So what does it mean, concretely? What repercussions will he personally suffer?

People will snark him 30% harder for a week.

I dunno what you expect, everyone wants to avoid the negative consequences of their actions, should we be surprised that the rich and powerful can actually do it?

No one is surprised, but why shouldn't it be called out and ridiculed as fake accountability and moral theater.

If you hire a house cleaner, and the house cleaner doesn't do a good job, would you fire yourself from the house? What repercussions will you personally suffer?

If I had a roommate who spent huge swaths of our monthly budget on house cleaning we didn't need, I might tell them to go find another place to live.

Or to stop stretching metaphors.. The investors should be mad that the layoffs were even necessary.

Are you implying the 10% being fired are all bad workers? What if the house cleaner was not the problem here?

A closer analogy would be that you asked the house cleaner to clean the pool house when you actually needed the main house cleaned. The house cleaner recognized that you asked for the wrong area to be cleaned, but went ahead and did it anyway, but did a great job cleaning the wrong thing.

The cleaner isn't the problem with respect to the cleaning itself, but what about the culpability in exploiting someone who has lost their mind? In this case Zuckerberg is willing to accept the exploitation that occurred in the past simply for what it is, but now that he has had a moment of clarity he also cannot let it continue.

It is irrelevant if the workers did a good job. They are at the service and discretion of the house. The house, i.e. the owner, always remains. Until everything burns down. In case of Meta, pipe-dream, one can only hope.

[dead]