Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook The Almighty Buck

Mark Zuckerberg Votes To Keep Peter Thiel On Facebook Board (gizmodo.com) 155

Posted by msmash from the money-can-buy-anything dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Zuckerberg Votes To Keep Peter Thiel On Facebook Board More

Mark Zuckerberg Votes To Keep Peter Thiel On Facebook Board

Comments Filter:

  • Er (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:16PM (#52354987)

    Well then, it wasn't really up to a vote then was it?

    Captcha: Approval

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Just like the Democratic Party presidential primaries!

    • Well then, it wasn't really up to a vote then was it?

      Zuckerberg controls 60% of the voting power? Doesn't seem much like a *public* corporation...

  • Biased Article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wasteoid ( 1897370 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:17PM (#52354999)
    "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.

    • That aside (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:28PM (#52355081)

      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.

    • Re:Biased Article (Score:5, Informative)

      by theIsovist ( 1348209 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:49PM (#52355259)
      FYI, he did come out as the financier for that lawsuit, which did bankrupt Gawker. Whether or not that was his specific intention, I couldn't say, but he did have an ax to grind and subsequently bury in Gawker. Non-gawker related source below:

      http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/... [npr.org]

      • 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.

    • Re:Biased Article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@worf.ERDOSnet minus math_god> on Monday June 20, 2016 @04:02PM (#52355405)

      "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.

      It's an article from a Gawker site (Gizmodo). ALL the Gawker sites are heavily Anti-Thiel, and they're playing up the whole "We're just a news organization who did no wrong but this big bad evil billionaire wants to bankrupt us to silence the press!" aspect.

      They never acknowledge that it was a valid lawsuit, that they were found guilty, that they purposefully ignored court orders, etc. Just "First Amendment!" and "We're innocent!".

      Always playing up to the "Evil billionaire wants to silence news organization" card. Ignoring their own transgressions.

      The Hogan lawsuit was just as much as seeking revenge as slapping Gawker with the reality that no, news organizations are NOT above the law

      It's really the only thing Gawker is writing about daily - and they're the only organization claiming this - everyone else has pretty much filed it away and isn't even taking sides, preferring a more balanced view.

    • The article may simply cite a third party, but Thiel did admit it in an interview [nytimes.com].

    • You're acting like this was someones opinion. There IS proof that Thiel was behind all of these suits. It wasn't just some made up fairy tale.
      • Thiel helped fund the lawsuits, obviously that part is fact. However, Gawker and other sites / people spin it like his intention was to bankrupt Gawker, whereas Thiel's own words say something different (from the NY Times article [nytimes.com]):

        “It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,” he said on Wednesday in his first interview since his identity was revealed. “I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there
  • give everyone else the bird

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

      Well there seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece: a headline regarding mass awareness of a certain avian variety.

  • Am I the only one? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:19PM (#52355021)

    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.

    • Re:Am I the only one? (Score:4, Informative)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:30PM (#52355097)

      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 your private action makes the corporation look bad, you can generally be fired from your job. A good reason to keep your personal and professional lives as separate as possible.

      • There's also the difference that Brendan Eich's crusade of hate was actively bringing discredit to Mozilla and was creating a toxic environment at the company. Seriously, if you worked for a company whose CEO had publicly avowed that he hated your living guts and believed your were sub-human and undersizing of the same civil rights of other citizens, I expect it's be a major issue. That hostile of work environment could even be actionable under California law. He clearly had to go.

        Peter Thiel, on the oth

    • 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.

      In general I agree, I think neither Thiel nor the Mozilla exec did anything to warrant losing their positions.

      However, I still think it's fair to hold board members and corporate officers to a somewhat higher standard when it comes to their public private activities. Even when they don't speak on behalf of their organizations their voice is significantly amplified by their professional roles, and what they say can reflect back on those organizations.

      • Evidently Sheryl Sandberg sees it differently in this case. From TFA: “Peter did what he did on his own and not as a Facebook board member,” Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg said of Thiel’s decision to fund lawsuits

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by barc0001 ( 173002 )

      The thinking is that private actions and motivations may color their judgment. Maybe not so far, but what happens if for example it's somehow financially advantageous for Facebook to partner with Gawker? That isn't going to happen with Thiel around.

      > I didn't like the way that prior Mozilla executive was treated either. His performance at Mozilla should have been his only employment criteria.

      Oh you mean the one who believes that not everyone is equal?

      > What he did to be active in politics during his

      • The only way it could be financially advantageous for Facebook to associate with Gawker would be if Facebook would die and be shut down. But we can't have a perfect world . It will have to do for Gawker alone to die and be shut down.

      • Re:Am I the only one? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @06:39PM (#52356235)

        Oh you mean the one who believes that not everyone is equal?

        I was unaware that donating $1k to a campaign against same-sex marriage means that they believe 'not everyone is equal'

        Does this mean when democrats give money to an anti-gun cause... they can be labeled as not seeing everyone as equal? Never-mind their own armed security.

        If republicans give money to an anti-abortion cause... they can be labeled as not seeing everyone as equal? Never-mind men don't really have abortions.

        Spoiler: Not all of us are equal.

        Some are tall, some are short, some are fat, some are thin, some of us are full of love... you clearly are full of hate so many years later.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I was unaware that donating $1k to a campaign against same-sex marriage means that they believe 'not everyone is equal'

          If you replace "same-sex" with "interracial", does it become any clearer?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Oh you mean the one who believes that not everyone is equal?

          I was unaware that donating $1k to a campaign against same-sex marriage means that they believe 'not everyone is equal'

          When it comes to marriage, yes, it pretty much goes with the territory.

          Does this mean when democrats give money to an anti-gun cause... they can be labeled as not seeing everyone as equal? Never-mind their own armed security.

          Maybe. If the anti-gun Democrat thinks that nobody should be trusted with a gun, that can hardly be unequal. If they think everybody who uses a gun should undergo stringent standards of training and oversight, that's less unequal. If they only think certain people should have guns, while others not, then you get to the unequal part.

          If republicans give money to an anti-abortion cause... they can be labeled as not seeing everyone as equal? Never-mind men don't really have abortions.

          You don't want to get into the recesses of that argument, there is a Male (Father) abortion advocacy in

        • Are you seriously trying to equate gun ownership or having an abortion to sexual orientation? I guess people can just choose whether they own guns or not, just like they choose to be gay, right?

          Spoiler alert: People don't CHOOSE to be gay, unlike your choice to buy a gun or have an abortion.

          Pathetic reasoning there, pal.

          > I was unaware that donating $1k to a campaign against same-sex marriage means that they believe 'not everyone is equal'

          Then you must be dumber than a bag of goddamned rocks. Let me s

          • FYI, marriage is a religious ceremony. Those against gay marriage aren't against equal rights, they are against a religious ceremony being defined by the state. If you really cared about gay rights, the fight would have been to remove marriage completely from the state and make everyone get a civil union. The civil union was already available to all homosexuals. If you really care about the issue, you should be fighting to make civil unions give the same rights.

            • >FYI, marriage is a religious ceremony.

              Really? What religion is being observed when two people go and get married at city hall, or in Vegas at the drive through?

              Religion is a red herring in this and an attempt to shift the goalposts.

              • http://www.etymonline.com/inde... [etymonline.com]

                Look into the history of the word.

                Religion is a red herring in this and an attempt to shift the goalposts.

                You mean like shifting the goalposts from civil unions to marriage?

                • History of a word doesn't mean jack shit. Mortgage came from "death contract" after all, but you don't see people expecting to die signing them any more do you?

                  Civil unions are called marriages in MANY places, especially government.

                  https://omac.saccounty.net/
                  http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/marriage_bureau.shtml
                  http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/marriages

                  Marriage is entirely a secular thing from a legal perspective. So again, quit moving the goalposts.

                  • I'm not moving the goalposts, the homosexual lobby is moving the goalposts. It wasn't good enough to have Civil Unions allowed, it had to say marriage contract on the sheet of paper. Marriage is a religious ceremony in the Christian church, it is not a secular thing. It doesn't matter if the US has adopted the term, it is still a religious ceremony that the US government has no authority over, so shouldn't be ruling one way or another.

                    Freedom of religion is a thing in the US, not freedom from religion.

                    If

    • Re:Am I the only one? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by e r ( 2847683 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @05:10PM (#52355819)
      Now look here, you racist bigot homophobe, what Bill Clinton does and what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bed rooms is their own business; and what political issues a CEO of a company donates for or against with his own money is everyone's business and he should be publicly shamed, fired, and run out of society for it. Especially if it's one of those racist bigot homophobe white males!

      We can't have a society where commoners are free to voice their opinions and/or vote according to their world views-- do you want chaos?!

      You better get with the party line-- er-- get with the times. You don't want to be on the wrong side of history do you? I mean come on, the year is 2016!

      • what Bill Clinton does and what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bed rooms is their own business;

        I don't recall anyone taking issue with what Bill Clinton does in his bedroom. The Oval Office, sure but not his bedroom.

        • Well, yeah, raping Monica Lewinsky in the oval office was a bit wrong. Lying about it was much worse. Just like Reagan, it isn't the crime, it is the lie.

    • 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?

      For a normal person, of course. But we are living in a society where the ultra rich control most aspects. If we do not hold them accountable for their use and abuse of their wealth, then when does it end? It's called Noblesse Oblige, where the nobility have a responsibility to the peasants.

    • What he's been doing on his own time IS hurting Facebook's reputation. Which is self evident at this point.

    • *DING* *DING* *DING We have a winner. Of course, the notion that what people do with their own money and time being their business and their business alone only flies if you're doing what SJW's approve of. If not, they will go to the ends of the Earth to make you stop and shut you up.

      Being on the board of directors of a company doesn't mean you're an employee of the company. It means you have a significant stake in it. Anyone can demand a seat on the board of any company provided that you control enough

    • I agree completely. The whole outrage culture that we've developed is insane and the insistence on firing damn near anyone who posts an opinion is ridiculous.

    • I don't think it's wrong. I should have the right not to work with people who vote for things that might harm me personally. For example, would you want to work with a racist who spends his personal time trying to harm you because of your race?

      I don't mind losing money if it means that someone evil doesn't get more power than they already have.

      • I don't think it's wrong. I should have the right not to work with people who vote for things that might harm me personally. For example, would you want to work with a racist who spends his personal time trying to harm you because of your race?

        I don't mind losing money if it means that someone evil doesn't get more power than they already have.

        You do have the right not to work with those kinds of people. Find another job. Why do you think you should be able to make the other guy leave?

  • Great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:25PM (#52355059)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Nice try Peter

    • I don't have to tolerate someone who does evil. Would you work with someone you knew was a pedophile?

      • Good luck finding anyone to work for than. By your own definition, everyone is evil as no one will agree with you on every single issue.

  • governance (Score:1, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

    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?

    • Re:governance (Score:5, Informative)

      by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:41PM (#52355181)

      When one person controls most of the shares, being self serving IS serving the shareholders. At least the one that matters.

      Of course, this means people with non-voting shares or minority stakes had better be on board with whatever the person in charge wants to do.

    • Yes. If you have relevant expertise for both companies and both companies are willing to have you, then go for it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal.

      If you think what they're doing is immoral, don't support that company.

  • Screw Gawker (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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!

  • When pressed on the matter... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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?
  • 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?

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close