What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How would you rank Mark Zuckerburg in effectiveness leading a company? (2 Viewers)

How would you rank Mark Zuckerburg in effectiveness in leading a company?


  • Total voters
    39
We allowed to talk about this social media platform?

Great news!

Yes. This one will hopefully be easier to not have it turn political. At least that's the hope.
Why don't you let us know your thoughts on Zuck? Then we'll have an idea how long this one lasts.
My thoughts on him have nothing to do with if we can keep this thread from becoming a political thread. And that's what will determine if it can stay. Exactly like the other thread.
 
I think the results speak for themselves here.

Not only did he create one of the most influential businesses in history, but he then found a way to monetize it incredibly well when everyone assumed it couldn't be monetized, and has continued to keep it relevant and at the top even as it was assumed by everyone that it was a fading fad that wasn't interesting to younger generations.

He's a dorky weirdo that everyone loves to pick on, but you could give a lot of CEOs Facebook 15 years ago and they would have driven it into irrelevancy by now. He takes big risks and a lot of them have paid off.
 
Obviously was incredible at the development of FB and was savy to buy IG and WhatsApp. Threads was a flop. Whatever he is doing with that meta reality thing is a flop and beyond dumb. Now he is putting $10 Billion into AI. What the end goal of that AI company is, I am not sure. It's been a red hot run for him but he also benefitted from getting there first with social media. I question how sustainable it is long term.
 
I think the results speak for themselves here.

Not only did he create one of the most influential businesses in history, but he then found a way to monetize it incredibly well when everyone assumed it couldn't be monetized, and has continued to keep it relevant and at the top even as it was assumed by everyone that it was a fading fad that wasn't interesting to younger generations.

He's a dorky weirdo that everyone loves to pick on, but you could give a lot of CEOs Facebook 15 years ago and they would have driven it into irrelevancy by now. He takes big risks and a lot of them have paid off.
Not too different from Musk, whom I remember being celebrated as a genius on this forum not too long ago. Now, a lot has changed since then, but he’s also a tech weirdo and visionary leader.
 
I can't separate the effectiveness as head of a corporation from the product if we're talking about the potential end of humanity as the result. What good is a company if you yourself wind up enslaved by machines who are so smart relative to you that even having overseen their rise you're a useless impediment and they tear your meat and bones apart?

I mean, how effective is the man that kills himself? Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to get into martyrdom or as my friend's performance art troupe once called themselves, Future Suicide Heroes.

I guess I mean that if you're Brand New and an emo post-hardcore band, what if you're

 
Last edited:
Obviously was incredible at the development of FB and was savy to buy IG and WhatsApp. Threads was a flop. Whatever he is doing with that meta reality thing is a flop and beyond dumb. Now he is putting $10 Billion into AI. What the end goal of that AI company is, I am not sure. It's been a red hot run for him but he also benefitted from getting there first with social media. I question how sustainable it is long term.
This mirrors much of what I was going to say, which is why I voted average. Facebook was a massive success, but was it because he was an amazing visionary, or he stumbled into the right idea at the right time, or a bit of both? Buying IG and WhatsApp was very smart. But the metaverse distraction seems like an enormous fumble, one the company probably couldn’t have survived if not sitting on an enormous cash pile from Facebook. His inability to turn Threads into a viable alternative to Twitter seems like a fail. Facebook itself is in slow decline, and the AI pivot, while probably necessary in today’s tech climate, has an unclear vision or endgame.
 
He’s been highly successful stealing the personal data of hundreds of millions of people and monetizing that stolen asset. Clearly extremely successful to do that without getting sued and either losing his company or ending up in prison.
 
Obviously was incredible at the development of FB and was savy to buy IG and WhatsApp. Threads was a flop. Whatever he is doing with that meta reality thing is a flop and beyond dumb. Now he is putting $10 Billion into AI. What the end goal of that AI company is, I am not sure. It's been a red hot run for him but he also benefitted from getting there first with social media. I question how sustainable it is long term.
This mirrors much of what I was going to say, which is why I voted average. Facebook was a massive success, but was it because he was an amazing visionary, or he stumbled into the right idea at the right time, or a bit of both? Buying IG and WhatsApp was very smart. But the metaverse distraction seems like an enormous fumble, one the company probably couldn’t have survived if not sitting on an enormous cash pile from Facebook. His inability to turn Threads into a viable alternative to Twitter seems like a fail. Facebook itself is in slow decline, and the AI pivot, while probably necessary in today’s tech climate, has an unclear vision or endgame.
That’s the most baffling part of so much modern tech investment is they often seem to dump billions into things with only vague ideas of how they will be able to profit from it.
 
I can't separate the effectiveness as head of a corporation from the product if we're talking about the potential end of humanity as the result. What good is a company if you yourself wind up enslaved by machines who are so smart relative to you that even having overseen their rise you're useless and an impediment and they tear your meat and bones apart?

I mean, how effective is the man that kills himself? Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to get into martyrdom or as my friend's performance art troupe once called themselves, Future Suicide Heroes.

I guess I mean that if you're Brand New and an emo post-hardcore band, what if you're

I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion AGI decides to enslave us. Call me a pollyanna, but I believe it’s just as probable it solves aging, or performs some other heroic task for humankind.

At the very least, why not create a bunch of immortal slaves, whose meat just falls off the bone?
 
I can't separate the effectiveness as head of a corporation from the product if we're talking about the potential end of humanity as the result. What good is a company if you yourself wind up enslaved by machines who are so smart relative to you that even having overseen their rise you're useless and an impediment and they tear your meat and bones apart?

I mean, how effective is the man that kills himself? Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to get into martyrdom or as my friend's performance art troupe once called themselves, Future Suicide Heroes.

I guess I mean that if you're Brand New and an emo post-hardcore band, what if you're

I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion AGI decides to enslave us. Call me a pollyanna, but I believe it’s just as probable it solves aging, or performs some other heroic task for humankind.

At the very least, why not create a bunch of immortal slaves, whose meat just falls off the bone?

Very well could solve aging or figure out how to model the weather and stop the climate from changing or . . .

create a bunch of immortal slaves. That's sort of worse than p(doom) and I've already thought about it, believe me.

"Make me immortal!!!"

"Okay, immortality comin' right up, slave!"
 
Obviously was incredible at the development of FB and was savy to buy IG and WhatsApp. Threads was a flop. Whatever he is doing with that meta reality thing is a flop and beyond dumb. Now he is putting $10 Billion into AI. What the end goal of that AI company is, I am not sure. It's been a red hot run for him but he also benefitted from getting there first with social media. I question how sustainable it is long term.
This mirrors much of what I was going to say, which is why I voted average. Facebook was a massive success, but was it because he was an amazing visionary, or he stumbled into the right idea at the right time, or a bit of both? Buying IG and WhatsApp was very smart. But the metaverse distraction seems like an enormous fumble, one the company probably couldn’t have survived if not sitting on an enormous cash pile from Facebook. His inability to turn Threads into a viable alternative to Twitter seems like a fail. Facebook itself is in slow decline, and the AI pivot, while probably necessary in today’s tech climate, has an unclear vision or endgame.
That’s the most baffling part of so much modern tech investment is they often seem to dump billions into things with only vague ideas of how they will be able to profit from it.

But that's what Facebook itself was at one time.

And that's the difference between meta versus reddit/Pinterest/Snapchat/etc. Zuck is way better than most at monetizing things, and growing beyond their core use case.

Just looking at Facebook itself, there is no reason that should be one of the 10 largest companies in the world. Facebook and twitter are basically the same thing. But meta is 10000x more successful as a business.
 
Last edited:
Obviously was incredible at the development of FB and was savy to buy IG and WhatsApp. Threads was a flop. Whatever he is doing with that meta reality thing is a flop and beyond dumb. Now he is putting $10 Billion into AI. What the end goal of that AI company is, I am not sure. It's been a red hot run for him but he also benefitted from getting there first with social media. I question how sustainable it is long term.
This mirrors much of what I was going to say, which is why I voted average. Facebook was a massive success, but was it because he was an amazing visionary, or he stumbled into the right idea at the right time, or a bit of both? Buying IG and WhatsApp was very smart. But the metaverse distraction seems like an enormous fumble, one the company probably couldn’t have survived if not sitting on an enormous cash pile from Facebook. His inability to turn Threads into a viable alternative to Twitter seems like a fail. Facebook itself is in slow decline, and the AI pivot, while probably necessary in today’s tech climate, has an unclear vision or endgame.

Lots of people stumble into good ideas. Very few of them turn them into $2T companies.

Jack Dorsey stumbled into a great idea and made a $40B company out of it.

YouTube stumbled into a great idea and made $1.5B out of it.

Zuck stumbled into a great idea and made a $2 TRILLION company out of it.

Those aren't even on the same planet, despite the software/idea being relatively the same. Meta only continues to grow even as people have continually said their core business is a dying fad for the last decade, and that it couldn't be monitized properly, etc. You could give 10,000 people the idea and software of Facebook 20 years ago and 9,999 of them wouldn't have built a $2T company out of it.
 
I can't separate the effectiveness as head of a corporation from the product if we're talking about the potential end of humanity as the result. What good is a company if you yourself wind up enslaved by machines who are so smart relative to you that even having overseen their rise you're useless and an impediment and they tear your meat and bones apart?

I mean, how effective is the man that kills himself? Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to get into martyrdom or as my friend's performance art troupe once called themselves, Future Suicide Heroes.

I guess I mean that if you're Brand New and an emo post-hardcore band, what if you're

I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion AGI decides to enslave us. Call me a pollyanna, but I believe it’s just as probable it solves aging, or performs some other heroic task for humankind.

At the very least, why not create a bunch of immortal slaves, whose meat just falls off the bone?

Very well could solve aging or figure out how to model the weather and stop the climate from changing or . . .

create a bunch of immortal slaves. That's sort of worse than p(doom) and I've already thought about it, believe me.

"Make me immortal!!!"

"Okay, immortality comin' right up, slave!"
With the right fembot, think I’d prefer it over feeding worms. :excited:
 
How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.
By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**
 
Overall pretty good. Plenty of things could have been done better along the way. He probably missed the mark on some ethical dilemmas, but if it wasn't him, it would have been the next guy up. Facebook changed the world. We kind of have to take the good with the bad.
 
Top 10 company that he has founded and led since inception less than 25 years ago. 1.8T market cap. Global saturation and engagement. Can influence elections. 100B in profit per year on a growth trend.

Seems top tier to me.
 
If success at “monetizing” means convincing the gullible to share their personal info and develop tools to siphon up every internet connection you have and create a data mine that understands a persona motivations better than they understand themselves, so they can sell that info to marketers/politicians/law enforcement: he is wildly successful. Ethical? Maybe not
 
Pretty much what others have said. If we're defining this as "making money at all costs", then top tier. If we're including ethical and societal concerns, then pretty awful.
 
If you think a good business leader should incite riots that kill people in developing countries because they like to cut costs and not pay for moderation then Zuck is #1 CEO ever!

Another internal report compiled in 2020, shown to the Wall Street Journal, linked hateful rhetoric seen on Facebook to the Delhi riots, tracking a 300 per cent rise in previous levels of inflammatory content in the months leading up to the bloodshed.

The researchers wrote that Hindu and Muslim users in India reported being bombarded with content on Facebook and WhatsApp that encouraged conflict and violence, with incendiary and divisive content primarily targeting Muslims.



The above riot only killed 53 people, those are rookie numbers for zuck though, nothing like causing 700,000 people to flee their home country because of your product. That is a good, strong, powerful CEO that has that much influence on the world they can cause 700,000 people to flee to a neighboring country.

The Rohingya are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority based in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State. In August 2017, more than 700,000 Rohingya fled Rakhine when the Myanmar security forces launched a targeted campaign of widespread and systematic murder, rape and burning of homes. The violence followed decades of state-sponsored discrimination, persecution, and oppression against the Rohingya that amounts to apartheid.

 
Last edited:
How would you rank Zuckerburg in effectiveness in leading a company?
I voted Elite, but if there was a higher option I'd have gone higher.

Strictly w/r/t the question at hand, he's been phenomenal.
  • Current market cap is $1.8 trillion. That's trillion with a T.
  • Trailing 12 month return to shareholders is over 40%
  • 20 year return (I was shooting for "since inception" but this was the longest I could find) is 2,562%. That's ridiculous.
I honestly don't see how anyone could vote for anything less than Good. That's just misreading the question as far as I'm concerned. You can question the current strategy (evidenced by the name change to Meta, etc.), but past performance has been remarkable.
 
Obviously was incredible at the development of FB and was savy to buy IG and WhatsApp. Threads was a flop. Whatever he is doing with that meta reality thing is a flop and beyond dumb. Now he is putting $10 Billion into AI. What the end goal of that AI company is, I am not sure. It's been a red hot run for him but he also benefitted from getting there first with social media. I question how sustainable it is long term.
I think the best comp would be J.D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) in terms of buying up the competition and other forms of anti-competitive behavior. We'll see if the end is the same; from Google AI :lmao: using this):
While Rockefeller's business acumen was undeniable, his monopolistic practices led to widespread criticism and ultimately, government intervention to break up the trust.
 
How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.
By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.
 
If you think a good business leader should incite riots that kill people in developing countries because they like to cut costs and not pay for moderation then Zuck is #1 CEO ever!
I'm not entirely sure, but I think this statement is sarcastic (one of my least favorite things, sarcasm).

There are very few (if any) companies that put the pursuit of profit and shareholder return below anything. Companies will do as much as they are required to do by government regulation. Phillip Morris, Union Carbide, Exxon ... the list is (sadly) endless.

I think your underlying issue may be with Capitalism.
 
I put 'good'. On the one hand, he's obviously been elite at accomplishing his main goals. I think people are wrong in interpreting some of his big 'swing and miss' projects as negatives. You need to do some of those to hit home runs.

That said, I think he's made the world a worse place, hasn't treated his customers well at all, and hasn't always treated his employees and business partners well either.

While most companies sacrifice some ethics for profit, he's gone way further than many in that regard.
 
I hate the (expletive!) and don't care how much market cap he carves out, he's turned the youngsters and many adults into internet zombies

-I don't "social media" including MyFace, Twitless, Knock Knock and whatever other crap they convince folks to post all their private fake lives up for everyone to marvel at
Drug Kingpins are good at their job and lead hundreds of criminals, but that doesn't mean I am going to tip my hat to their ability to break the law

-I consider Zucker a criminal that participated in numerous lies that benefitted him and his company, if that makes him a. great CEO then I guess I'm behind on definitions of greatness
You all know what he did, books have been written, unforgivable IMHO
I would like to take it much further but out of respect for the house rules I will simply leave it at that.

"MoP hates social media" :yes:
@Runkle :hifive:
 
Is there a list/website that outlines Facebook and Zuckerberg's perceived failures? I knew they had some moderation and algorithm ethical issues, but I'm guessing by a few posts here that there is a lot I don't know about.
 
How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.
By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.
I don't know of anyone else around here that has sparky as part of their name, so I am going to assume you're talking about me. I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?
 
How would you rank Zuckerburg in effectiveness in leading a company?
I voted Elite, but if there was a higher option I'd have gone higher.

Strictly w/r/t the question at hand, he's been phenomenal.
  • Current market cap is $1.8 trillion. That's trillion with a T.
  • Trailing 12 month return to shareholders is over 40%
  • 20 year return (I was shooting for "since inception" but this was the longest I could find) is 2,562%. That's ridiculous.
I honestly don't see how anyone could vote for anything less than Good. That's just misreading the question as far as I'm concerned. You can question the current strategy (evidenced by the name change to Meta, etc.), but past performance has been remarkable.
I agree with this completely. By any objective measure he’s been wildly successful as a CEO and founder.

I also will continue to say that he tricked people into stealing their personal data and then monetized it. I absolutely believe others would have and actually have done the same thing (it’s now textbook for how social media firms make money) — but I still believe he belongs in white collar prison and his wealth should be confiscated because it was obtained illegally and largely without known consent. (Early days — now we all know our data is being taken, so today we are complicit in the actions being taken).
 
How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.
By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.
I don't know of anyone else around here that has sparky as part of their name, so I am going to assume you're talking about me. I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?

You left a thumbs up like emoji on the post I replied to: "By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**"

:shrug:
 
Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.
This is exactly what I said - whether intentional or not, the framing of your question was intended to engage. By approaching such a hot button topic open-ended you're inviting hard-line perspectives, while also nurturing an environment in which you don't want such content. This was fine when there was a PSF for such a subject, but with that shut down, and content shared by posters regulated, you're fostering an environment for discord. Again, whether intentional or not.

This is your house, you aren't interested in me telling you how to run it, nor is it my place anyway. I'm choosing to share this rather than a direct reply because content is regulated. My actual response will tail some content already shared and disrupt what I think you want to achieve with this thread, and others like it. Not because I'm trying to be a pollutant, but rather I have strong informed opinions on what I think of him from a moral / ethical perspective and those are (VERY) important traits of a leader.

Anyway, I think it's important you're aware of feedback like this whether you appreciate it. There are unintended consequences to regulation and...well, this is it. This would be a great subject for the PSF though.
 
How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.
By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.
I don't know of anyone else around here that has sparky as part of their name, so I am going to assume you're talking about me. I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?

You left a thumbs up like emoji on the post I replied to: "By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**"

:shrug:
You're being serious?
 
How are you judging effectiveness? Shareholder value? Employee engagement? Something else?

You can use whatever definition you like. For me, I think it's an overall look at how well and effectively he leads the company.
By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**

Not really. It's of average engagement it looks like and I don't have any idea how the thread will end. Why would you assume it would end? I asked the question about how effective a leader people thought he was. If you and sparky don't like the question, I'm sorry. I do think it will be of interest to some people.
I don't know of anyone else around here that has sparky as part of their name, so I am going to assume you're talking about me. I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?

You left a thumbs up like emoji on the post I replied to: "By leaving measurements open-ended you've both increased short-term engagement and erased all doubt how this thread will end **delete**"

:shrug:
You're being serious?

Yes. I don't have time to waste otherwise.

You said, "I haven't even weighed in on this thread and have made ZERO comment on it. I just came across it a couple minutes ago, began reading and see this. Do you even read the threads?"

While leaving a thumbsup like emoji on the post I was talking about. :shrug:
 
Anyway, I think it's important you're aware of feedback like this whether you appreciate it.

Thanks. It's always appreciated. I may disagree. but differing opinions are almost always something I'm interested. Definitely interested in this one. Thanks for sharing.

To add, @MAC_32, this wasn't my intent to have it spin off to another thread, but now that I think on it, I think a "How do you define an effective CEO?" could be a related topic that might be interesting.
 
Seems pretty on point that a number of armchair quarterbacks on a fantasy football message board would have no problem critiquing one of the most successful business owners alive today.

Anyone posting in this thread has achieved 1,000th (at best) what Zuckerberg has.

I think the same thing of people that called Musk an idiot when he bought Twitter.

To quote the movie, The Social Network, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

I've noticed people on the internet think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they ought.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top