Monday, July 10, 2017

No Shareholder Revolts

Notice no shareholder revolts over idiotic things like Facebook saying they'll hire 3000 hall monitors to scrub posts for hate speech, which they define down. These are not silly things like changing the icon or logo to a rainbow during PRIDE month. That should be a slight problem as there are millions if not billions of consumers that do not support PRIDE. The idiotic things are the hiring of hall monitors at Facebook, creating entire departments of diversity outreach (rather than just one employee) or money pits like forced diversity hiring. These affect the bottom line in an age of cost cutting. Shareholders should revolt.

I respect Nick Land but he is wrong to think capital is routing around poz. Capital loves poz for marketing purposes as each new niche allows for microtargeted advertising that gets people to create a consumer culture identity via slapping their special niche onto it. I have never seen a white person drink or order ciroc vodka, but several blacks I know swear by it. Why? Puffy/P-Diddy got behind it as a spokesman.

If capital was upset with poz, we would see capital rise up and protest this garbage. Apple shareholders did reject a diversity initiative that would have fast tracked diversifying their upper management and board of directors. That one hit a little closer to home with the board as a target for diversification. Nice rejection of a poz coup, so broader protest and rejections are possible, Facebook.

Capital does not as it does not rule, it merely has money. It fears bad press. There are money managers that actively avoid and worry about headline risk. Facebook is already feeling heat from insiders and the media that they are aligned with leaking out the details of their program because it supposedly is not politically correct enough.

If this truly will be 3000 new employees, then Facebook is going to increase its employee headcount by 20% to tackle an issue that only the media says is an problem. What is really going on here because 3000 employees, if located in the Bay Area, is a monstrous cost to then lay at shareholders feet instead of R&D, product development, user data research, acquisitions or simply stock buy backs. There are some possibilities of what is really going to happen.

1. This is a lie and just for headlines and Zuck pr.
2. This is real and they will expand their head count by 20% for something this dumb.
3. This is real and a way for them to hire diversity and get SJWs off their back.
3a. If this is real and they hire people still in the Bay Area, this is a complete abandonment of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Costs could be contained by hiring teams in non-Asian minority heavy areas.
4. This is real and will become automated with a much smaller team than the 3000 headline number, but no one will remember.

If this is real and not an automated program then the shareholders should revolt. In no way is this a smart use of company resources. Will it happen? My money is on zero shareholders speaking out against this. This is waste and garbage wrapped in the blanket of fighting hate speech. Nope, sorry, the prog message wins and these people don't bother to even push back when it actually affects their bottom line. Facebook has been stagnant for user numbers, and with the people that earn those advertising dollars, white women.

This is absolute trash, this is a perfect way to push back with the carefully crafted message of 'why can't current automatic standards be fine tuned", and the shareholders of facebook should immediately push back on this declaration by Zuck. This sounds like PC garbage to improve his own image and not the firm's. They already have offensive speech monitoring systems, look at Steve Sailer's "Niger" post triggering one. This is trying to fend off the pc SJWs.

Shareholders can exercise some power. If not at Facebook, more capital accumulated will be consumed by the parasitic Left. If not elsewhere in the economy, the parasitic Left will destroy that which everyone, including these passive investors that make up giant blocs of shareholders, has built.


Dirtnapninja said...

Poz is good for business. Poz makes money. Pozzed people are better consumers. The conservatives who fellate big business cant seem to grasp that corporate america promoted Poz and made it possible.

grey enlightenment said...

In terms of share price, profits, and earnings, Facebook is firing on all cylinders. That's what shareholders care the most about. Until those change, I see little reason for them to revolt. Facebook's rationale , maybe; is that if they spend $10 million on useless employees but earn $20 million in new advertisers and new users, it's worthwhile.

Anonymous said...

Hello just wanted to give you a brief heads up and
let you know a few of the images aren't loading correctly.
I'm not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I've tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same results.

Adam Smith said...

I knew a (((girl))) at Google whose job it was to enforce anti-racism. When asked what department she worked in she couldn't really say. Only a decadent society - or a company with an enormous cash pile - would keep someone like this on a payroll. Last I heard she was trying to pitch her services to startups but couldn't find any takers. When the power goes off for good I hope all the 'racist' people she got fired remember her when she starts begging for food.

Dan Kurt said...

Please define the use of the word Poz. I believe Poz refers to HIV Positive. What is the usage in the context of the article?

Dan Kurt

Son of Brock Landers said...

From the same vein, poz means to be broken and degraded beyond repair. The poz is what the Left tries to do to culture, society, people, etc and you know poz elements when they trickle in.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

I knew a girl who was one of two staff masseuses employed by Google in Irvine. Sweet but ditzy.

Anonymous said...

Facebook has a multi class share structure under which Zuck has control of the company essentially come hell or high water. Accordingly, the remaining shareholders are almost powerless to influence the corporate governance. The company is currently being sued by the minority shareholders for implementing this structure. I believe Facebook only had 2 classes at IPO but further splitting the existing shares into high and low vote allows the founders to sell down low vote shares to get cash without surrendering voting control. Google has a similar multi class share system.

The board approved a clause that would allow Zuckerberg to retain control of the company even if he took a two year leave to pursue "Government Service." Apparently, Marc Andreessen was the key player who secured the approval. He suffered his own gaffe last year (a tweet criticizing India's rejection of Facebook's munificence as "anti-colonial"). Bizarre to find someone defending colonialism and Facebook in one breath and shocking that he would make such a telling Freudian slip regarding the nature of the company's project.