In May 2010, not for the first time, people were in an uproar about Facebook. The social network had recently revised its privacy policy to require users to opt out of features that tracked them on the site, suddenly making private information public by default. Making matters worse, that personal data was being shared with third-party partners, and a lot of users were extremely worried about the ramifications. If you think people aren’t very technically minded today, back in 2010, it was worse, and people who used Facebook (more than 400 million at the time) were frantically trying to force the company to switch back to the private-by-default setting.

At the time, I was a reporter at The New York Times, and my editor asked me to write a short blog post explaining how to switch your settings on Facebook to private. I remember sitting in my cubicle in the newsroom, clicking around while I took notes about the privacy settings. Several hours later, I was still clicking.

The piece I ended up writing pointed out that to truly opt out of sharing all your personal information, you had to click through more than 50 privacy buttons, and then choose between more than 170 total options. There were some options that you couldn’t even opt out of at all. I also noted that Facebook’s Privacy Policy at the time was 5,830 words long; the original United States Constitution, meanwhile, is a concise 4,543 words. In other words, the illegible mumbo jumbo you had to read through on a social-network Web site was so complex, it was longer than the rules that govern the entire United States.

The story at the time had a happy ending. Facebook succumbed to pressure, fixed its privacy settings, apologized, and the story went away. But it didn’t take long for Facebook to try and screw over its users again. And again and again and again. Year after year, I—along with countless other outlets—wrote articles about Facebook changing its privacy policy to benefit the company, then fixing it just enough to appease the masses, then doing it all over again. And year after year, writing about Zuckerberg, I started to learn something interesting about him and the company: the entire strategy was to take two steps forward, only to be pushed one step backward and land exactly where Zuckerberg and Facebook wanted to be.

Now, on the heels of the latest scandal, people are rightly asking if it’s time for Zuckerberg himself to take one step back and resign as Facebook chairman. But anyone I’ve spoken to who knows Zuckerberg says it’s beyond unlikely that he’s going anywhere. Zuckerberg fought tooth and nail to win the control he has over Facebook—a two-class stock structure that practically ensures he can’t be ousted—and he’s certainly not going to give it up anytime soon, unless either the board or the government force him to. As the entrepreneur and author Scott Galloway, who wrote the book The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, recently told me, “An African dictator has more job insecurity than Mark Zuckerberg.”

Sure, the government could break up the company—which many, myself included, believe it should. But it didn’t do it when Zuckerberg and Facebook repeatedly harmed people with the platform in the past, and I’m not sure what it will take for someone to finally bring down the hammer where it deserves to land. As for the board, from a numbers standpoint, Zuckerberg (and the board) likely don’t believe there should be a change at the company. While there are clearly some people who are using the platform less, most people apparently don’t care what happens on Facebook. Just look at the numbers to see how evident that is.