Fine in Cambridge Analytica settlement should have been closer to $100 million, about $4.9 billion less than it paid, shareholders allege.
www.cnet.com
Wouldn’t be surprising but it’s really stupid since he’s already
synonymous with like, the
face of Facebook. Yet more proof that rich people think they can just buy their way out of anything.
The takeaway is something in our society needs to be above the almighty $, because the law has also proven an untold number of occasions that it isn’t exactly infallible and has been know to bend or break if the price is right.
There are numerous angles on this.
Firstly, this is an
allegation made by shareholders. At core, Zuckerberg being excessively powerful and using the company to shield himself is credible. However, it might not be so much a real problem as it is a "power play" by those shareholders: for a payday, power or some form of activism. I am doubtful that there was meaningful liability for Zuckerberg, but it could have been embarrassing for him.
And as you say, he is the face of Facebook - and possibly not just the face, but a key driving force within it. Damage to him becomes damage to the company. How much is he worth to it? Let's bear in mind FB has a market capitalisation of about a trillion (!!!) dollars. It's very easy to imagine that Zuckerberg (or Sheryl Sandberg) being damaged or removed could cost FB a lot more than $5 billion: a mere 5% drop in share value from shaken investor confidence is ten times that. Thus the overall benefit of the shareholders would be clear: they are better off protecting Zuckerberg and Sandberg.
Even without the more personal angle for specific staff, there's a basic principle of paying to make things go away for the company. Keeping the company away from negative publicity generally, or that FB likely has other skeletons in the closet and any more detailed investigation could potentially cause them more problems for PR or legal liabilities.
As much as I have little sympathy for Zuckerberg and the fact his company is a rampaging elephant unable to control itself from inflicting all manner of societal harm (even by its own assessment), I don't necessarily think these claims have much merit.
