5 ms·

Facebook is turning an awful lot of Democrats into enemies. Very curious to see how Zuckerberg tries to maneuver Facebook through wartime. [1] [1] https://a16z

Facebook is turning an awful lot of Democrats into enemies. Very curious to see how Zuckerberg tries to maneuver Facebook through wartime. [1] [1] https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo-2/ https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo-2/

vtesucks 8y ago
It's because the establishment segment (clinton) genuinely fear him throwing his hat in for 2020. Not that I like him but honestly, if he can sells fb stock and promises to genuinely treat Usa like his firm, I'd prefer him over a politician who says what pays (which is all politicians in all sides).
- jsonne 8y ago
  This was actually a major selling point for Trump during the election until it wasn't.
  - vtesucks 8y ago
    Trump's promises may not fit well with half the people but he has done all he promised. See list below. Lets see zuck try that - I think he will succeed too at least better than the "charming" presidents of the recent past on either side TPP cancelled Prison reform NAFTA renegotiated (this is something that is nit clear how well he did) China trade war (which by bloombergs account he has an upper hand in) North Korea peace
    - tasty_freeze 8y ago
      > he has done all he promised Yes, he closed all those tax loopholes that he is an expert at exploiting (his words, not mine). He implemented his plan to win the war in Afghanistan. The wall along the border of Mexico is 30 feet tall and beautiful and Mexico paid for it. The opioid problem has been solved. He has released his tax returns. He has put his assets in a blind trust. He has Made America Great Again.
      - refurb 8y ago
        He may not have done everything he promised, but as someone who isn't a big fan, he has probably delivered on more promises than most presidents.
        untog 8y ago
        I'd be interested to see a study into that. Of course, not all promises are equal. For me, the big promise (and one of very few pluses I could see in Trump's platform) was "draining the swamp", and he's done anything but. Well, either that or making great affordable healthcare available to everyone.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  Is Facebook actually well run? Or just fortunate in its timing in the market? It’s a spectrum, right? Skill and luck. How much of each has contributed to its success?
  - vtesucks 8y ago
    Good point but were a lot of players in market then and a lot of wannabes now
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    Did you forget that Facebook used to play David to Myspace's Goliath? There was never any shortage of competitors, and Facebook wasn't the first on the social media scene by any measure. It came out of nowhere and toppled the dominant incumbent, and is still going strong against competition from giants like Google.
    - Jtsummers 8y ago
      That's why I posed it as a question and mentioned the spectrum that this sits on. Facebook got lucky in some ways, I don't think Zuckerberg meant to create artificial scarcity when it launched, I think he was growing it deliberately but the effect was unintended. Facebook started with Harvard students. Then Boston area colleges, Ivy League, then it was expanded to most universities with a .edu domain. You didn't need invites (Google's preferred method), just to be a member of the right kind of institution. It launched to the public at large in 2006. Those first couple years, a lot of the use of Facebook was reconnecting with old friends. High school classmates, or if you'd graduated but still had a university email your fellow college classmates. This was a distinct endeavor from Myspace. It was explicitly about connecting people who shared a particular geographic or institutional social context (not any context, school). There were no bands, no autoplaying music. Just you and people you may or may not know connecting to each other. Now, they obviously intended to grow it into something larger. And they have done a great job with it. Here's the question: The choice to open it to universities was obviously deliberate, but was the intent to test scaling Facebook or to create an initial critical mass of likeminded, like-aged individuals? My wager is on the former, though I could be proven wrong. That initial smaller but focused group is what allowed them to successfully compete. Luck: They stumbled onto a successful model for building a from-scratch social network with their focused approach. Skill: They intended to be focused on college-aged students believing it would build their critical mass social network more effectively.
- jshorty 8y ago
  I disagree, I don't think they fear that. I'm not sure why Zuckerberg was ever really floated as a potential candidate. He's not particularly charismatic and fails the "beer test" with basically everybody in America, and would likely have a harder time connecting with the voting masses than Hillary Clinton. With his lack of experience added to that, and no real ability to run as an 'outsider' as a billionaire tech elite, I think he'd flame out in a primary contest quickly.
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    >fails the "beer test" with basically everybody in America. Sounds nailed on to be the DNC nominee then.
    - untog 8y ago
      Eh? Obama, Kerry, Bill Clinton... I'd say they all pass the beer test with flying colours. Obviously the exception here is Hillary Clinton. But I do wonder about the gender component of the beer test - while she was seen as aloof and alienating a lot of women didn't see Hillary that way.
      - rorykoehler 8y ago
        Sorry I forgot, no jokes allowed on HN. On a more serious note if Zuckerberg did become the Democrat nominee then I could see the party splintering into a progressive party and a centre-right party.

vtesucks 8y ago

It's because the establishment segment (clinton) genuinely fear him throwing his hat in for 2020. Not that I like him but honestly, if he can sells fb stock and promises to genuinely treat Usa like his firm, I'd prefer him over a politician who says what pays (which is all politicians in all sides).

jsonne 8y ago
This was actually a major selling point for Trump during the election until it wasn't.
- vtesucks 8y ago
  Trump's promises may not fit well with half the people but he has done all he promised. See list below. Lets see zuck try that - I think he will succeed too at least better than the "charming" presidents of the recent past on either side TPP cancelled Prison reform NAFTA renegotiated (this is something that is nit clear how well he did) China trade war (which by bloombergs account he has an upper hand in) North Korea peace
  - tasty_freeze 8y ago
    > he has done all he promised Yes, he closed all those tax loopholes that he is an expert at exploiting (his words, not mine). He implemented his plan to win the war in Afghanistan. The wall along the border of Mexico is 30 feet tall and beautiful and Mexico paid for it. The opioid problem has been solved. He has released his tax returns. He has put his assets in a blind trust. He has Made America Great Again.
    - refurb 8y ago
      He may not have done everything he promised, but as someone who isn't a big fan, he has probably delivered on more promises than most presidents.
      - untog 8y ago
        I'd be interested to see a study into that. Of course, not all promises are equal. For me, the big promise (and one of very few pluses I could see in Trump's platform) was "draining the swamp", and he's done anything but. Well, either that or making great affordable healthcare available to everyone.
Jtsummers 8y ago
Is Facebook actually well run? Or just fortunate in its timing in the market? It’s a spectrum, right? Skill and luck. How much of each has contributed to its success?
- vtesucks 8y ago
  Good point but were a lot of players in market then and a lot of wannabes now
- dunpeal 8y ago
  Did you forget that Facebook used to play David to Myspace's Goliath? There was never any shortage of competitors, and Facebook wasn't the first on the social media scene by any measure. It came out of nowhere and toppled the dominant incumbent, and is still going strong against competition from giants like Google.
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    That's why I posed it as a question and mentioned the spectrum that this sits on. Facebook got lucky in some ways, I don't think Zuckerberg meant to create artificial scarcity when it launched, I think he was growing it deliberately but the effect was unintended. Facebook started with Harvard students. Then Boston area colleges, Ivy League, then it was expanded to most universities with a .edu domain. You didn't need invites (Google's preferred method), just to be a member of the right kind of institution. It launched to the public at large in 2006. Those first couple years, a lot of the use of Facebook was reconnecting with old friends. High school classmates, or if you'd graduated but still had a university email your fellow college classmates. This was a distinct endeavor from Myspace. It was explicitly about connecting people who shared a particular geographic or institutional social context (not any context, school). There were no bands, no autoplaying music. Just you and people you may or may not know connecting to each other. Now, they obviously intended to grow it into something larger. And they have done a great job with it. Here's the question: The choice to open it to universities was obviously deliberate, but was the intent to test scaling Facebook or to create an initial critical mass of likeminded, like-aged individuals? My wager is on the former, though I could be proven wrong. That initial smaller but focused group is what allowed them to successfully compete. Luck: They stumbled onto a successful model for building a from-scratch social network with their focused approach. Skill: They intended to be focused on college-aged students believing it would build their critical mass social network more effectively.
jshorty 8y ago
I disagree, I don't think they fear that. I'm not sure why Zuckerberg was ever really floated as a potential candidate. He's not particularly charismatic and fails the "beer test" with basically everybody in America, and would likely have a harder time connecting with the voting masses than Hillary Clinton. With his lack of experience added to that, and no real ability to run as an 'outsider' as a billionaire tech elite, I think he'd flame out in a primary contest quickly.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  >fails the "beer test" with basically everybody in America. Sounds nailed on to be the DNC nominee then.
  - untog 8y ago
    Eh? Obama, Kerry, Bill Clinton... I'd say they all pass the beer test with flying colours. Obviously the exception here is Hillary Clinton. But I do wonder about the gender component of the beer test - while she was seen as aloof and alienating a lot of women didn't see Hillary that way.
    - rorykoehler 8y ago
      Sorry I forgot, no jokes allowed on HN. On a more serious note if Zuckerberg did become the Democrat nominee then I could see the party splintering into a progressive party and a centre-right party.