Facebook regulation: Are we barking at the wrong tree?

I recently deleted my Facebook account following the CA fiasco, which made me ponder how companies can avoid similar issues. Insider reviews suggest a culture at Facebook that prioritized revenue over user privacy—a common scenario in many corporations. However, we have instituted safeguards to prevent such practices.

Why did Facebook prioritize revenue over protecting user privacy? User data is their primary revenue source, and any company considering its competitive advantage should protect this data. Who's to blame? Is it Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and Chairman of Facebook, or the financial institutions that invested in and promoted this behavior? I believe it's both. Facebook's dual voting shares give Mark significant voting power despite his minority stake. Despite this clear structure, investors flocked to Facebook, driven by profit motives and neglecting corporate checks and balances.

In a democracy, no single person has absolute power; there are checks and balances to ensure it functions. Even the President of the United States cannot act unilaterally. This democratic principle has endured for decades. Why can't we apply similar checks and balances to corporations? We reject communism and dictatorship due to the risks of centralized power. So, why do we allow companies with dual voting power to be listed on traditional stock exchanges? Why don't financial institutions take responsibility for investing in and promoting such structures?

Regulating Facebook alone isn't the answer. Leaders with tremendous power, like Mark, can still manipulate the system despite regulations. The root cause lies with the investors. For instance, BlackRock has stopped investing in gun manufacturers. Financial institutions wield significant influence over corporate governance and must ensure responsible behavior. Money talks—that's why capitalism works, efficiently allocating capital for societal betterment.

I welcome your thoughts.