Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by creaghpatr on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:31PM
(#14764899)
Last sentence of the article, which is improperly titled for some reason:
>As Mr. Zuckerberg was leaving, he made one request, Mr. Moore said.
>“He said, ‘If there are any news reporters that call you, just make sure you tell them I’m not running for president.’”
The majority of the article is just about how Zuck's entourage worked to try and make his encounters feel more spontaneous. I felt bad for both the tokenized middle Americans and for Zuck, for whom the construction of his social encounters was necessary for security (and lets not kid ourselves, probably PR) reasons. I don't know if he'll run for President but I think for as tacky and PR-related as the trip is, I think he does genuinely want to learn more about the rest of the country, if only to improve Facebook's UX.
That's not an endorsement though. I think he would get crushed in a Presidential campaign.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by Simulacra on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:30PM
(#14764897)
I will spend every time I have against Zuckerberg becoming President. I do not trust him, and I do not want Facebook or him running this country; Sadly, in many ways, they already do.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by gremlinsinc on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:53PM
(#14765131)
I wouldn't say Hillary 2.0 ... I like Mark, I hate Hillary... I don't think Hillary would be quick to jump on single-payer healthcare and guaranteed basic income trains... but I'm not really sure he's cut out to be a politician, personally I'd much rather it be Bernie Sanders, he was born for the job.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by wavefunction on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:30PM
(#14764892)
I hope he sticks to running facebook and his... charitable endeavors.
From my perspective the current inhabitant of the White House provides a fine illustration that "success" in the world of business does not necessarily translate into success or effectiveness in the world of public service and politics. This feeling has only been compounded by the likes and conduct of members of the current administration like Tillerson and Mnuchin.
Zuckerberg's demand not to be quoted after meeting and talking with people is a huge red flag to me, for example.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by wfunction on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:34PM
(#14764928)
To be honest, I'm no fan of oil company CEOs, but I have yet to see anything bad from Tillerson as secretary of state. He seems like a pretty normal secretary of state, and almost like the only sane guy in the administration.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by wfunction on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:14PM
(#14765312)
Oh geez, thanks for the link. I'd cut him some slack. I feel like if I was working under Trump I wouldn't be eagerly jumping in the middle of a crowd of reporters and telling them to throw questions at me in my first 2 months either. "One of the less destructive cabinet members" is quite an exaggeration for someone who's literally only had 2 months and the only bad thing you can think of is that he's run away from a few reporters. I'd be scrambling to get my crap together and figuring out what I'm supposed to do before worrying about answering to reporters about a job I just started. If there's any actual destructiveness on his part that he's refusing to talk about with reporters, that'd be much fairer of an assessment...
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by jacquesm on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:41PM
(#14765000)
> From my perspective the current inhabitant of the White House provides a fine illustration that "success" in the world of business does not necessarily translate into success or effectiveness in the world of public service and politics.
The effect is the opposite. The current inhabitant of the White House proves to a whole slew of people that they too could become president, qualifications being irrelevant and the general feeling that they wouldn't do an even worse job of it.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by zitterbewegung on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:30PM
(#14764888)
I would see Zuckerberg rise to power by first becoming a California Governor. Maybe he could swing by getting the Republican Nomination without experience .
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by wfunction on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:27PM
(#14764863)
He's doing this because he thinks he's a competent politician who could make the world better? Or because he's looking at Trump and eyeing the throne, realizing everything a billionaire president could get away with?
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by 4y5yswghe on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:36PM
(#14764946)
Trump seems to have proven that wealth is now considered enough of a virtue in its own right to qualify you for the highest office in the country, regardless of lack of political (or any elected) experience, policy ideas, general principles, or character.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by newtem0 on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:34PM
(#14765458)
Its people like you who are the problem. What an idiotic statement. Youve clearly never watched a single campaign speech from trump. Youve never investigated or even contemplated how his campaign really worked or the issues of his voter base. You dont understand anything because youve never attempted to view the whole thing objectively. Please just shut up.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by scj on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:53PM
(#14765130)
The core question I have is... How much advantage is there skewing Facebook in favour of a candidate? Could it translate to a 3% improvement in the polls?
Even if it could help, it'd probably be wiser for him to back a candidate that shares his vision than run himself. It only makes sense if he can't find someone he would endorse (publicly or otherwise), or if he just wants the job for himself.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by gurkendoktor on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:31PM
(#14764901)
Can't read the article thanks to the paywall, but I'm not a fan of the underlying idea. If you think Trump's words of admiration for Putin are scary, then what is Zuckerberg's blatant fanboyism for Xi Jinping?
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by Finnucane on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:48PM
(#14765069)
Not necessarily. Past presidents used blind trusts to put their assets and investments aside so that in theory they wouldn't be motivated by personal profit while president. It's not illegal for a president to conduct personal business while being president. It's unethical for the president to use his office for personal gain. And it is unconstitutional for the president to take money from representatives of foreign governments.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by e40 on Saturday July 15, 2017 @09:51AM
(#14776606)
That wouldn't work here, though. Whether he holds them directly or through a blind trust, he'll know he has FB. Just because he can't sell doesn't matter, he could make decisions as POTUS that would greatly benefit FB.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by brndnmtthws on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:45PM
(#14765045)
Maybe he'll hold a press conference with a stack of blank sheets of paper claiming they prove he's completely divested from his businesses, all while refusing to allow anyone to inspect the documents.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by 4y5yswghe on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:48PM
(#14765072)
Crossing out 'Black lives matter' and writing 'All lives matter' is, to me, the equivalent of denigrating the NAACP because all people deserve advancement. Yes, 'All lives matter' is a true statement. But by writing that you come off as being completely oblivious to context and why 'Black lives matter' was written in the first place.
EDIT: Perhaps BLM could have averted all of this hubbub regarding the phrase if they had just included the implied 'too'. As in, 'Black lives matter too.'
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by aaron-lebo on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:51PM
(#14765106)
Do we pretend these things matter at all? Crossing out something on a bulletin board isn't really pursuing anything and is about as consequential as your post. They're fun meme friendly phrases that mean nothing in the real world.
Both phrases are true and based on who is saying them can be fully believed statements.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by jgh on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:01PM
(#14765193)
Seriously? You're sitting here on an influential industry message board in a discussion about a company that is the largest social network in the world, with an incredible amount of indirect political influence, trying to tell me that words don't matter.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by aaron-lebo on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:03PM
(#14765213)
They matter a lot less than hunger or starvation or poverty or lack of opportunity which is what those word represent. You can say words all day but they won't change a thing.
The petty internal fights of Facebook co-workers crossing out do not matter. Without this article you'd never even know it is happening and just because someone is using the right shibboleth doesn't mean they are a good actor.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by jgh on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:07PM
(#14765253)
No, just stop. You're fighting the wrong battle here. "Black lives matter" has a very specific meaning and "all lives matter" is a bigoted attempt to undermine the message. Don't try to whattabout me into a bunch of other stuff outside of the scope of the point I was making.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by aaron-lebo on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:09PM
(#14765271)
So you're gonna put words into other mouths and pretend to understand their motivations (they're just bigots)...and then complain about the same thing?
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by geofft on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:41PM
(#14765006)
How is crossing out "Black lives matter" in any sense related to pursuing actual equality?
I also am definitely opposed to Zuckerberg for president, but I just don't understand the logic here. If they were merely writing "All other lives matter too," I'd understand where you were coming from, but I don't understand how crossing out the statement is praiseworthy.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by komaromy on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:58PM
(#14765170)
Personally, I think that the United States has systematically mistreated black people for centuries and not acknowledging that such problems still exist is willful ignorance.
Re:Potential Presidency for Zuckerberg?
by geofft on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:15PM
(#14765321)
> Personally, I think saying only one group matters tends to read as supremacist.
I agree wholeheartedly. Had the messages in question said "Only black lives matter," I would support crossing them out.
But I don't understand how crossing out "Black lives matter" is supposed to be interpreted as "Yes, and other lives matter too" instead of the straightforward "No, black lives don't matter."
>As Mr. Zuckerberg was leaving, he made one request, Mr. Moore said.
>“He said, ‘If there are any news reporters that call you, just make sure you tell them I’m not running for president.’”
The majority of the article is just about how Zuck's entourage worked to try and make his encounters feel more spontaneous. I felt bad for both the tokenized middle Americans and for Zuck, for whom the construction of his social encounters was necessary for security (and lets not kid ourselves, probably PR) reasons. I don't know if he'll run for President but I think for as tacky and PR-related as the trip is, I think he does genuinely want to learn more about the rest of the country, if only to improve Facebook's UX.
That's not an endorsement though. I think he would get crushed in a Presidential campaign.
From my perspective the current inhabitant of the White House provides a fine illustration that "success" in the world of business does not necessarily translate into success or effectiveness in the world of public service and politics. This feeling has only been compounded by the likes and conduct of members of the current administration like Tillerson and Mnuchin.
Zuckerberg's demand not to be quoted after meeting and talking with people is a huge red flag to me, for example.
First link I found.
The effect is the opposite. The current inhabitant of the White House proves to a whole slew of people that they too could become president, qualifications being irrelevant and the general feeling that they wouldn't do an even worse job of it.
Even if it could help, it'd probably be wiser for him to back a candidate that shares his vision than run himself. It only makes sense if he can't find someone he would endorse (publicly or otherwise), or if he just wants the job for himself.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/china-s-president-x...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2014/12/09/zuc...
EDIT: Perhaps BLM could have averted all of this hubbub regarding the phrase if they had just included the implied 'too'. As in, 'Black lives matter too.'
Both phrases are true and based on who is saying them can be fully believed statements.
The petty internal fights of Facebook co-workers crossing out do not matter. Without this article you'd never even know it is happening and just because someone is using the right shibboleth doesn't mean they are a good actor.
I also am definitely opposed to Zuckerberg for president, but I just don't understand the logic here. If they were merely writing "All other lives matter too," I'd understand where you were coming from, but I don't understand how crossing out the statement is praiseworthy.
I agree wholeheartedly. Had the messages in question said "Only black lives matter," I would support crossing them out.
But I don't understand how crossing out "Black lives matter" is supposed to be interpreted as "Yes, and other lives matter too" instead of the straightforward "No, black lives don't matter."