4 ms·

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 interes

by imgabe 10y ago

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.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
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.
- DennisP 10y ago
  Not only does it reach them, but it knows more about them than any political campaign ever dreamed of.
  - rhcom2 10y ago
    Which is a major plot point in the US version of House of Cards.
edblarney 10y ago
"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 :)
- imgabe 10y ago
  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?
  - woofyman 10y ago
    It's not a blind trust if he knows what's in it.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    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.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pera 10y ago
Americans have this odd tendency to vote for celebrities.
- pweissbrod 10y ago
  other countries dont?
  - 1ris 10y ago
    Well, some don't. It doesn't imply a more informed electorate, tho.
- grzm 10y ago
  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
voidray 10y ago
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-idUSKBN135266 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dimon-idUSKBN...) which, as an aside, doesn't require putting your assets in a blind trust.
pmiller2 10y ago
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.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> 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.

by imgabe 10y ago

aaron-lebo 10y ago

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.

DennisP 10y ago
Not only does it reach them, but it knows more about them than any political campaign ever dreamed of.
- rhcom2 10y ago
  Which is a major plot point in the US version of House of Cards.

edblarney 10y ago

"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 :)

imgabe 10y ago
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?
- woofyman 10y ago
  It's not a blind trust if he knows what's in it.
- edblarney 10y ago
  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.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pera 10y ago

Americans have this odd tendency to vote for celebrities.

pweissbrod 10y ago
other countries dont?
- 1ris 10y ago
  Well, some don't. It doesn't imply a more informed electorate, tho.
grzm 10y ago
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

voidray 10y ago

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-idUSKBN135266 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dimon-idUSKBN...) which, as an aside, doesn't require putting your assets in a blind trust.

pmiller2 10y ago

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.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> 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.