> "Maybe he's not a good guy, but he's not a bad guy."
Translation: He has too much money, and FB has too much potential influence on our readers, for us to tell you what we really think.
that's unduly cynical. if you read the rest of the article, they explain their reasoning - mainly that, when zuckerberg might have fired people ruthlessly in his rise to the top, they did not feel that any of those firings were actually unfair.
You're right. Too cynical. I took it out. But remember we don't know who the executive is. He/she may have been even worse than Zuckerberg on the ethical scale. I don't doubt there are some very creepy "executives" working at Facebook.
I think you mean protecting his position at the top from "executives". Some of who may have little skill to offer the company (as someone above said, age is a factor) but are who are quite adept at maneuvering their way into higher salaries and greater powers of decision-making.
I'm still not sure it is a company. What exactly does FB produce? It's main asset is your personal information. Which of course it does not own.
FB users produce everything, and hand it over for free to the "funethical" crew of FB "engineers" to play with. As Zuckerberg would say, "Dumb fucks."