Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion over ten years and restrict the experience offered to young users, settling claims that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to addict children. The agreement was followed by calls for Zuckerberg’s resignation. Reuters
Most of the industry sees this as a legal and reputational crisis. We see something more fundamental: not a product failure, but a structural one.
No growth metric can be scaled independently of three questions:
- Ownership: Who is responsible for growing the metric?
- Counterbalance: Who measures the risk it creates?
- Authority: Who can intervene when that risk crosses its threshold?
At Meta, the founder controls approximately 61% of the voting power while holding roughly 13% of the company’s equity—making the governance problem visible. The $18 billion exposure equals nearly 9% of Meta’s 2025 revenue. Applied proportionally, that would represent TRY 9 million in structural risk for a company generating TRY 100 million annually.
At Sellf, sustainability does not mean slowing growth. It means preventing today’s growth metric from becoming tomorrow’s liability.
The question: Does every metric your company is scaling have a corresponding risk indicator?