- 4,653
- 12,789
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2019
Yes, I agree, SNAP, FB, and companies like it were able to expand at low costs, I don't take issue with that fact.
Truth is FB changed advertising as we know it, and are responsible for the social media companies we see today. He turned what numerous companies had tried to do before and did it (Myspace, Tumblr etcc...) FB literally created a new industry.
Can you share which companies have founders that do 5x revenue of FB that aren't close to his net-worth? Curious to know.....
I don't conflate innovation with "good for society". In previous posts I mentioned FB as a company should be regulated and is bad for society as it is currently configured. I also added I think he is a bad person.
I was exaggerating a bit but the point is most computer markets have strong network effects and the winners produce concentrated wealth that wasn't once possible in a post new-deal US
large industrial companies like Exxon Mobil and GM have long been fully public in the sense of having no particularly large shareholder
by "good for society" I don't mean the business being good/bad. I mean an individual's ability to accumulate so much wealth
our whole system of government has been corrupted by these very interests that are also often rigging the outcomes to produce the concentrations of wealth. as the wealth accumulates in the hands of a few, so does the consolidation of power