Granted, it might be a concern that he would use his position to help his company, which is why officials usually have to put their assets in a blind trust.
He would still have to get elected first, though. So if you're basically expecting that he's going to be corrupt, then don't vote for him and encourage others not to.
And to put it in context, powerful businessmen with no prior gov't experience are now emboldened to run for the highest office (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dimon-idUSKBN...) which, as an aside, doesn't require putting your assets in a blind trust.
At the end of the day, Facebook almost reaches 2 billion people. Good luck beating that and a net worth of $50 billion.
"Technically" it would be a massive conflict of interest and probably illegal.
Having someone own/control/influence a major chunk of the media establishment and also have public responsibility is a pretty serious problem.
5th estate needs to be separate from the others :)
"Probably illegal" is unhelpful non-information. It's either illegal or not. We do have a process for becoming a candidate that verifies whether all legal requirements have been met, you know this, right?
There's no such thing as a 'blind trust' for a media empire, because everyone in the empire knows exactly who is in charge and who pays their salary. Patronage does not stop because of lack of communication.
Do you think that if Trump owned FoxNews, but was also President - that Fox reporter would feel totally free to investigate Trump on whatever terms they wanted? Knowing that he owns them? And can come back in a few years and end their careers?
No.
In fact, a media org. owned by a public representative might be likely do all they can to back him, cover up scandals, paper over ugly things, and prop him up. Then they would get big fat promotions and guaranteed career progress down the line. Among other things, such as possibly favorable treatment and exclusive access by the political regime.
There's no way to segregate a media empire from it's leadership temporarily.
As for 'illegal or not' - nobody knows the answer to that, because we don't know what Zuck wants to do.
Moreover - for the Office of Pres - it's unclear. Trump has an army of lawyers trying to determine whether it's legal or not for him to keep his holdings. Some are indicating that state use of Trump hotels is illegal. Some are indicating that having his children run the empire would be illegal. It hasn't been tested in courts, and the laws are unclear - for President.
But the legality if it moot: someone with massive control ownership of the media should not be able to hold public office, it's one of the most glaringly obvious examples imaginable. (Aside from someone in public office handing out contracts to companies they own directly.)
I realize a lot of people get their news through Facebook, but it's not a news organization, nor was it ever intended to be. Facebook doesn't create any content, it's just a conduit through which people share content. If it stops being useful for that purpose, people will use one of the many other options.
The smallest change in those algs could influence election outcomes - remember, election outcomes are often very close.
The 'human' editors FB hired were shown to be heavily biased, not because of an organizational approach, but due to the individual biases of the people they hired. Which is why FB got rid of them.
It's just too easy for bias to introduce itself systematically in these orgs - even if there is no ill will intended.
It's hard enough when there's no over conflict of interest, let alone when there is.
The CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, who is now sec of state, has divested himself of all Exxon shares, as he should.
If Zuck wants to govern, he can divest his FB shares and put his diversified holdings in a 'blind trust' as you say.
No such obligation exists for most elected officials, though, of course, the perception of doing otherwise may make reelection less likely.
Edit: I suppose "read" is a bit of a strong word. How about "processed," or "scanned"? [0]
--- [0]:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-nsa-exclusive-idUSKC...
Perhaps on an absolute basis, the Soviets were the worst, but on a relative-to-population basis history is littered with meaningless massacre.
It's worth keeping in mind that some of America's founding fathers were also among the wealthiest people in the country (e.g. John Hancock).
So, the 'wealthy' was a significantly less elite group. Basically, the top 1,000 people back then where the equivalent of the top 100,000 people now, not the top 1,000.
I found the near deification of Internet/Tech entrepreneurs, like Musk, Zuckerberg and others deeply annoying at best.
Selling the idea they could be the providential leaders we "need", and that they could solve every single issue of our (quite complex) societies, is just disturbing...
Not to mention the latent conflicts of interest which can occur...