4 ms·

> He even had a hit movie made about him. In which he was the villain. He has more or less zero people skills, but truckloads of money, and creepy amounts of

> He even had a hit movie made about him. In which he was the villain. He has more or less zero people skills, but truckloads of money, and creepy amounts of personal information. IMHO his best bet for being elected President would be to straight-up purchase a major party's nomination, then buy the necessary votes in swing states. Let's say it costs $1b to buy a party's nomination. Florida was won by about 100,000 votes in 2016, and he can probably target persuadable voters using FB's data. Can he buy those people's votes for another billion (i.e. $10k apiece)?

ithinkinstereo 10y ago
That may be true, but I don't it really matters. Is he more of a "villain" than Trump? I think most Americans understand that you have to step on a few toes (or many toes) to build a global empire the size of FB. Also remember that in American society, might (money) = right. Everyone knows that Jobs was an asshole, people still worship him anyways. It's sad, I know, but it's a fact.
- username223 10y ago
  > Is he more of a "villain" than Trump? Trump is a chest-thumping buffoon, but he's also a "manly man" -- just look at how he made Marco Rubio apologize for obliquely questioning his penis size, while shamelessly bragging about being well-endowed. He was also willing to tap into America's latent racism, something I doubt Zuck could credibly do. He doesn't have a good story besides "technocrat in chief," and many people will just see the oblivious, arrogant nerd who spent his high school years getting chocolate swirlies.
  - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
    I see your point about the "manly man" but I think that's not as important as you might think. Case in point: Bernie Sanders. Also before Trump surged ahead, Jeb "low energy" Bush was the GOP front-runner. It's true that Trump ultimately won, but I don't think his "manly man" image was the key factor. Recall '08 when Obama defeated the Maverick and his gun-toting mama bear VP.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
Money is useful, but it's not a slam-dunk like people make it out to be. Look at Jeb Bush: that guy will never be anything except the butt of a political joke, and he spent at least $150 million. It's not $1 billion, but are you going to tell me that giving Jeb 6x more money would've made him competitive?
- username223 10y ago
  I don't know if it would have made Jeb(!) competitive -- he was Hillary-level bad as a candidate -- but the amount of money spent on campaigns per persuadable voter in a swing state is getting scary. Let's say Trump doesn't get impeached or bored with the job, and runs for reelection in 2020. There are almost no viable Democrats younger than retirement age, and Zuck could drop a few billion on the primary and general. Or let's say that Trump serves through 2024. As long as Zuck picks a party instead of going full Ross Perot, he only has to shift a few hundred thousand voters in the right places.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    Theoretically, having SV work to make advertising more efficient reduces the impact of money. Clinton spent 50% more than Trump for a similar number of voters, and some argue that it was because Trump could use Facebook ads to target people with less money. Don't take me too seriously, but I wonder if there's a socially-valuable benefit here to the advertising industry, since it makes it easier for anyone to jump in and run for office.
    - username223 10y ago
      > it makes it easier for anyone to jump in and run for office. Don't take me too seriously, either, but I would say it makes it easier to translate money into other things. The surveillance economy is all about collecting information and renting it to the highest bidder. Buying crap you don't need? Voting for X instead of Y? Being sent to jail for doing Z? It doesn't matter -- money talks.
  - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
fatjokes 10y ago
Not just any kind of villain---the angry, rejected nerd villain. Villain or hero, nobody really wants to get behind that.
- WikipediasBad 10y ago
  As an angry, rejected nerd who is financially very successful (albeit not even close to Zuck), I would gladly get behind that. He represents me in a closely literal way.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago
  Well a lot of people got behind Bernie, who has that whole, old-man-get-offff-myyyy-lawwwwn-socialist-curmudgeon, image going. I think a team of handlers could prob mold Zuck into presentable shape.
SamReidHughes 10y ago
> In which he was the villain. See the interesting thing there is, he was viewed as the bad guy by the older viewers that watched the movie, but not by the younger viewers.

ithinkinstereo 10y ago

That may be true, but I don't it really matters. Is he more of a "villain" than Trump? I think most Americans understand that you have to step on a few toes (or many toes) to build a global empire the size of FB. Also remember that in American society, might (money) = right. Everyone knows that Jobs was an asshole, people still worship him anyways. It's sad, I know, but it's a fact.

username223 10y ago
> Is he more of a "villain" than Trump? Trump is a chest-thumping buffoon, but he's also a "manly man" -- just look at how he made Marco Rubio apologize for obliquely questioning his penis size, while shamelessly bragging about being well-endowed. He was also willing to tap into America's latent racism, something I doubt Zuck could credibly do. He doesn't have a good story besides "technocrat in chief," and many people will just see the oblivious, arrogant nerd who spent his high school years getting chocolate swirlies.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago
  I see your point about the "manly man" but I think that's not as important as you might think. Case in point: Bernie Sanders. Also before Trump surged ahead, Jeb "low energy" Bush was the GOP front-runner. It's true that Trump ultimately won, but I don't think his "manly man" image was the key factor. Recall '08 when Obama defeated the Maverick and his gun-toting mama bear VP.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

Money is useful, but it's not a slam-dunk like people make it out to be. Look at Jeb Bush: that guy will never be anything except the butt of a political joke, and he spent at least $150 million. It's not $1 billion, but are you going to tell me that giving Jeb 6x more money would've made him competitive?

username223 10y ago
I don't know if it would have made Jeb(!) competitive -- he was Hillary-level bad as a candidate -- but the amount of money spent on campaigns per persuadable voter in a swing state is getting scary. Let's say Trump doesn't get impeached or bored with the job, and runs for reelection in 2020. There are almost no viable Democrats younger than retirement age, and Zuck could drop a few billion on the primary and general. Or let's say that Trump serves through 2024. As long as Zuck picks a party instead of going full Ross Perot, he only has to shift a few hundred thousand voters in the right places.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  Theoretically, having SV work to make advertising more efficient reduces the impact of money. Clinton spent 50% more than Trump for a similar number of voters, and some argue that it was because Trump could use Facebook ads to target people with less money. Don't take me too seriously, but I wonder if there's a socially-valuable benefit here to the advertising industry, since it makes it easier for anyone to jump in and run for office.
  - username223 10y ago
    > it makes it easier for anyone to jump in and run for office. Don't take me too seriously, either, but I would say it makes it easier to translate money into other things. The surveillance economy is all about collecting information and renting it to the highest bidder. Buying crap you don't need? Voting for X instead of Y? Being sent to jail for doing Z? It doesn't matter -- money talks.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago

fatjokes 10y ago

Not just any kind of villain---the angry, rejected nerd villain. Villain or hero, nobody really wants to get behind that.

WikipediasBad 10y ago
As an angry, rejected nerd who is financially very successful (albeit not even close to Zuck), I would gladly get behind that. He represents me in a closely literal way.
ithinkinstereo 10y ago
Well a lot of people got behind Bernie, who has that whole, old-man-get-offff-myyyy-lawwwwn-socialist-curmudgeon, image going. I think a team of handlers could prob mold Zuck into presentable shape.

SamReidHughes 10y ago

> In which he was the villain. See the interesting thing there is, he was viewed as the bad guy by the older viewers that watched the movie, but not by the younger viewers.