the founders are also shareholders so they are still maximizing shareholder vlaue

Zuck's other financial and personal interests could compete with his money in the company. Unlikely at 1:1, but it's more possible the higher his vote multiplier is.

Is it true?

the onus is on the person making the allegation

so that's the thing right

people who are geniuses at one thing may be completely out of their depth in other areas

I think this is sadly a demonstration of one of those

yea if you ignore the public shitting, public pissing, drunkenness, the harassment of locals, then yea, it was only bouncy castles, or stuff like this

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42613957

I guess you also think they should use the emergency act on the downtown east side of Vancouver then?

If that is the worst complaint anyone had, that’s basically - any time there is a bunch of people around?

Are you describing the truckers?

Pissing and drunkenness a characteristics of nearly all western societies.

I think that's fine and great. We should ban TikTok if that's what we decide

but what about Instagram and X?

I've never understood this part of it. There's a disinformation problem on all of these platforms, so why not just kill all of them? The only argument I've seen is basically that it's better for the West to be the ones manipulating people in the West vs. having people in the East manipulating people in the West. And that just doesn't feel like a good argument.

People in the culture that they live in have a vested interest in it.

This is only relevant if people are manipulating others for the betterment of the culture, and that feels overly optimistic IMO. If everyone is just manipulating for selfish reasons, they'll happily destroy their own country.

As the politicians of the US have shown time and time again /s

Why wouldn’t that be a good argument? You might as well ask why the US president is required to be a natural born citizen.

As much as there are legitimate reasons to go after TikTok, I can't help but feel it's not a coincidence that it gets singled out for legislation because it's the only one owned by China.

And yes, that ownership is problematic but I would argue that the others including those you've listed here are equally problematic for the safety of users.

So to answer your question: they should be too, but they likely won't, because the force behind this isn't a desire to protect users from disinformation, the desire is to protect western companies from scary Asian competition. Same reason behind us constantly propping up Detroit. Protecting people from disinformation is just an excuse.

> I can't help but feel it's not a coincidence that it gets singled out for legislation because it's the only one owned by China.

Of course it's not a coincidence. It's not even a hidden, implicit unspoken motive, it's openly explained as the reason behind the concern! TFA explains this clearly, numerous times.

You'd have to ask Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk about their agenda for America, and for Americans.

isn't this comment very infantilized in and of itself?

Projection is easier than deep thought.

I’m getting the same, on my phone, over 5g

His wife wife or his unofficial wife?

China?

Comcast and Verizon have no lock-in?

Verizon competes with T-Mobile and AT&T. Comcast competes with a different arm of AT&T, Google Fiber, various older satellite internet services and now Starlink.

Outside the US, broadband providers are still huge but differences in regulation mean there are five or six of them in most markets.

Overall, I think my point still stands: claiming that you can't build a giant company without Silicon Valley's growth formula is ridiculously narrow. The vast majority of big companies are built by other methods.