Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Perhaps on an absolute basis, the Soviets were the worst, but on a relative-to-population basis history is littered with meaningless massacre.
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...
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.
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.
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.
No such obligation exists for most elected officials, though, of course, the perception of doing otherwise may make reelection less likely.
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...
What's this based on?
Admittedly questionable source, but I've seen it elsewhere and the approximation seems fair.
I thought the complaint was if Trump had merely taken the 'small loan of one million dollars' and invested it in the S&P500, he would have made more money. That is, he is worse at growing wealth than the stock market average.
Politicians have a lot of levers to shape media coverage without owning one of the largest sources of information in the modern world.
The prospect of a global surveillance apparatus is chilling though, and Zuckerberg already has one of those - albeit with voluntary participation. Digital privacy is a major fault line in emerging politics, and Zuckerberg is one of my bete noires in this area.
IMO, Mark's setting himself up to be Hegemon of Earth: http://enderverse.wikia.com/wiki/Hegemony
[1] http://favobooks.com/enterpreneurs/90-zuckerberg.html
[2] https://qz.com/532834/mark-zuckerbergs-20-minute-speech-in-c...
Seems like tech or internet balkanization is coming fast.
Why might it be bad? Why might it be good?
There are so many factors. For one, I'd rather have someone in government who understands technology. So many parts of government are lacking in basic technical capability.
On the other hand, I find Facebook's awareness of the social fabric to be somewhere between inchoate (that's charitable) and a convenient illusion that is fundamentally mostly marketing-driven. (I don't fault a company for being market-driven; however, such incentives are not structured to properly serve people and communities).
But I don't know too much about Facebook's social design as compared to Zuck's goals for possibly serving in government or where he would like Facebook to go.
Tech companies controlled directly by us politicians will probably make this existing backlash worse.
I don't think you concerns about balkanization are unfounded by I'm curious why you have that concern in the context of this specific story. Can you elaborate?
Basically he wants to retain control of facebook while running for office, I cant imagine this go over well with certain other countries. Especially ones sensitive to nsa leaks, it would just have incredibly poor optics, and just increase the balkanization occuring already.
1) Reveals he is no longer an atheist (http://nypost.com/2017/01/02/mark-zuckerberg-reveals-hes-no-...) 2) 2017 New Years goal to meet people in every 50 state (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-personal-goal...)
etc.
That said, there are some religions that are compatible with atheism, which wouldn't necessarily be recognized by the public as a religion that could have atheists in it, or would at least provide plausible deniability if you are smart enough to keep your mouth shut about religion on the campaign trail.
Unitarianism, obviously, is one of these. If I were ever to run for office, I would simply join a UU assembly and leave it at that. This would probably restrict me to running as a Democrat, though. If I wanted to run as a Republican, I would have to be more careful, and say "I was baptized in the Methodist church".
If Zuckerberg wants to give it a go as a Buddhist, secular Buddhism exists, and certainly no one on the west coast would bat an eye at it, but the other regions of the country would probably either have a problem with the religion itself, or that Zuckerberg would be practicing it as a white guy.
But in the case of religion (even Buddhism), I find it plausible. Demographics and expectations about religion are changing. Religious belief and alignment does appear to be softening. See: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-...
More broadly, I think the models of cognitive dissonance and tribal behavior are sometimes more important than arbitrary labels. If enough voters feel comfortable with a candidate (on their own terms) they can dismiss any number of externally-imposed labels about their candidate.
For analogy, comparing Mormonism to Christianity is sort of like comparing Chrome to Konqueror.
This is generally held to exclude (as I recall), for different (though overlapping) reasons, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians, among others groups that describe themselves as Christian. (In contexts where the definition in question is being used, these and similarly situated groups may be referred to as "pseudo-Christian cults".)
This definition isn't consistently important outside of academic theological contexts within the body of mainstream Christianity, though, as lots of regular believers use either a much broader definition in daily conversation, or a narrower one that amounts to agreement with the particular religious beliefs of the individual in question.
Particularly, in US political contexts, political groups organized around politically conservative policies justified by appeals to Christianity have very often sought to appeal across traditional theological boundaries to reach politically-significant populations, and this is absolutely the case with trying to draw in LDS members; so, in terms of conservative political Christianity, Mormons are usually accepted, even if there is an academic theological standard which holds them as distinct from Christianity.
Jehovah Witness and Seventh Day Adventists are the same thing. Mormons along with Jehovah Witness are Restorationists so neither Catholic or Protestant.
Mitt Romney who ran against Barack Obama in 2008 was Mormon. There have only been 8 Mormons who have run for President in the history of the US. Mitt and his father were 2 of that only 8.
Bernie Sanders was the first Jewish candidate to win a Presidential Primary.
The US has never had President who wasn't either Catholic or Protestant. This article gives an interesting look:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/almost-all-u...
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-may-be-eyeing...
It's pretty clear that the Trump election has changed the calculus quite a bit in this regard. I expect to see more celebrity candidates going forward, at least in the near term.
ZUCK 2020
Zuck is also setting himself up for President, which is a little egoist. That said, anyone thinking that is on some level ...