No, not at all, it's absolutely cool to argue against specific decisions he made, but I just wanted to reject this attempt at sarcasm about his overall decision-making:
>Zuckerberg, as always, is well known for making excellent business decisions that lead to greater sector buy in.
If we're being honest here. A lot of the current technocrats made one or two successful products or acquisitions, and more or less relied on those alone to power everything else. And they weren't necessarily the best, they were simple first. Everything else is incredibly hit or miss, so I wouldn't call them visionaries.
Apple was almost the one exception, but the post Jobs era definitely had that cultural branding stagnate at best.
Yes, this is exactly why I think my comment was fair. Meta itself is where it is because it was first and got initial traction. Now it has an effective level of vendor lock-in. It's the equivalent of saying someone who won at slots on their first round is an expert gambler because they got a multi-million dollar payout, even if they've then subsequently lost every other turn on the machine.
>Zuckerberg, as always, is well known for making excellent business decisions that lead to greater sector buy in.