In short yes. When there is competition, there are survivors and deceases. If you believe in democratic republic, then you can look at his accomplishment as a co-founder of Facebook as one of the few successful social network products surviving a heated market election.<p>You have a choice to not use Facebook, and if everyone refuses to use Facebook, he will lose his wealth and his influence. When was the last time you heard about Tom from MySpace on TV? He and his team have done a great job promoting the product, despite issues like privacy.<p>If you are looking from an ideal socialism, then I am sad to inform you that socialism does not work at all because most human I know have opinions, and when there&#x27;s opinion people take side, and when people take side people turn into control. When people have professional skill, they become experts, and when they are experts, they are assigned roles. You wouldn&#x27;t listen to me for medical advice. Between a nobody physicist and a Nobel laureate in Physics, the Nobel laureate&#x27;s opinions obviously carry more weight in a conference talk.<p>And btw, he doesn&#x27;t have $45B in his bank account. Most of his money are still virtual, in bytes (argue about silver vs greenback, in the 1800s).<p>Of course there is danger in accumulating power. For a nation, being the most powerful doesn&#x27;t mean you have to stick your head in everyone&#x27;s else affairs. There is always some gains and some losses when a giant arises. Giants with the right vision can create quality products (i.e. Apple), but giants dictating vision (i.e. Microsoft) can cause life fortune to turn around (although Microsoft is doing much better in the last few years).<p>You can be the forerunner in your competition, but if you want to maintain your influence, you must allow some competitions. Only way to innovate is to accept challenges. You don&#x27;t write better code unless someone critique you. That&#x27;s the difference between a thinker and a narrator.