Oh I agree with you, and I also agree with Pratai. I personally am actively trying to push myself toward pretty much everything I listed specifically to show the people around me that it can be done and without too much difficulty.

I have also watched, and experienced first hand that telling people they're bad even by inference for not doing these things puts people into defensive mode and they just stop listening. They feel like they have to defend themselves, so that's what they do instead. In fact, it makes it more difficult to convince them later because their first impression of the idea is associated with an attack on their identity.

In sales, you do not ever tell the customer they're stupid, that they're morally wrong, that they are impoverished idiots and that's why they should buy your product even if that is all true and the product would literally change all that. You tell them about the problems that they have, and you build it up, and then you give them one singular line that suggests that your product could fix those problems but not everyone can have this product(because it requires work on their part, or it only works within a specific ecosystem).

Instead of "If you have a Facebook account, you support this piece of shit", maybe "Wow, looks like Facebook and its management are doing some immoral stuff, and wouldn't you know it they've been doing stuff like this for a while. I know that you are an upright moral person, so here are some alternatives to consider. Me and everyone else who are seeing this go down are using this specific alternative. The catch is that it is decentralized its up to us to make it the way we want it, are you free Saturday? Neat, I'll swing by in the afternoon and help you get set up"

It’s insane that the mega rich cannot stand any decrease in wealth for any reason, and hence shield themselves like this.

Remember that some of these people can lose 99% of their wealth and still be billionaires.

Conveniently buried in nearly all the coverage aside from the SEC filing which alludes to raising liquidity for Zuckerberg (personally).

401k isn't necessarily dependant on the stock market, but the stock market being the 'right' investment has been a self-fulfilling property, any 'default' election goes mostly stock, because stock goes up. stock goes up in part because a portion of everyone's paycheck defaults to being spent on stocks.

But what you can do with a 401k can be limited. I was looking at my options for something that would be a bit more bubble resistant, back testing them against the crash of the attack on Iran, and every single one of the options my plan allows had market exposure, even if more of them were not directly stock.

...on unrealized gains...

I'll be willing to accept that they are unrealized gains once they can no longer used as collateral to secure loans or used to calculate wealth. Until then they have value and should be taxed either when given (which is different than bought) or as an annual wealth tax.

I'd be fine if they took him below 50% control. Companies that large should be required to be owned by many multiples of the number of people who currently own them and anyone seeking to remain on top of such a thing should be dancing for their many masters daily.

In my understanding he‘s not losing his company. He only will sell the shares that do not include parts of the company