Uncharitable explanation: he's being forced out over his pro-free-speech views. He's been pretty vocal about disagreeing with Twitter's recent actions.
That makes no sense. He is the CEO and on the board, he _is_ the decision maker and could reverse any action he disagreed with. Any disagreement was purely theatre.
A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.
The board can't unilaterally decide the color of the Twitter logo is now green. They can pressure the CEO and threaten to hold a vote to fire him if he doesn't change it, but up until that point the CEO is the ultimate decision maker for the company.
Jack saying he didn't like decisions Twitter made is like if I started complaining that I didn't like the restaurant I chose for dinner.
That's because Zuckerberg stacked the decks that way because he pressed his advantage early. He owns controlling interest of his operation and it can't be wrested from him.
I don't think it's the best approach to manage a company but it's sure been lucrative for Mark.
I don't hear many FB shareholders complaining either, I wouldn't claim equal voting rights on my few shares even if I could (please don't crucify me HN, I'm just a tiny fish that dislikes the company but likes the stock). On paper, supershare structures are not a great thing for the common shareholder as it makes their shares basically free of voting rights when the CEO (or united group) holds such a supermajority. In practice, a strong operator like Mark gets more leeway to steer the ship with fewer barriers and inside power struggles. Imagine if the board stopped him from buying IG or WA, these purchases were very controversial at the time and many thought he was a lunatic for paying such a steep price, it only looks genius in hindsight. When/while it works, it is an effective governance structure.
Notable that these types of structures are no longer allowed, companies like Facebook, Google and Berkshire (no super-majority here) got grandfathered in.
> Notable that these types of structures are no longer allowed, companies like Facebook, Google and Berkshire (no super-majority here) got grandfathered in.
Could you maybe elaborate on that? I have never heard about this before, what exactly isn't possible these days?
Am I misremembering? I vividly recall finding information with regards to this type of structure not being allowed (unsure if regulatory or stock exchange level) with these examples (Mark's majority, Page+Brin's majority, BRK A shares) last time I came across this, but now I come up empty-handed. So I'm unsure and don't have much time to dig in, maybe someone more knowledgeable comes by. Feels bad that I can't edit in a disclaimer to my previous comment, I don't want to parrot misinformation.
Look for a video of his speech during the Bitcoin conference that happened in Miami this year. Some activist invaded the area blaming him for censorship and then he proceed to apologetically explain that the pressure comes from the companies advertising on Twitter.
If you think that the CEO of a company can just do whatever they like then you haven't run a company.
If you attempt to do things that the employees do not want to do then your company will turn to shit. People will leave, and those that remain will have terrible productivity.
Yes, you get some "Just do as I say" points, but you have to choose where to spend them very wisely.
