Jesse Eisenberg, who played Mark Zuckerberg, rips Meta CEO: ‘Why are you not helping people?’

Imagine holding the kind of power that could reshape the world overnight—curing diseases, ending hunger, or funding groundbreaking research at the snap of a finger. Now, imagine choosing instead to focus on algorithms, ad revenue, and stock prices. That’s the disconnect Jesse Eisenberg can’t wrap his head around.

Best known for portraying Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network, Eisenberg recently voiced his frustration over Silicon Valley’s most influential figures—particularly Meta’s CEO. “What’s going on with the tech bros?” he asked. “If you’re so rich and powerful, why are you not just spending your days doing good things for the world?”

His remarks tap into a growing debate about the role of billionaires in shaping society. Should those at the helm of global tech giants be expected to prioritize social good over corporate gains? Or are we simply witnessing a system working as it was designed—one where wealth and influence don’t necessarily equate to moral responsibility?

Jesse Eisenberg, who played Mark Zuckerberg, rips Meta CEO: "Why are you not helping people?’"https://t.co/aDlYjP9Spe

— The Hill (@thehill) January 29, 2025

Eisenberg’s Criticism of Tech Leaders

Jesse Eisenberg is no stranger to the world of tech billionaires—at least on screen. Over a decade ago, he brought Mark Zuckerberg to life in The Social Network, a performance that earned him an Academy Award nomination and cemented his place in the cultural conversation surrounding Silicon Valley’s rise. But in real life, Eisenberg has a far more skeptical view of the ultra-wealthy power players shaping the digital age. To him, the choices made by today’s tech moguls—particularly those with nearly unlimited resources—raise more questions than answers.

Speaking recently on Real Time with Bill Maher, Eisenberg didn’t hold back his criticism of Silicon Valley’s elite. “What’s going on with the tech bros?” he asked. “I look at it from a very specific perspective, which is: If you’re so rich and powerful, why are you not just spending your days doing good things for the world? So it’s hard for me to understand the specifics of what they’re doing.” His frustration was clear—why, with all their influence and wealth, are tech leaders not prioritizing efforts that could make a meaningful difference?

His words strike at the heart of a growing public sentiment: the idea that the world’s richest individuals—people with unprecedented financial and technological resources—often seem more invested in expanding their empires than in addressing urgent social issues. Meta, for example, has long been entangled in privacy controversies, misinformation scandals, and debates over its impact on mental health. Other tech figures, like Elon Musk, have been criticized for engaging in power struggles rather than using their vast fortunes to solve systemic global challenges. Eisenberg’s comments tap into a broader unease about the priorities of those at the helm of Big Tech.

But for Eisenberg, this isn’t just a theoretical discussion about corporate ethics—it’s deeply personal. In his own household, he sees a stark contrast in how power and privilege are used, leading him to question why those with the most influence aren’t taking a different approach.

The Contrast Between Wealth and Social Responsibility

For Eisenberg, the issue of wealth and influence isn’t just a matter of public debate—it’s something he sees up close in his own life. His wife, actor and activist Anna Strout, has dedicated her time and resources to helping people in need, focusing on direct action and meaningful change. Unlike the billionaire tech moguls who seem consumed by business expansion and digital dominance, Strout spends her days thinking about how to make a tangible difference in people’s lives. This stark contrast is something Eisenberg finds deeply perplexing.

“Eisenberg, currently an Oscar nominee for his film ‘A Real Pain,’ added that his wife, actor and activist Anna Strout, spends her days thinking about how she can help people in most need. The juxtaposition between what she does with what she has and the potential change people like Zuckerberg or Musk could affect and don’t confounds him, the actor says.”

This frustration speaks to a larger ethical question: Should immense wealth come with a moral obligation to improve society? The debate isn’t new, but it has become increasingly urgent as tech leaders amass fortunes that surpass the GDP of small countries. While some billionaires engage in philanthropy—such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who have pledged most of their wealth to charitable causes—others, like Zuckerberg and Musk, have been criticized for prioritizing profit-driven ventures over social responsibility.

For Eisenberg, the problem isn’t just about where money is being spent—it’s about missed opportunities. He struggles to understand why people with such extraordinary resources aren’t dedicating their time to addressing issues like poverty, education, and healthcare. Instead, he sees them getting caught up in what he calls “weird stuff”—projects and policies that seem more about consolidating power than making a positive impact.

The Problem with Big Tech’s Priorities

Eisenberg’s criticism goes beyond a general frustration with wealth and privilege—it’s directed at the specific ways in which tech billionaires choose to wield their power. Rather than using their vast influence to create real, positive change, he sees them becoming entangled in pursuits that not only fail to help people but, in some cases, actively harm them.

“So when I watch these incredibly powerful people, I just think, ‘Why are you not spending your day helping people?’ Why are you getting mired into this weird stuff—stuff I don’t really understand—and taking privacy concerns away, hurting people who are already hurting? Marginalized people. I just can’t even understand that, so I’m not exactly thinking about them in politics. I’m just thinking, ‘Why are they not spending every day helping people?’”

Eisenberg’s words reflect an increasing public distrust of Big Tech, especially Meta, which has been accused of prioritizing profit over user well-being. The platform has faced repeated criticism for its handling of misinformation, its role in enabling online harassment, and its alleged negative effects on mental health—particularly among young users. Reports have shown that Meta has, at times, been aware of these issues but has failed to take meaningful action, fueling concerns that financial incentives are taking precedence over ethical responsibility.

Beyond privacy and social media concerns, Eisenberg also highlights a broader issue: the way tech billionaires seem absorbed in ventures that feel detached from real-world problems. Whether it’s Musk’s ambitions to colonize Mars or Zuckerberg’s push for the Metaverse, these projects often appear to serve ego and innovation for its own sake rather than addressing pressing global crises. Eisenberg isn’t necessarily condemning ambition, but he struggles to understand why those with such immense power aren’t using it to improve the lives of those who need it most.

His perspective echoes a wider sentiment: Should those with extraordinary wealth be expected to act in the public’s best interest? Or is it naïve to assume that power and philanthropy naturally go hand in hand? Eisenberg’s frustration stems from the belief that, given their vast resources, tech billionaires could be making a massive difference—but many simply aren’t.

The Political Angle & Meta’s Response (or Lack Thereof)

While Eisenberg’s frustration is primarily rooted in ethics rather than politics, his remarks inevitably touch on the growing intersection between Big Tech and governance. Platforms like Meta wield enormous influence over public discourse, shaping everything from elections to cultural narratives. Yet, when confronted with their societal impact, executives like Mark Zuckerberg often deflect, maintaining that their platforms are neutral tools rather than powerful gatekeepers.

Despite Meta’s repeated controversies—including allegations of spreading misinformation, mishandling user data, and amplifying divisive content—Zuckerberg has largely avoided taking personal responsibility for the platform’s broader consequences. This lack of accountability fuels the perception that tech moguls are more focused on financial expansion than social good. And while some billionaires openly engage with political debates, others remain ambiguous in their stances, further frustrating those who believe they should take a more active role in solving the problems their platforms contribute to.

In a separate discussion, former President Donald Trump was asked whether figures like Zuckerberg should be held accountable for their influence. His response? “Probably. Yeah, probably.” Though brief, his remark reflects the bipartisan concern over the unchecked power of Silicon Valley’s leaders. Whether in relation to election integrity, privacy concerns, or corporate monopolies, there is growing pressure on lawmakers to impose stricter regulations on tech giants.

Yet, despite mounting criticism from politicians, activists, and now even Hollywood figures like Eisenberg, Meta has yet to provide a meaningful response to these concerns. Zuckerberg remains focused on projects like AI development and the Metaverse, doubling down on digital expansion while largely sidestepping discussions about real-world impact. This lack of engagement only adds to Eisenberg’s bewilderment—why, he wonders, are the wealthiest people in the world not using their influence to create tangible change?

While Eisenberg’s comments might not carry the weight of a congressional hearing, they reflect a broader cultural sentiment: frustration with the disconnect between immense power and moral responsibility. But beyond venting frustration, his remarks also pose a crucial question—one that extends beyond Zuckerberg and Meta. Should those with the greatest ability to enact change be expected to do so? Or is the tech industry’s current trajectory simply a reflection of capitalism functioning as designed?