6 ms·

Come now, Zuckerberg doesn't even need public office. He's more powerful where he is now than he could ever be in an elected position. Just based on the informa

Come now, Zuckerberg doesn't even need public office. He's more powerful where he is now than he could ever be in an elected position. Just based on the information in the article, he could offer technical embeds to campaigns he likes and ignore the ones he doesn't, or provide them with a much smaller degree of assistance, with no one the wiser. I don't think there's a single person in the world with as much potential to impact elections and policy choices as Zuckerberg today.

lsc 9y ago
I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating... but my personal hope is that the current election was a fluke caused by things like facebook advertising being so new; The theory, of course, being that we build up immunities to certain kinds of advertising; there's always a race between us humans building up that immunity, and advertisers striving for novelty. If that theory holds, advertisers have a huge advantage every time a new platform rolls out, and that advantage is slowly eroded over time, as we humans get used to the new medium. Is it true? i don't know.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Or maybe there's nothing flukey about it. Trump talked about things people cared about in a straightforward, albeit bombastic, way. You may disagree with his approach, but others appreciated he was at least talking about things they cared about. Sure Hillary talked about those issues too, but she wasn't able to set a clear vision or ground her campaign in clearly defined and solid themes. We can only learn from failure by accepting it and studying it, not by dismissing it as a fluke.
  - apearson 9y ago
    I agree, it was a close election and yes the system has it's flaws but there was nothing that went majorly wrong with this election.
    - pstuart 9y ago
      There was serious disenfranchisement of voters through onerous laws designed to keep people from voting.
      - tux1968 9y ago
        The laws didn't change drastically from the time a few years earlier when all those people managed to get out and elect Obama. That doesn't seem like a deciding factor at all.
        wavefunction 9y ago
        Voter ID laws definitely changed. All the kicking people off voting rolls definitely got stepped up. Quite a few things were different.
        tux1968 9y ago
        Not really. There have been such allegations going back to every election. There is no evidence that they were more prevalent this time around. In any case, it really seems to not be relevant in a statistical sense of playing a deciding role in the election.
    - ssalazar 9y ago
      There is literally a special investigation right now that is attempting to determine how and where things went wrong.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    I don't think that is what happened. The media didn't hold him accountable for what he said. They wanted viewers. Websites wanted clicks. There was disinformation everywhere. Even in discussions with people who could calmly talk about it, Trump supporters would cite obviously fake blog posts and other completely fake information that could easily be discredited with quick online searches. Even when shown that the information was fake they would not change the opinions that the fake information had created in their minds. He was talking about things that they cared about, because they had little grip on basic facts about reality. They cared about the wrong things.
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      Illegal immigration is a "wrong thing"? Bringing jobs back to blighted areas is a "wrong thing"? Trump talked about these things, that's real, not fake. Media talked about Trump being terrible all the time. He was bashed at every opportunity on many of the big networks. All the free publicity he got probably helped him, even if much of it was negative. Once Trump won the R nomination, media began to take him seriously and do their best to discredit him and his positions.
      - wwweston 9y ago
        > Illegal immigration is a "wrong thing"? It really depends on what problem you're trying to solve: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/immigration-and-crime https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/i... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigr... If crime is your issue, illegal immigration is probably the wrong focus. If general health of the economy is the issue, probably also the wrong focus. If competition for manual labor is your issue, illegal immigration might be a cause for concern, though in order to be a good candidate/official, it's best if you've got a policy that's likely to actually help (building a wall might help the big construction companies who can land the contracts for it, but it's not likely to help anybody who isn't helping build the wall itself). > Media talked about Trump being terrible all the time. He was bashed at every opportunity on many of the big networks. Welcome to politics. You run for office, you're going to get criticized. Is there anything more boring at this point than a persecution complex over that fact? Particularly when (a) we're talking about Donald Trump, who isn't exactly a stranger to dishing it out himself, and (b) it comes from a side of the spectrum that also often seems to make a fuss about safe spaces and snowflakes vs robust free speech. But even assuming Trump drew more criticism than usual -- why is it that so many Trump supporters assumed that was a matter of bias rather than a matter of professionals seeing genuinely troubling thing in Trump's character and policy? Particularly when so many of the newspaper outlets that refused to endorse him were traditionally backers of Republicans?
  - lsc 9y ago
    >Trump talked about things people cared about in a straightforward, albeit bombastic, way. My impression was that the man rarely said the same thing twice. My theory was that he campaigned in the style that was popular before national media, wherein you say different things to different audiences, and that this meshed really well with facebook style targeted advertising, as he could, at least on facebook, give people the message tailored to what they wanted to hear. My theory is that because most of my media still doesn't come from facebook, and the national media outlets I follow would report everything he said, to me? he seemed like a man who didn't have any coherent beliefs. (This, assuming that Trump is cleared of collusion with the Russians, is what I feel was wrong with the current election. I feel that having the national media point out when a candidate makes conflicting statements is a good thing; I think it was a big step forward over what came before.)
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  You don't think real people in this country had real grievances?
  - lsc 9y ago
    You will have to do a lot of talking to convince me that the people with real grievances voted for deep tax cuts for the rich and deep cuts to social programs for the poor. My theory is that the average Trump voter made more than the average Clinton voter. There is some evidence for this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps...
freeflight 9y ago
> He's more powerful where he is now than he could ever be in an elected position. Exactly, an elected position would come with even more publicity, actual responsibilities and the possibility of being held accountable for his actions. It's far more convenient and efficient for him to stay out of that system and just play it from the outside.
- 659087 9y ago
  > Exactly, an elected position would come with even more publicity, actual responsibilities and the possibility of being held accountable for his actions. Having full control of the platform a large portion of the population depends on for news and communication could help him evade much of that.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    Why put yourself in a position where you have to evade it in the first place? There'd be no advantages for him in it, only disadvantages. The only reason he would want to go for public office, at least I could think of, is to influence government policies. But he already has an army of experienced and well-paid people doing exactly that.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  I don't know if that's true. Do we have more transparency into Trump's income, businesses, or even taxes after he became president?
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    > I don't know if that's true. Do we have more transparency into Trump's income, businesses, or even taxes after he became president? Owning a bunch of hotels is a fundamentally different type of power than owning a demographic database + messaging system used to manipulate people's moods.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Then why is he going on his "I'm running for President" tour of America, eating at blue collar family homes and visiting historically black churches? Being in governance gives you power that you can only glance at as a private citizen. Being a billionaire and president of the US will make you far more powerful than merely being a billionaire.
- abiox 9y ago
  it's hard to imagine that he believes he stands a chance. i'm sure any worthwhile consultant or polysci adviser could let him down gently.
659087 9y ago
What could be more powerful than a US president who also happens to have direct control of a large portion of the world's communications and information consumption?
Zelphyr 9y ago
I agree but the allure of that kind of power is intoxicating for people like him. Not to mention the deals he could set up for himself and Facebook when he goes back to the private sector.

lsc 9y ago

I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating... but my personal hope is that the current election was a fluke caused by things like facebook advertising being so new; The theory, of course, being that we build up immunities to certain kinds of advertising; there's always a race between us humans building up that immunity, and advertisers striving for novelty. If that theory holds, advertisers have a huge advantage every time a new platform rolls out, and that advantage is slowly eroded over time, as we humans get used to the new medium. Is it true? i don't know.

meri_dian 9y ago
Or maybe there's nothing flukey about it. Trump talked about things people cared about in a straightforward, albeit bombastic, way. You may disagree with his approach, but others appreciated he was at least talking about things they cared about. Sure Hillary talked about those issues too, but she wasn't able to set a clear vision or ground her campaign in clearly defined and solid themes. We can only learn from failure by accepting it and studying it, not by dismissing it as a fluke.
- apearson 9y ago
  I agree, it was a close election and yes the system has it's flaws but there was nothing that went majorly wrong with this election.
  - pstuart 9y ago
    There was serious disenfranchisement of voters through onerous laws designed to keep people from voting.
    - tux1968 9y ago
      The laws didn't change drastically from the time a few years earlier when all those people managed to get out and elect Obama. That doesn't seem like a deciding factor at all.
      - wavefunction 9y ago
        Voter ID laws definitely changed. All the kicking people off voting rolls definitely got stepped up. Quite a few things were different.
        tux1968 9y ago
        Not really. There have been such allegations going back to every election. There is no evidence that they were more prevalent this time around. In any case, it really seems to not be relevant in a statistical sense of playing a deciding role in the election.
  - ssalazar 9y ago
    There is literally a special investigation right now that is attempting to determine how and where things went wrong.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  I don't think that is what happened. The media didn't hold him accountable for what he said. They wanted viewers. Websites wanted clicks. There was disinformation everywhere. Even in discussions with people who could calmly talk about it, Trump supporters would cite obviously fake blog posts and other completely fake information that could easily be discredited with quick online searches. Even when shown that the information was fake they would not change the opinions that the fake information had created in their minds. He was talking about things that they cared about, because they had little grip on basic facts about reality. They cared about the wrong things.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    Illegal immigration is a "wrong thing"? Bringing jobs back to blighted areas is a "wrong thing"? Trump talked about these things, that's real, not fake. Media talked about Trump being terrible all the time. He was bashed at every opportunity on many of the big networks. All the free publicity he got probably helped him, even if much of it was negative. Once Trump won the R nomination, media began to take him seriously and do their best to discredit him and his positions.
    - wwweston 9y ago
      > Illegal immigration is a "wrong thing"? It really depends on what problem you're trying to solve: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/immigration-and-crime https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/i... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigr... If crime is your issue, illegal immigration is probably the wrong focus. If general health of the economy is the issue, probably also the wrong focus. If competition for manual labor is your issue, illegal immigration might be a cause for concern, though in order to be a good candidate/official, it's best if you've got a policy that's likely to actually help (building a wall might help the big construction companies who can land the contracts for it, but it's not likely to help anybody who isn't helping build the wall itself). > Media talked about Trump being terrible all the time. He was bashed at every opportunity on many of the big networks. Welcome to politics. You run for office, you're going to get criticized. Is there anything more boring at this point than a persecution complex over that fact? Particularly when (a) we're talking about Donald Trump, who isn't exactly a stranger to dishing it out himself, and (b) it comes from a side of the spectrum that also often seems to make a fuss about safe spaces and snowflakes vs robust free speech. But even assuming Trump drew more criticism than usual -- why is it that so many Trump supporters assumed that was a matter of bias rather than a matter of professionals seeing genuinely troubling thing in Trump's character and policy? Particularly when so many of the newspaper outlets that refused to endorse him were traditionally backers of Republicans?
- lsc 9y ago
  >Trump talked about things people cared about in a straightforward, albeit bombastic, way. My impression was that the man rarely said the same thing twice. My theory was that he campaigned in the style that was popular before national media, wherein you say different things to different audiences, and that this meshed really well with facebook style targeted advertising, as he could, at least on facebook, give people the message tailored to what they wanted to hear. My theory is that because most of my media still doesn't come from facebook, and the national media outlets I follow would report everything he said, to me? he seemed like a man who didn't have any coherent beliefs. (This, assuming that Trump is cleared of collusion with the Russians, is what I feel was wrong with the current election. I feel that having the national media point out when a candidate makes conflicting statements is a good thing; I think it was a big step forward over what came before.)
hkmurakami 9y ago
You don't think real people in this country had real grievances?
- lsc 9y ago
  You will have to do a lot of talking to convince me that the people with real grievances voted for deep tax cuts for the rich and deep cuts to social programs for the poor. My theory is that the average Trump voter made more than the average Clinton voter. There is some evidence for this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps...

freeflight 9y ago

> He's more powerful where he is now than he could ever be in an elected position. Exactly, an elected position would come with even more publicity, actual responsibilities and the possibility of being held accountable for his actions. It's far more convenient and efficient for him to stay out of that system and just play it from the outside.

659087 9y ago
> Exactly, an elected position would come with even more publicity, actual responsibilities and the possibility of being held accountable for his actions. Having full control of the platform a large portion of the population depends on for news and communication could help him evade much of that.
- freeflight 9y ago
  Why put yourself in a position where you have to evade it in the first place? There'd be no advantages for him in it, only disadvantages. The only reason he would want to go for public office, at least I could think of, is to influence government policies. But he already has an army of experienced and well-paid people doing exactly that.
kelukelugames 9y ago
I don't know if that's true. Do we have more transparency into Trump's income, businesses, or even taxes after he became president?
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  > I don't know if that's true. Do we have more transparency into Trump's income, businesses, or even taxes after he became president? Owning a bunch of hotels is a fundamentally different type of power than owning a demographic database + messaging system used to manipulate people's moods.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Then why is he going on his "I'm running for President" tour of America, eating at blue collar family homes and visiting historically black churches? Being in governance gives you power that you can only glance at as a private citizen. Being a billionaire and president of the US will make you far more powerful than merely being a billionaire.

abiox 9y ago
it's hard to imagine that he believes he stands a chance. i'm sure any worthwhile consultant or polysci adviser could let him down gently.

659087 9y ago

What could be more powerful than a US president who also happens to have direct control of a large portion of the world's communications and information consumption?

Zelphyr 9y ago

I agree but the allure of that kind of power is intoxicating for people like him. Not to mention the deals he could set up for himself and Facebook when he goes back to the private sector.