I'm extremely concerned about the ethics around converting Facebook into an election machine. Three issues concern me:
1. Using the platform to push his campaign
2. Using the platform to suppress opposition press and views
3. Using the data analytics to gain an unfair advantage
Whichever party is on the receiving end of that candidacy has all rights to be pissed and somewhat concerned. It's not a fair advantage. Last saturday, my s/o got a push notification to watch Zuckerberg have a "drive about chat" with the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, so it's already happening.
And I thought my dislike of FB as the scourge of the web was bad...This entire submission is filled with vitriolic comments for a person most of us have not met. I understand having significant concerns, but can we turn down the ad hominem a bit here?
Is that an "ought" or "is" type of "reasonable"? Current conflict-of-interest laws appear toothless against a President who doesn't voluntarily follow their spirit.
I'd love it if he would run and would lose. That way all the dirt about Facebook would finally come to light. I'm sure that more than one FB employee would feel honor bound to make sure the degree of transparency would go up a couple of notches. Two birds with one stone: no MZ as president and Facebook possibly mortally wounded.
Facebook would become the world's biggest propaganda machine. I'm 100% sure it would give rise to an alternate social network if Zuckerberg went full democratic.
The way he was trying to push free Internet in Africa and India, I'd be very worried. He would do more damage than trump.
I really don't want Billionaires and wives of presidents leading the country. Just sends the wrong message.
I don't understand why so many people are enamored with the idea of successful business people becoming President.
The jobs are very different, unless the company they built is truly democratic. As President, you do not rule from the position of CEO, where what you say is truth and must be followed (except in the case of the military). The Companies board, generally less than 20 people, are the only ones who regularly keep you in check, and those generally are only interested in you increasing or maintaining profits.
As President your board is more like Congress. That's 25x the size of the current board. Congress actually passes the laws, which means you need to convince them to do what you want; opposite of a traditional corporate board. And congress really only does what their constituents want, b/c the house faces elections every two years. So really you need to convince their voters that what you're trying to convince them to do is right so that congress feels like they can actually do it.
This takes very different types of leaders in, IMO. Zuckerberg for, better or worse, has been successful at leading a company in a direction where he has nearly sole control. That doesn't translate directly to President, let alone a successful one, and on top of that he'd actually need to get elected, which would surprise me...
Nononononono he might make me vote third party if he wins the nomination. Fuck Zuckerberg. You don't build something like Facebook and get a fucking reward for it!
Nope. I will empty my life savings into the campaign account of whoever is running opposite. I don't care who it is. I do not want Mark Zuckerberg running anything, let alone this country. Something about the guy just screams sleaze.
Zuckerberg 2020 would mean four more years of Donald Trump.
"You have no choice but to vote for me" was essentially the unspoken message of the Clinton campaign. After four years of Trump, that will be the message for anybody running against him. A lot of people distrust him for more right reasons than I could count.
Mark, if you are reading this, don't hold this nation hostage to feed your ego. We want a qualified public servant, not an endless cascade of billionaires who think they know better than the people whose lives are public policy, not selling private information for a buck.
If the Democratic machine chose Mark Zuckerburg as presidential nominee, I would vote Republican or third party for the first time in my life.
For someone with so much information about each of us, he is astoundingly tone-deaf when it comes to public criticism of Facebook and it's profound negative side effects, whether it's fake news, Facebook Live streaming of murders, or simply the effect that social media has on a brain developed for survival on the savannah.
Mark Zuckerberg knows too much about us. And yet, he understands surprisingly little.
There are so many signs that are leading to his possible bid for presidency. Otherwise why would he ask his staff to find out a democratic family who voted for #45.
As a stout Bernie Sanders supporter, who wrote him in rather than stoop to voting for CLinton who cheated to win (IMHO) -- if Mark ran-- and got the nomination I would again write in Sanders ( for me, I'm tired of the elite class ruling), and while I admire Mark from a business level, and what he's accomplished at such a young age, and think he'd not be horrible as president -- I'm of the belief that neoliberalism is out, and egalitarianism is in. Had he come out in major support of Sanders, or switches and adopts his platform and is sincere, I might change my mind -- but there's a shift from neoliberalism and Nationalism/Egalitarianism are the two ways it could go.
We can go back to FDR and the new deal, or we can go like Mussolini and fascism. So far we're headed to fascism, but I think Trump is just proof that we're tired of the old, and desperate for something new, when he fails it'll be time for the progressive wing of the democrats to come in and clean things up..
Two reasons I've heard given are that: this year he's had the stated goal of visiting all the states in the US (seemingly with a large focus on meeting "everyday people"), and that he's publicly changed his view on religion to be more positive about it.
Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer for a while. This is a rather unfortunate example.
I can't remember any names, but I know other countries have a had a better go of it. Specifically I'm thinking of an Eastern Asian country but I really can't remember who and what country.
Depending on which country. He could have become a president of some poor, maybe African or Asian state and use his knowledge and funds to help it. If you are talking about US president, then no, definitely no.
I'm extremely concerned about the ethics around converting Facebook into an election machine. Three issues concern me:
1. Using the platform to push his campaign
2. Using the platform to suppress opposition press and views
3. Using the data analytics to gain an unfair advantage
So far, I've not seen much from him that I find compelling.
Do I think he should be considered as President? No, running a corporate empire and surveillance network (no matter how benignly or maliciously exploited) does not involve the same skills and temperament that are desirable in leading an open and democratic society.
Do I think he could be considered? Yes. The past two years have proven that any qualification for office not explicitly coded in law is void. And "he built Facebook" is an appealing argument to the heuristic that all impressive accomplishments indicate the same type of merit.
I think it'd be interesting - I mean, yeah, Zuck gives me the heebie jeebies, nut it'd at least be entertaining to watch. Hopefully he'd have some interesting tech ideas to move things forward. Whether that'd be happen or not would have to be seen, but if nothing else, the process would be entertaining.
I think the very asking, and responding, to this question is dangerous. We should not entertain the possibility because the mere presence of the idea in the public consciousness is to his benefit.
Thank god he's not charismatic enough to pull something like that off. Whereas Trump is merely a boasting incompetent idiot, Zuckerberg is actually truly evil.
I sometimes feel people worship billionaires like Gods so I wouldn't be surprised to see a large following.
I also believe the HN crowd sometimes gets into a bubble. There's a large part of America that thinks very differently and I have little idea how they make their decisions. If Zuckerberg has this figured out then I wouldn't be surprised to see him win.
So much negativity in the comments. I don't think he'd be ready for the presidency but if we starts a public service career based on decent opinions and policies, augmented by his wealth and reach so he doesn't need to sell out to campaign financiers, couldn't a good thing come out of it? I don't think having been successful with Facebook is enough to bury him already, same way is not enough to vote for him yet, he needs to make his case. Presidency would be too hasty of course, he'd need to put 10-15 years of public service first I'd say, if he wants to capitalize on his fame to launch a marketing bid at the office then no.
1. Using the platform to push his campaign
2. Using the platform to suppress opposition press and views
3. Using the data analytics to gain an unfair advantage
Whichever party is on the receiving end of that candidacy has all rights to be pissed and somewhat concerned. It's not a fair advantage. Last saturday, my s/o got a push notification to watch Zuckerberg have a "drive about chat" with the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, so it's already happening.
See also: http://www.nature.com/news/facebook-experiment-boosts-us-vot...
EDIT: This thread got modded off the FP.