Meta cranks Zuckerberg's personal security budget to $14m while cutting everything else

Facebook parent company Meta is slashing costs practically everywhere, but it's not cutting founder Mark Zuckerberg's considerable personal security budget – that's actually getting a $4m boost. In an SEC filing published yesterday, Meta said Zuck's personal security budget would be increased to a pre-tax allowance of $14 …

[NoneSuch]

Like the US military budget, most of that 14 million is being diverted into a black ops account to turn Zuck from a cyborg into a real man.

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and like most military budgets, that is a waste of effort, money and time on a hopeless task.

[Black Label1]

".. and like most military budgets, that is a waste of effort, money and time on a hopeless task."

This applies to the bloated USA Pentagon only.

Other countries with better scientists use their budget better, to actually produce functional, quality military hardware and software.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just say that I have inside knowledge. I beg to differ..

[msknight]

Nah... they probably need the extra security to protect him from all the staff he just fired.

I thought about putting, "Joke alert," but concluded that it's not that funny.

[4d3fect]

Personality implants have failed--so far

[Michael Wojcik]

$14M is probably cheaper than what it would take to teach Zuck not to be an asshole, I suppose.

[Snowy]

I wonder

Where and to who all that money went given they are spending so much more than everyone else...

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

Re: I wonder

Countermeasures to protect the world from the Zuckerbot in case it exceeds its programmed parameters and goes on a berserk killing rampage.

[zuckzuckgo]

Re: I wonder

> a berserk killing rampage.

I'm more worried about a berserk software rampage, considering what he has "accomplished" with it so far.

[captain veg]

how about

I don't need any kind of security budget.

This is because I'm generally a nice person.

Maybe Zuck should try that. It's cheaper.

-A.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: how about

Ah, but you don't have closets of identical clothes to protect.

Also, it's impressive just how much he is willing to spend on his OWN privacy, no?

[doublelayer]

Re: how about

I like the idea, but if you were still a nice person but with tons of money, there still might be a need for security. I don't have a bunch of money, so I don't know this personally, but I can imagine the possible rewards drawing in risks from people who wouldn't target a normal person. Either that or all the rich people are just paranoid.

[Zolko]

Re: how about

But this would be a negative budget then: people would pay for a bunch of kidnappers to hold Zuck captive and spare the rest of the world his "ideas "

[Fred Flintstone]

Re: how about

So a sort of negative ransom? Interesting idea.

:)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: how about

Someone should start a GoFundMe campaign for this project.

Obviously not us, in case the Zuckerbots are reading.

[captain veg]

Re: how about

I don't have tons of money, it's true. Maybe a hundredweight.

I do, though, pay my taxes.

-A.

[Potemkine!]

Re: how about

I'm generally a nice person.

That's why you'll never become a billionaire.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: how about

.. unless you inherit big time.

Quite a few never had to work to gather that loot..

[Mark 65]

He wouldn't need to spend anywhere near that if he wasn't such a c*nt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me

or does it look like he's stored by hanging him from his ears when he's not needed?

[TM™]

All the layoffs are an attempt to push back on rising wage costs produced by a lack of skilled people. A lack created by the slashing of western education budgets at the behest of the rich and powerful, because money wasted on educating people should be spent on making rich people richer.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kinda ironic that they created their own problem here.

Don't pay tax -> no funds for decent education -> only the inbred get sort-of educated (they have to buy the dumb ones their way through college) -> shortage of competent people -> those damn foreigners are better at industry -> quick! ban the crap out of them because we can no longer compete -> lose money anyway because now you can't abuse the lower wages in said countries.

Personally I think that anyone who has more than $1M in a bank somewhere should be made to spend at least three weeks every two years helping really poor people survive. And by that I mean physically be there in the misery with just as few resources, not send a cheque to assuage whatever residual conscience they have.

Now for the good news: there are some people who are well off that actively do this and use wealth and fame to try and help. It's the entitled lot that annoy me.

[BartyFartFast]

But that's not the American way, you can't be rich unless you know you're grinding the faces of the poor into the dirt, anything else is communism surely?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how all comments seem to assume that money actually goes to security-related purposes.

There's lots of ways to get creative with definitions. Travelling on airplanes with the plebs? Too dangerous, he needs a private jet for "security". Hotels? Are you out of your mind? He needs to rent a private mansion everywhere he lands. You know, it's way more secure that way. Actually, you know what? Renting exposes to way too many risks. Much better if he owns a mansion wherever he happens to be for more than 5 hours.

Moreover, pretty much the same thing appeared in the press years ago. And I just selected a random date range. There's a couple of paragraphs in there that will likely give you a chuckle:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinstoller/2019/03/13/while-the-wealthiest-american-billionaires-got-richer-corporate-spending-on-their-personal-security-didntexcept-at-facebook/

p.s. regarding the $1 salary: https://www.entrepreneur.com/living/why-mark-zuckerbergs-1-salary-means-nothing/232696

[TeeCee]

"...because of the importance of Mr Zuckerberg to Meta."

Yes, just think. If you didn't have him, you wouldn't just have hosed a load of cash on a pointless corporate rebranding exercise and be chucking everything else you've got down the bottomless plughole of VR.

I'd save the $14m and paint targets on the backs of his jackets if I were you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "...because of the importance of Mr Zuckerberg to Meta."

Given that all his jackets are identical I think painting it one one could be enough, it could spread to the other ones all by itself.

Not that I would advocate harming Zuckerberg. First of all, Cyberdyne diapproves of anyone exposing the metal under the tissue, and secondly I'm convinced there's a clone waiting to take over anyway.

Joking aside, I'm just wondering how you can blow $14M on security for one person. That's almost $40k/day - for what?!? It feels a lot like ego polishing - in a world context he's not that important IMHO.

Zelensky, Biden, OK, those people matter, but Zuckerberg? Nah. Doesn't register.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Prince Harry

And the family could move in with the Zuckerbergs and split the security bill

[Anonymous South African Coward]

What if Zuckbook folds, and there's no more money for security etc... what will Zuckboi do?

[anonymous boring coward]

Zuck must be very loved?

Or just paranoid.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

He's almost certainly loved by his mother

[Winkypop]

The Law of security

The less benign a person is the greater the required security.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forfend something might happen to the Zuckerborg.

I remember when Steve Jobs died, such was his importance to Apple that they were forced to declare bankruptcy shortly after.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen, because a company is more than one man and if Zuckerborg wants to feel safe in his bed then maybe he should realise that.