Absolutely. Traditionally the move for a company in this situation might be to replace the CEO if they plan to raise public money and he has a history of bad behaviour.
In WeWork's case it's probably impossible to remove him both legally and because the whole company is built around his personality cult.
There are millions of poorly run shady businesses, it's a problem that takes care of itself if you don't have infinite money coming in.
Not sure that it's a problem now though. Like Matt Levine suggested[0], WeWork did a lot of weird shit when they were private, but now they want public money, they need to behave more like a responsible company. It's kind of what's supposed to happen because of the disclosure, it's just that most of the time companies take care of governance issues before the S-1.
I guess we disagree, since to me, serving ads with my page is making my position about wanting to show ads with the page pretty clear.
But even if it wasn't, Brave has special filters for sites that have anti-adblock measures, and it's spoofing the user agent to make it seem like regular Chrome.
Let's say I put out a cookie jar out with a sign that says "Take a cookie, leave a dollar".
You come by and take a cookie and leave a piece of string. You're not improving my business model.
The Brave thing is just a weird way to feel better about breaking an implicit social contract.
How about the business model the content producers choose for themselves, instead of one that is forced on them by a rent seeking company with good PR?
If I have ads on my site, I have no interest in someone replacing them and taking a cut.
In WeWork's case it's probably impossible to remove him both legally and because the whole company is built around his personality cult.