And therein lies the problem.

Zuckerberg's turned the retirement funds into patsies. They have two options: exit their positions for something else, or hold water for him with regulators and the legal system while having no ability to fundamentally change the company due to the fact that he holds majority voting control.

Disinvestment creates the possibility of a stampede for the exit. If one major institutional shareholder starts to sell off, all of them might start to sell off, and there might not be any good paths out for the later sellers.

To protect teens, Apple, Google and Microsoft must implement one-click "child mode" and block installing or accessing social network in this mode. It is stupid to blame Meta for what is parents and OS developers responsibility. An app should not require selfie and a passport to use it.

UPD: Indeed the subject is selfies and passports, let me quote [1]:

> As part of the case, Torrez was seeking to force Meta to overhaul its apps by implementing features like effective age-verification technologies, altering recommendation algorithms that don’t compromise child well-being and making other modifications that result in “fundamentally restructuring how Meta is allowed to do business in the state,” the AG said at a press briefing before the second phase of the trial began.

First, children should not be on Facebook, second, there should be no selfies (which is what states want) but instead a one-click "child mode" set up by parents without any selfies.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/06/meta-to-pay-into-567-million...

The problem is, that money then does other things that aren't good.

The article focuses upon the addictive qualities of Meta's social media applications, but there is at least some evidence that Meta has served advertisements that contain CSAM. I'm not linking the stories here because I'm not searching anything like that on my computer, but that, to me, is a far, far more serious problem than addictive doomscrolling, and far less legally ambiguous. If any of this is true, then Meta's in possession of CSAM, and that's illegal, no ifs, ands, or buts.

> These funds have expensively paid advisers, and should not be investing on a company with a an ISS Governance QualityScore of 10/10. For ISS 10 is the worst while 1 is the best...

The funds' advisors have one job and one job only: make the number get bigger without doing anything overtly illegal. If that means investing in the company that gets people hooked on their product and who may or may not be serving CSAM as a part of their core business, that's what that means. It's not legally actionable to do so, while not doing so, is.

Voluntary ratings systems by index providers aren't stopping this sort of corporate behavior. The only way to deal with the problem is to make things illegal and deal with things through the courts.