4 ms·

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

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.)

imgabe 10y ago
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.
- edblarney 10y ago
  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.

imgabe 10y ago

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.

edblarney 10y ago
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.