Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/04/connector-in-chief/
91 comments
Why does this sound like the plot to a dystopian sci fi novel? Facebook's interests aren't anything close to my interests.
Then don't vote for Zuckerberg? Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative.
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.
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.
I think the point is that he could use his immense power and unique platform to win regardless of what you or I might want.
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.
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.
Americans have this odd tendency to vote for celebrities.
I'm not sure that it's odd, nor is it purely American. Here's a list of just actors-turned-politician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actor-politicians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actor-politicians
other countries dont?
Well, some don't. It doesn't imply a more informed electorate, tho.
That's much easier said than done.
At the end of the day, Facebook almost reaches 2 billion people. Good luck beating that and a net worth of $50 billion.
At the end of the day, Facebook almost reaches 2 billion people. Good luck beating that and a net worth of $50 billion.
"Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative."
"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 :)
"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 :)
That is what blind trusts are for. This isn't a new thing. People who own businesses have been elected to office before. Yes, there can be "conflicts of interest", but it's not like he's going to sneak into office and start making Facebook-friendly laws without anyone realizing he owns Facebook.
"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?
"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?
A 'blind trust' would be for someone who has a portfolio of stocks, bonds etc. wherein the individual would not be able to use their knowledge to gain leverage etc.
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.)
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.)
AFAIK there are no reporters working for Facebook. Theoretically, Facebook could hide stories that are critical of Facebook or Zuckerberg or prevent them from being shared on Facebook, but that would be pretty glaringly obvious and easy to verify.
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.
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.
FB and Google each have considerably more influence than any news organization, because they own the algorithms that decide what people see, and what they don't.
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.
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.
It's not a blind trust if he knows what's in it.
Maybe I won't get the chance to vote for or against him. There are such things as appointed offices, some of which wield considerable power.
> Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative.
No such obligation exists for most elected officials, though, of course, the perception of doing otherwise may make reelection less likely.
No such obligation exists for most elected officials, though, of course, the perception of doing otherwise may make reelection less likely.
[deleted]
And Trump's do? We are already in a dystopian sci fi novel.
Prism and edward snowden sealed that for me a while back.
Yep. I have a Yahoo! email. The NSA has already read all my personal correspondence.
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...
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...
[deleted]
We have been living in a dystopian sci-fi novel since 2001.
We have been living in a dystopian sci-fi novel since 1945.
Yep. 1. Cities destroyed by atomic weapons 2. Rockets 3. Computers 4. A dystopian one party nation state murdering millions of it's own (murdering en masse is nothing new but usually there was some excuse - soviet system brought state instituted terror to a whole new levem).
> usually there was some excuse - soviet system brought state instituted terror to a whole new levem [sic]
Perhaps on an absolute basis, the Soviets were the worst, but on a relative-to-population basis history is littered with meaningless massacre.
Perhaps on an absolute basis, the Soviets were the worst, but on a relative-to-population basis history is littered with meaningless massacre.
I agree, yet, I don't think there is anything intellectually dishonest in counting human suffering in absolute measures. Yes, we can identify historical patterns, but individual humans are not just playing out a manifestation of social dynamics, they are living their life. The heart and mind are equal in gauging the world - just different aspects of it.
We have been living in a dystopian sci-fi novel since 33 AD. Or, if you prefer, 66 million years ago.
Yes but I think the velocity of Dystopianism since 2001 might be much greater than anything experienced before then.
The massive stockpiling of nuclear weapons that began is kind of on league of it's own. The western electorate has been taken on a ride since national suffrage became a thing (before that they had very little power thus no rides were necessary - ditto for non-democratic states)
Please reread what wrote. I am not stating that it didn't exist much earlier. I was simply saying that the velocity of it has seemed to increase since 2001.
[deleted]
The problem with dystopian sci-fi novels is that their plots are usually dependent on social dynamics that don't capture the full range of human behavior. For example, you don't read many sci-fi novels that have a character like John D. Rockafeller (who used his wealth and power to stand up to Prohibition).
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).
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).
US population in 1776 was 1% of what it is now.
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.
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 could not agree more.
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...
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...
You should read "The Circle" by Dave Eggers.
I was going to post asking what experience Mark has in government but then I remembered the American population just voted to elect a reality TV 'star' and rich-from-daddies-money mediocre businessman as President. So yeah I guess Mark is highly qualified in that he has several times Trump's net worth.
Another way to describe Trump is that he ran a business that created more value than the S&P 500 (the top 500 businesses on US stock exchanges) over a 30 year period, created a world famous brand associated with quality and luxury, created a tv show that dominated ratings for a decade, and crushed two political dynasties that have held power for almost 40 years.
"a business that created more value than the S&P 500 (the top 500 businesses on US stock exchanges) over a 30 year period"
What's this based on?
What's this based on?
https://dqydj.com/donald-trump-beat-sp-500-index-funds/
Admittedly questionable source, but I've seen it elsewhere and the approximation seems fair.
Admittedly questionable source, but I've seen it elsewhere and the approximation seems fair.
There's probably a clearer way to phrase that point. I initially thought you were saying that Donald Trump made more money than the entire S&P 500!
haha. I reread my post and it was a bit gibberishy. Ooops.
I guess approximately half of all shareholders did. It's not really a feat.
How are you calculating value created? Based on market capitalization it looks like the S&P 500 went from a market cap of $925 Billion in the 1980's to over $19 Trillion today [1].
[1] http://siblisresearch.com/data/total-market-cap-sp-500/
[1] http://siblisresearch.com/data/total-market-cap-sp-500/
Wasn't that just the opposite?
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.
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.
I think the analysis that says that is somewhat misguided. Matt Levine (my go-to for financial stuff, his writing is insightful and accessible) wrote a good piece on it here https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-do...
You could, except that none of those descriptions are true.
As someone who shares a lot more political opinions with Zuckerberg than Trump, having the man who controls Facebook holding political office has just as much potential for corruption as Trump does, and is almost as scary.
Politicians have a lot of levers to shape media coverage without owning one of the largest sources of information in the modern world.
Politicians have a lot of levers to shape media coverage without owning one of the largest sources of information in the modern world.
I searched for "blind trust" and didn't see it. Is there some legal quirk I'm missing here where Zuckerberg gets a pass on conflicts of interest, or is it part of the general lack of ethics the incoming Administration seems to be planning?
I'm not sure why people are saying Zuckerberg would be better than a regular politician. His public statements have been pretty vacuous, which probably means he is trying to obscure his real positions like any other politician. I'll reserve final judgement on his competence for office until he starts being more concrete, or if someone can point me to some position papers. But for now color me suspicious.
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.
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.
Some fun facts: Zuck's favorite book(s) growing up was the Ender's Game series [1]. He learned Mandarin and spoke to Chinese audiences [2]. As such, I don't think he's setting himself up to be POTUS, that seems too small for him. (One of Zuck's role models is Bill Gates, and Bill clearly believes that folks like himself can do more for the world outside of Government than inside it.)
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...
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...
Just login to Facebook with your SSN to check your IRS and other government services...
Facebook.gov : The new platform to tie in all branches of the government: Healthcare, DMV, Criminal Records, Credit ... Bonus if the API endpoints for each Service uses GraphQL.
Politics and tech mixing sounds bad for global shared tech.
Seems like tech or internet balkanization is coming fast.
Seems like tech or internet balkanization is coming fast.
Why do you say "balkanization" and what do you mean by it?
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.
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.
This article explains it well.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/1...
Tech companies controlled directly by us politicians will probably make this existing backlash worse.
Tech companies controlled directly by us politicians will probably make this existing backlash worse.
>"Seems like tech or internet balkanization is coming fast."
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?
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?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/08/mark-zuck...
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.
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.
I must have missed something; why are people discussing Zuck serving in government?
Recent announcements and actions by Zuck suggest that he's going to run for office one day.
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.
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.
It suggests he may be Buddhist. You can't really use a religion other than Christianity if you're pandering to Americans.
No atheists really are the worst. (Perhaps it would be better to say they would be considered the worst by the stereotypical stereotypical American?)
I, for one, would not put limits on the ability of politicians to pander in ways that I would find implausible.
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.
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.
Offering an anecdote with as little commentary as possible, but having gone to a small religious high school, I have friends who argue they'd "never vote for anyone who isn't Christian" but managed to do some mental gymnastics in order to vote for Romney, who during the primaries they seemed to oppose for being Mormon.
Now I feel ignorant, Mormonism doesn't count as a sect of Christianity?
There's a fairly common standard among mainstream Christian groups as to what constitutes the boundary of Christianity formed by adherence to certain understandings of foundational doctrines (basically encapsulated into the common Nicene and Apostle's Creed's.)
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.
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.
Politicians in the US are mostly either Catholic and Protestant.
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...
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...
Thank you for the detailed response!
There was a fair bit of established orthodox doctrine laid down between 100-400 CE. Christian groups that follow this are generally considered Christian by each by each other. Mormonism deviates significantly from orthodox doctrine, so it is considered a heretical sect by Christians.
For analogy, comparing Mormonism to Christianity is sort of like comparing Chrome to Konqueror.
For analogy, comparing Mormonism to Christianity is sort of like comparing Chrome to Konqueror.
I see this as baby steps... he knows that being an atheist is a non-starter, politically. Better something than nothing. Watch him get more religious and move towards Judaism/Christianity as we get closer to 2020 :)
Exactly this. If you are already atheist, and people know about it, it is more tenable politically to convert to any religion that exists than to remain atheist. This includes religions that practice human sacrifice. And if you think that is too insane to be true, please remember what country we are talking about, here.
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.
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.
“No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important,” he wrote.
Looks like he's alluding to religion being a powerful tool to use.
Zuckerberg wouldn't be the first atheist to become more religious after getting married and having a child.
There is speculation based on how he structured facebook's stock as well as his new years resolution, to travel all over the US and talk to people about the issues they care about. It is the sort of step that someone would make before running for political office.
And don't forget the announcement where he said he's no longer an atheist and religion is important.
[deleted]
This[1] article from December points to a lawsuit reported by Bloomberg allegging that Marc Andreessen helped Zuckerberg push a measure through a special committee of shareholders that would allow him to maintain "voting control of the company, even if he sells most of his stock".
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-may-be-eyeing...
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-may-be-eyeing...
I suspect a lot of rich people have eschewed politics out of several concerns, including whether certain aspects of their personal history, business history, or business holdings nullify their chances of being elected.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Oh please no
[deleted]
Would be a massive conflict of interest.
Zuck is also setting himself up for President, which is a little egoist. That said, anyone thinking that is on some level ...
Zuck is also setting himself up for President, which is a little egoist. That said, anyone thinking that is on some level ...
Mark should run for President. If either Him or Peter were running, I'd vote for either of them. It'd be very good for innovation, people wouldn't suffocate under Business Regulation, and the US would have Utopian policies (I imagine). If Peter or Mark decide to become President, they should compete with Justin Trudeau, to see who can be more Socially Liberal.