4 ms·

I must have missed something; why are people discussing Zuck serving in government?

stingrae 10y ago
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.
- crazpach 10y ago
  And don't forget the announcement where he said he's no longer an atheist and religion is important.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
ithinkinstereo 10y ago
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-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-for-2017-meet-people-in-every-us-state-2017-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-personal-goal...) etc.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  “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.
  - jjawssd 10y ago
    He finally realized the true value of being part of the influential Jewish diaspora/community
  - benologist 10y ago
    Looks like he's alluding to religion being a powerful tool to use.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Zuckerberg wouldn't be the first atheist to become more religious after getting married and having a child.
- chrischen 10y ago
  It suggests he may be Buddhist. You can't really use a religion other than Christianity if you're pandering to Americans.
  - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
    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 :)
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      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.
  - dj-wonk 10y ago
    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-religious/ 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.
anshumanf 10y ago
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-politics-report-says.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-may-be-eyeing...
humanrebar 10y ago
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.

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.

crazpach 10y ago
And don't forget the announcement where he said he's no longer an atheist and religion is important.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

ithinkinstereo 10y ago

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-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-for-2017-meet-people-in-every-us-state-2017-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-personal-goal...) etc.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
“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.
- jjawssd 10y ago
  He finally realized the true value of being part of the influential Jewish diaspora/community
- benologist 10y ago
  Looks like he's alluding to religion being a powerful tool to use.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Zuckerberg wouldn't be the first atheist to become more religious after getting married and having a child.
chrischen 10y ago
It suggests he may be Buddhist. You can't really use a religion other than Christianity if you're pandering to Americans.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago
  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 :)
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    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.
- dj-wonk 10y ago
  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-religious/ 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.

anshumanf 10y ago

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-politics-report-says.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-may-be-eyeing...

humanrebar 10y ago

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.