The point is that we should seek more robust systemic change than petitioning business owners to be better people against their best interests (finance, power).

Appealing without any leverage is a losing game and describes where we are at currently

> The point is that we should seek more robust systemic change than petitioning business owners to be better people against their best interests (finance, power).

No, that is not the point being raised by the majority of the “fiduciary duty” defenders. But even if we concede that’s what some are arguing for, that is such a bizarre stance to take: “we want the same thing, and but I’ll criticise you and shill in defense of the CEO because the way you’re doing it isn’t extreme enough”. That is absurd and it makes no sense to think the person criticising the CEO doesn’t also realise that more robust systemic change is desired and necessary. But you can’t do that all at once.

Especially in the case of Meta when Zuck has set up share structure to give him majority control as long as he's alive and doesn't sell. He's about the only exec out there of a public company that doesn't have to answer to anyone else and can do the more ethical but less profitable thing. It's not like Meta at half its current share value and Zuck with "only" $130 billion net worth instead of his current $260 billion doesn't leave a viable company and perfectly good lifestyle for him and his family and whatever else he cares about.

The wildest thing to me is that reputation in the form of goodwill is an item on the balance sheet. Doing the right thing is very frequently something that can be claimed to be in the long term interest of the shareholders.

We let far too many people get away with the fiduciary duty defense for abhorrent behavior.

Acting in the interest of shareholders is an incredibly broad set of behaviors, up to and including foregoing profits for social and moral causes.