaves like a pouty, selfish, vindictive child?
but this big bad evil billionaire wants to bankrupt us to silence the press!"
Pretty much sums it up.
Peter Thiel is a hero of the people, helping take down a brutal thug that did nothing but chase ambulances and try to profit off the sorrow of others.
Maybe we need an alternative. This brings me to an idea for a new project: a kickstarter of sorts, but for lawsuits! Rather than let semi-anonymous billionaires fund lawsuits against the scummy corps we all hate, we can do so through group funding. It's like a class-action but gets around those pesky EULA clauses forbidding such.
close your parenthesis!
Slashdot has no problem with Eric Schmit campaigning for Mrs. Clinton or with google never autocompleting to "Crooked Hillary" or with Apple refusing to support one of the party's conventions, but it has a big problem when a tech figure supports the other side.
Are slashdotters trying to be techie hacks or political hacks?