Mark Zuckerberg Is Acting Like Someone Who Might Run for President
wired.com
wired.com
Admittedly I haven't watched many interviews recently, but has he improved his onscreen personality at all since the famous D8 interview? Judging by some more recent ones (ex the one with Jerry Seinfeld), perhaps not.
In fact, we should probably all band together to stop him from running under any major-party banner.
In this scenario, how many million more votes does he get than his opponent? Clinton got 2.9 million more, so when you add steroids does this number go up?
Hillary crushed the northeast and the west coast but that was mostly it regionally and she didn't win. A little appeal in the southeast or midwest and she would have won.
He would get a great deal of votes for sure.
But among other things, lack of the wow factor, and well this was one of Hillary's drawbacks. Ditto for Mitt Romney.
The main thing he has going for him is name recognition (a big factor for sure and honestly the only reason anyone would take him seriously as a candidate).
And despite what anyone thinks of Trump he did have a great deal of life experiences with a wide range of people (of all types) in multiple businesses vs. Zuckerberg who essentially went from dropping out of college to Facebook. As such I am not sure of his innate decision making ability given that most of the things he has accomplished have been done with handholding of the people around him.
To be clear, I oppose all Kings, just speaking to the circumstance.
Mark Zuckerberg would do the same thing, except he wants facebook everywhere instead of resorts. I could see him forcing ISPs to upgrade internet infrastructure, closing software patent loopholes, basically fixing all the stuff that makes technological development really annoying.
Better/Easier to buy the congressmen and presidents off to build legislation in your favor.
You can however influence successive political parties around the world if you have a big enough company.
What makes you think that regular fair elections are going to continue indefinitely in the United States of America?
Do you contend that Zuckerburg would be running to become emperor for life of the US? I don't think that's a reasonable argument.
No, he'd have to assassinate Trump to get the position.
Who has more power over a longer period of time: Bill Clinton or Bill Gates? I argue Gates.
It's just going to get magnified too, as technologies dominate everything. The government can't keep up.
The US Government is not designed such that the president or any other job "runs the country" or has crazy power. That's the whole point of the constitution. Even if you consider nukes, despite what you read in policy they aren't a one man decision. People resign instead of using them, just look at the NIxon/Kissinger conversation about nuking Vietnam.
So there is an upper limit on power in the government. There is no upper limit on power in the private sector.
That's not how metaphors work. When you're the head of state, you have unique access and influence that others need. You become an unavoidable actor in the networks of power that manage the worlds resources. Your access will go deeper into those networks than by any other means.
> It's just going to get magnified too, as technologies dominate everything. The government can't keep up.
That's not how the world works. Technology is simply an extension of our will, we fashion it to govern us, but it can never replace us. The "private sector" is just another branch of governance and exists purely in legal forms. I do believe technology can be a liberating force and that we can design a system of incentives that reduces the need for human dependencies but it would be absolute terror to remove us from the instrumentation of the world.
edit- can't reply to you below so I'll reply here: AGI is just the latest fashion, it's still technology which means it still extends from our will. Technology is an ancient human practice, digging into the world with our understanding and forming tools to manage it. It's as old as clothing or written language. That we can replicate or automate our will doesn't negate that our will is being represented and that everything must conform to our needs or be taken as damage. It's fully possible to exterminate ourselves by removing our role from the universe but this isn't something I advocate.
You have the same access and influence as a F50 CEO, but for longer.
Technology is simply an extension of our will, we fashion it to govern us, but it can never replace us.
Famous last words.
edit: I'll just say it, the company (and I believe it will be a company) that builds AGI, will for a brief period be more powerful than the collection of all nation states.
Right, but Clinton wasn't a CEO of a tech company before he was president. A better analogy would be who would have had more period over a longer period of time, Bill Gates as he is now, or Bill Gates if he had become president after stepping down as CEO of Microsoft?
So yea, former presidents aren't really power players after they leave office - they still have influence but nothing at the same level as the people at the top of the Forbes list because they control so little.