11 ms·
Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)
- otterley 6y ago(2018)
- dang 6y agoAdded. Thanks!
- lessname 6y agoThat link seems to be down - http://web.archive.org/web/20200603144637/https://stingingfly.org/2018/06/27/bland-god-notes-on-mark-zuckerberg/ http://web.archive.org/web/20200603144637/https://stingingfl...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- misiti3780 6y agoDoes anyone really believe he could be elected president someday? (mentioned in the article)
- codq 6y agoI’m certain _he_ does.
- vb6sp6 6y agoTrump showed us that the old guard is less powerful than we\they thought. The zuck could absolutely win and facebook would be his tool to do it.
- ginko 6y agoZuckerberg has the charisma of a fish though.
- Etheryte 6y agoYou don't need charisma when you can insert yourself into people's notifications, Facebook and Instagram feeds, have a near-live overview of the majority of the voting population, know their political bias, cultural heritage, and much, much more.
- Trasmatta 6y agoDo you believe that Zuckerberg would be allowed to use Facebook to push his presidential campaign? I feel like he would have to divest himself of the company entirely first. Then again, that's maybe too much of an expectation, given our current political situation.
- windthrown 6y agoYou'd think so...but I also thought it would be politically unpalatable for Trump to refuse to divest from his business. And once in office, the emoluments clause of the constitution has been shown to be pretty toothless.
- Tostino 6y ago> pretty toothless Entirely toothless.
- donogh 6y agoHe controls 57.9% of the voting shares[1] and, historically, hasn't exactly been a paragon of virtue. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-shareholders-facebook-fb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-...
- Trasmatta 6y agoYeah, I keep seeing the "well, Trump won!" argument anytime somebody suggests that a certain person wouldn't win an election. But that ignores Trump's unique characteristics that allowed him to gain a significant and loyal following. I feel like Zuckerberg trying to run would be a Mike Bloomberg situation. Remember when that happened?
- smacktoward 6y agoWhen you're rich enough, you quickly get surrounded by people who are happy to agree with any damn fool notion you come up with.
- freewilly1040 6y agoAs Mike Bloomberg can attest to, this is not enough to be a presidential contender.
- mc32 6y agoHe and Schulz winged it and treated it like a jock treats finals. “I’ll pull an all-nighter and I’ll get an A”. Nope like most people who don’t show up for class and do an all-nighter, they got a D- and failed.
- olcor 6y agoI wouldn’t completely agree with that. From most sources, Bloomberg wanted to run even in 2016, and did a lot of work on that front, till the end when he somehow changed tack to “not split the vote”. While he did officially make a late entry in the race, started throwing a lot of money and research power quite early. It just so happened that the American public looks at more factors than just a lot of money.
- mc32 6y agoTo me they both seemed woefully underprepared and at a loss for answers when the spotlight was put on them during debates. I guess executives delegate a lot , so much that on their own they might feel exposed and unprepared because there is no one to assist, at least when thrust into unfamiliar ground.
- SCUSKU 6y agoThat being said, Bloomberg entered the Democratic primary very late and does not own one of the largest propaganda machines in the world. If done right, Zuckerberg might have a decent shot. After all, Bloomberg achieved ~18% [1] in the polls despite his late entry. [1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2...!
- jraines 6y agoJust those who will make it their business to believe it’s possible (politcal consultants). Exhibit A: Bloomberg campaign If they were eligible, Schwarzeneggar (years ago) or Musk (now), would have a better shot —- still small —- because it would be a circus. And we have evidence that a circus can get you elected.
- AQuantized 6y agoMusk was born in South Africa, so isn't eligible for the presidency. Edit: Must have only skimmed this thread before commenting because the parent mentions this, oops
- Trasmatta 6y agoThat's why they said "If they were eligible".
- fatbird 6y agoA bit weirdly, Bloomberg is exhibit B; Howard Schultz's attempt a few months earlier was Exhibit A, and about as successful. At some point, those same consultants had to convince Bloomberg he wouldn't be another Schultz.
- mc32 6y agoHonestly both of them just winged it. They were unprepared for debates and when they had answers they were uninspiring, to say the least.
- toyg 6y agoSchwarzenegger would be a walk-in, regardless of which party he gets behind him. There is a parallel reality where Democrats pushed hard to change the eligibility rules during Obama’s second term, selected Ahnold, and continued the Obama legacy of slow-going, moderate social progress. Sadly we are in a darker timeline.
- deleted 6y ago
- the-dude 6y agoIn 2017 he has already been 'campaigning' : https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/technology/zuckerberg-harvard-commencement-road-trip.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/technology/zuckerberg-har...
- pavlov 6y agoHe could be the first Prime Minister of ROCOW, the Republic of California, Oregon and Washington, colloquially known as Yugofaangia.
- r00fus 6y agoNot a chance. That doesn't mean he can't maintain delusions.
- keith__talent 6y agoI feel State of Jefferson wouldn't have anything to with him.
- jerrysievert 6y agoI think you mean cascadia :) but somehow I think that the more liberal leaning parts of it would say no ... (note, some border lines of cascadia reach through big swaths of California, others do not).
- realbarack 6y agoZuck could 100% be elected president someday. It certainly seems more plausible than I would have said about Trump in say ~2012. - The US worships rich and successful businessmen in general. - Facebook is the most powerful media empire the world has ever know. It could easily mobilize to support a Zuck campaign. - His charisma and current reputation are obviously votes against him but reputation is malleable (see previous point re: media empire) and political training could probably go a long way.
- Avicebron 6y agoYeah, let's start by not worshiping rich businessmen.
- realbarack 6y agoI agree. Note that I don't want this to happen, but I don't share the GP's confidence that it's impossible.
- TremendousJudge 6y agoIt's too late for that. Have you ever looked at the web page you are on?
- m0xte 6y agoShit always floats to the top of the tank, so possibly.
- utkarsh_apoorva 6y agoI wanted say no, but we did get Trump. So Zuck being President seems like a real possibility.
- new2628 6y agoThey are very different though. One can be charismatic and charming, the other is bland and awkward.
- nwienert 6y agoBeing famous and rich is not what got Trump in and the factors that got him in would be somewhat different for a liberal. And in the general factors that matter for a president, Zuck has about 0 of the ones that matter (charisma, likeability, relatability, toughness, outspokenness, bluster, comedy, incisiveness, a relatable or admirable background, etc). He’s a privileged rich white kid on the spectrum, I give less-than-Bloomberg chances (same charisma, less experience and relatability).
- neves 6y agoA lot of evidences show that what got Trump elected can be resumed in one word: racism. More here: https://medium.com/@sanfordschram_87074/racial-diversity-696ad9c89616 https://medium.com/@sanfordschram_87074/racial-diversity-696...
- foxtr0t 6y ago>He’s a privileged rich white kid on the spectrum Trump or Zuckerberg?
- toyg 6y agoAgree on the overall argument, but your assumption that Zuck is a “liberal” seems, on the face of it, pretty unfounded. He financed Republicans and effectively allowed Trump free reign on his platform, over and over.
- type0 6y agoHe believes it
- DoreenMichele 6y agoIt's a longstanding American tradition that many of our politicians are successful businessmen who made a fortune and then used their wealth to finance their political campaign(s). This is more or less how our current president got into power. I think Trump is the only American president who never held a political office before becoming president. He was wealthy and famous for decades as a very successful businessman and he apparently spent many years contemplating running for president. I once wrote a blog post titled something like "The 70 Year Old Political Virgin." I suspect a lot of the drama we see with this presidency is rooted in the fact that he has no prior political experience. He has prior experience with people talking about him because he was rich and wealth is a kind of power, but it's not the same as having real political power where you can command armies and what not. I think this is why he engages in so much inflammatory rhetoric, which isn't appropriate for the President of the US, and I think it's why he seems so thin-skinned about people saying things about him. When he was merely famous for his wealth, people talked about him as gossip, basically. Now, people talk about him because what he says and does impacts their lives in significant ways and he doesn't seem to know how to deal with the fact that this is just part and parcel of holding a powerful office. It's not actually personal. For much of the history of the US, the path to the presidency was rooted in "well, first you need to be a General in the military." From what I gather, that's not been true in recent decades. My father and ex husband were both career military. The military has a culture steeped in ethics surrounding making hard decisions about who lives, who dies, who dies so that others will live, etc. I think it is good experience for taking the reins of power, in part because being the President of the US also makes you the Commander in Chief. Heinlein wrote fiction about a future America where you had to have military service to run for political office. I am not comfortable with suggesting this should be a standard, but I do wonder if we should add a new proviso to the bid for presidency that you either need prior military experience or you need to have held some other political office first.
- hashberry 6y ago> Easier to conceive of Mark Zuckerberg as a machine. The memes of Zuckerberg as Data from Star Trek always amuse me.[0] Sure, it's teasing, but Data is a likable character! Data doesn't strive to be superior but to be more human, even if this means being analytical instead of emotional. Mark Zuckerberg would be far more interesting if he were "evil"--if he tried to create new values, if he tried to replace God. But he isn't even an atheist anymore and is embracing religion and Judaism[1]. And then of course we must separate the man from the corporation: Facebook is a public company has an obligation to its shareholders to make money. Facebook stopped being about Zuckerberg a long time ago... it is now about surveillance capitalism. [0] https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/354/185/719.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/354/185/719... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-embraced-his-judaism/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-embraced-h...
- lowdose 6y ago> Facebook stopped being about Zuckerberg a long time ago When did he change the voting structure of Facebook? I remember Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares of Facebook and hence Mark = Facebook?
- awa 6y agoFrankly, I would take a machine as an leader over a lot of other options we have. Predictability and lack of emotional outbursts would be great qualities to have in a leader.
- mjayhn 6y agoBut what do you do when it starts basing everything on statistics or something less/not compassionate to life? And who determines what metrics and data it uses to make its decisions? Zorlot-19 has decided to end the lives of everyone over 90 and that drinks mountain dew because its determined its a net negative on.. what, GDP, mortality rate, fertility rates, tax rates.. Seems like a compassionate overlord would be great but we've fallen for that a few thousand times in history. edit: While I'm here, anyone have any interesting books on robots/droids/overlords/whatever beginning to manage society? edit2: Found this; https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/sci-fi-fantasy/a-reading-list-inspired-by-the-20th-anniversary-of-the-matrix-and-that-sequel-announcement/ https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/sci-fi-fantasy/a-reading...
- bredren 6y agoThis article specifically points out Zuckerberg's sweating at D8. This may have been a different instance, or I may be wrong. But I seem to recall a story that at this event the temperature was turned up because Jobs was so sick. Can anyone else corroborate this? It may have been in Issacson's book. edit: found it, it was at a dinner with Obama in Feb 2011: https://books.google.com/books?id=6e4cDvhrKhgC&pg=PA545&lpg=PA545&dq=steve+jobs+walter+isaacson+%22sweating%22+zuckerberg&source=bl&ots=clyRxaT28d&sig=ACfU3U0G06g5zRsE1j5PHvDcd6Zw0XK4Xg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjah-yznubpAhUEPH0KHcDgAr4Q6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=steve%20jobs%20walter%20isaacson%20%22sweating%22%20zuckerberg&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=6e4cDvhrKhgC&pg=PA545&lpg=...
- foobar_ 6y agoFacebook is a cheap replica of the internet. It already lost the young crowd, the middle crowd and the old crowd. It's non-us people that make up the majority of the platform now. It would have been a cemetery if Instagram and WhatsApp were not sold by the founders.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dang 6y agoThis is a better article than the typical personality piece or character assassination, but the thread here shows the problem with these things: there just isn't that much to discuss. Once a public figure or celebrity has grown beyond a certain size—I don't know what the threshold is, but it's lower than 1 Zuckerberg—they become a generic theme, and people mostly just repeat their pre-existing feelings about them, as well as practicing the social rituals that humans do on such occasions. Public figures of this sort become cartoon characters [1]. The way we relate to them reminds me of how the Greeks used to talk about their gods, and at times also of the feces-hurling behavior in other primates. I don't mean that dismissively, I mean it almost literally (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23406290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23406290). These discussions are fascinating because they're so repetitive and so consistent. But their content is not interesting, because they're not about content. They're deep social behavior. It's always been a principle on HN to emphasize content over personalities [2], and that principle has served well over the years. I think I've learned something about why: it's because intellectual curiosity and social curiosity are different things. Social curiosity is what lies behind gossip, fascination with celebrities, and so on—the lives of others, if it's ok to adapt that phrase. Intellectual curiosity has to do with expanding one's view of the world. Both are deeply human, but HN is a site specifically for intellectual curiosity. That explains why articles and threads like this invariably miss the bullseye here. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20cartoon%20characters&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... - I recalled using this phrase further back, too, and found it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6429252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6429252 - 7 years ago, and also about Zuckerberg. [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20content%20persoinalit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...