Lawyer drops Meta as client, citing Mark Zuckerberg's "toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness"

midian182

Posts: 10,396   +139
Staff member
A hot potato: Mark Zuckerberg has undergone something of a personal transformation over the last few years, from a nerdy, lizard-like tech geek to an MMA-loving bro championing free speech and calling for more masculine energy. It's a change that has prompted a lawyer to drop Meta as a client due to its CEO's "descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness."

Stanford law professor Mark Lemley represented Meta in a 2023 copyright case in which the company used a data set containing copyrighted e-books to train its LLMs, something it says should be considered fair use.

But Lemley won't be representing Meta any longer. In a LinkedIn post, he says he has now fired the firm as a client, as he cannot in good conscience serve as its lawyer any longer.

While Lemley says he still believes Meta is on the right side of the AI copyright battle and hopes it wins the legal fight, his problem is with Zuckerberg and his "mid-life crisis."

Lemley said he won't be deactivating his Facebook account because of the friends and connections he has on the platform. However, he has left Threads in favor of Bluesky, which many people joined after leaving X/Twitter, and will no longer buy anything from the ads he sees on Facebook or Instagram.

Zuckerberg's evolution can be traced back to the pandemic. Like many people who were bored during the lockdowns, he started a new hobby in the summer of 2020. His choice was Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, which later expanded to include other MMA disciplines. He has since competed in a BJJ tournament and trained with some of UFC's best fighters. For a while, it appeared that Zuckerberg was going to fight Elon Musk, but the match never happened.

Zuckerberg seems to have become even more like Musk since Trump was re-elected. He recently said Facebook and Instagram would be getting rid of "politically biased" third-party fact checkers in favor of X-style community notes, while also eliminating its DEI programs. The CEO complained that there has been "too much censorship" on the social media sites.

Zuckerberg showed off his new persona during his recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, where he said that companies need more "masculine energy."

@thenewsmovement Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan corporate culture had lost its 'masculine energy'. The CEO of Meta was talking after he had just announced that UFC's Dana White would now be on the board of Meta. Rogan is a commentator for UFC and a long time friend of White's. Zuckerberg spoke to Rogan for nearly three hours and the pair discussed their love of martial arts, sparking Zuckerberg's comments about masculinity. Zuckerberg said that corporate culture had become 'neutered'. #meta #zuckerberg #joerogan #markzuckerberg ♬ original sound - The News Movement

"I think a lot of the corporate world is pretty culturally neutered. Masculine energy is good, and obviously, society has plenty of that, but I think corporate culture was really trying to get away from it," Zuckerberg said. "I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive."

One of the three men Meta just added to its board was Dana White, the CEO of UFC, who is about as masculine as it gets.

Permalink to story:

 
That's not at all how he said it. Learning comprehension is not your forte.
But this is just some ideological university zealot calling others "toxic" and a "Nazi." What else is new? No one takes these people seriously. They don't live in the real world and can only shoot their mouths off because they have tenure. In the real world their firm would not tolerate them. Kind of like the TV series "House." Pure fantasy.
 
"Zuckerberg's changed a lot over the years"

Heck he changed a lot since Trump got re-elected backstabbing everything even his platform stood for....but was it really change or was he just hiding who he really was?
I mean in that very podcast with Joe Rogan, Mark Zuckerberg also shared how the Federal government initiated legal action against Facebook after it didn't censor what it was instructed to. I think his change has just as much to do with Trump getting re-elected as it did with the overreaching Biden administration coming to an end.

In the podcast, he also said that the move was actually a return to what Facebook stood for, not the opposite. Facebook didn't used to employ thousands of people fact checking users or be involved with misinformation at all. No social media did.
 
I mean in that very podcast with Joe Rogan, Mark Zuckerberg also shared how the Federal government initiated legal action against Facebook after it didn't censor what it was instructed to. I think his change has just as much to do with Trump getting re-elected as it did with the overreaching Biden administration coming to an end.

In the podcast, he also said that the move was actually a return to what Facebook stood for, not the opposite. Facebook didn't used to employ thousands of people fact checking users or be involved with misinformation at all. No social media did.
So are you saying that Mark Zuckerberg "coincidentally" realized after Trump got re-elected that Facebook wasn't suppose to be pursuing the truth by Fact-Checking the millions of misinformation messages out there?

How convenient the timing of his realization and allowing the platform to become social lies.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying that Mark Zuckerberg "coincidentally" realized after Trump got re-elected that Facebook wasn't suppose to be pursuing the truth by Fact-Checking the millions of misinformation messages out there?

How convenient the timing of his realization and allowing the platform to become social lies.
More like if they stopped doing it during Biden's term, they would probably face prosecution by Biden's DOJ over something that's completely legal.
 
So how much was this doof paid? I wasn’t aware that lawyers could drop clients due to ideological differences. Meta should demand every penny back from him. And that’s coming from someone who isn’t a fan of Meta in the first place.
 
Reminds me of the Bill & Ted 2 movie...
Keanu-Reeves-and-Alex-Winter-as-prisoners.jpg
 
What I really don't get is a lawyer finding this too much to take. I'm going to assume most criminal defense lawyers disapprove of murderers, kidnappers, rapists, etc. But they represent them anyway because being one half of a fairly presented case is important to justice (and the system convicts most defendants anyway, and I sleep better knowing that the conviction was probably just given the defense lawyer and all the hurdles they represent.)

Here, we have a copyright lawyer defending a position he states is legally correct. Isn't that his job? And what does the personality of the client CEO have to do with it? He's representing the company, not the CEO.
 
Back