4 ms·

He has a lot more power as the CEO of Facebook than "just" a retired billionaire. Which is what humans have craved since the dawn of time.

paxys 6y ago
Not necessarily. Bill Gates has a lot more "power" today than he did as Microsoft CEO. And I bet his life is a lot easier as well.
- cyberlurker 6y ago
  He has a very strong reputation but does he have more power now? Being CEO of Microsoft when he was was powerful enough to get congress interested...
  - paxys 6y ago
    His foundation has massive political clout, especially in developing countries. And he has no shareholders to answer to.
    - cyberlurker 6y ago
      I didn’t say he wasn’t powerful now, but he was CEO of Microsoft before they were investigated for violations of anti trust law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
  - goatherders 6y ago
    Lol. You think there is a single member of congress that tells their secretary "take a message, ill call him back" when Bill Gates calls?
- frakkingcylons 6y ago
  I think most people would agree that today’s Facebook has more of an impact than Microsoft.
  - nip180 6y ago
    I strongly disagree. Microsoft is largely responsible for introducing computers to everyday people. They championed a mission of “a computer on every desk and in every home” in a way no one else was. I have strong doubts that PCs as we know them today would be a thing without Microsoft’s influence. We should also not discount the timing of highly usable Windows and Microsoft software with the explosion of internet usage in the developed world. In the 90s and early 2000s Windows/Intel introduced computers and the internet to the masses. Edit: Microsoft’s portable and highly desirable software lead to computer hardware being a commodity and drastically lower prices. This, combined with the timing of WWW, ignited a revolution for which Facebook is just a subset of its impact.
    - bluedino 6y ago
      Facebook is the internet of the masses today
    - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
      Everything you said is absolutely true. I don't disagree with Microsoft's impact in the world is substantial. But it is arguable that Facebook's ability to control/spread disinformation and propaganda in regards to political elections around the world is a different, but just as powerful impact.
- refurb 6y ago
  More power? I would disagree. Maybe more impact, but not more power or influence.
  - goatherders 6y ago
    Disagree completely. Bill Gates is easily one of the dozen most powerful people on earth due to connections and money. He is not beholden to shareholders and can apply his considerable influence wherever he likes without getting board approval.
    - refurb 6y ago
      We can disagree. I think once he’s no longer at the helm of one of the largest tech firms in the world, he’s lost a lot of leverage. Not to say he isn’t still very influential, but he’s on the sidelines of business now. And being a leader in business means having a lot of power.
  - brianobush 6y ago
    Gates foundation with an endowment of 46.8 billion, and around 5 billion annually to research. That is a lot of influence to direct.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Oh he’s still very influential, but in a much smaller pond of philanthropy. When he was CEO of Microsoft he captained a much bigger ship.
- twhitmore 6y ago
  I totally understand this. I believe BG's ability to influence, guide and sway global efforts must be enormous. I would think he can probably setup a call with any leader in the world. Some people only understand "power" in the sense of military or corporate decisions. (This is where Trump misses the big idea.) But imagine how powerful it is to be able to set the agenda, and have most of the world follow you and agree to commit resources in the direction you set. I would say soft power generally beats hard power, due to being more efficient in terms of costs, creating more buy-in and generating less resistance.
mjfl 6y ago
The "thirst for power" is too much of a normie thing for Mark Zuckerberg to be interested in. I feel like he has this genuine delusion that Facebook serves this higher purpose and wants to see it through until people agree with him. I think he would prefer people to consider him as more innovative than Elon Musk than to have 'power'. Whether or not he will achieve this, well...
- stickfigure 6y ago
  Plus, nobody wants to go out on a low note.
- tikhonj 6y ago
  A genuine belief in what you are doing—and then effectively pursuing that over opposition—is going to depend on having and using power. It's not pure "thirst for power" in the sense that power isn't the ultimate motivation, but it's almost indistinguishable operationally. (And, historically, it seems hard to tell when one becomes the other or vice-versa...)
- acoard 6y ago
  Zuckerberg has always been obsessed with power. He was leading all-hands meetings by having the teams shout "Domination!"[0][1] He's always been obsessed with Roman Emperors too, particularly Augustus (though as a Romanophile myself, I relate). Kara Swisher mentions this a lot. Even in his early days he was the "alpha nerd." Dude is obsessed with power and always has been. He explicitly cultivates this image of being above it all and just wanting to connect the world, but if you watch Facebook/Zuckerberg's actions they're always about expanding power. Similarly, Augustus PR was legendary enough to found a dynasty. He never called himself an Emperor, just the "first citizen", a citizen like everyone else, and he only was the "first" one to provide peace and stability to the people.[2] He only acquires personal power at all costs for you. Also, Zuckerberg builds shadow profiles of everyone that ever browses a website that has a facebook 'Like' button on it because it and will never delete your data because he's creating a connected global utopia. [0] https://www.wired.com/2012/05/network-effects-and-global-domination-the-facebook-strategy/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/network-effects-and-global-dom... [1] https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/11/17221344/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-cambridge-analytica https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/11/17221344/mark-zuc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeps#Roman_Emperor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeps#Roman_Emperor
dgudkov 6y ago
>Which is what humans have craved since the dawn of time. In any political system other than Western democracy power is essential for physical and financial safety, if you are wealthy. Power, of course, can be attractive on its own, but in a Western democracy it can also be optional. In all other political systems it's absolutely mandatory - wealthy people without power quickly cease being wealthy.

paxys 6y ago

Not necessarily. Bill Gates has a lot more "power" today than he did as Microsoft CEO. And I bet his life is a lot easier as well.

cyberlurker 6y ago
He has a very strong reputation but does he have more power now? Being CEO of Microsoft when he was was powerful enough to get congress interested...
- paxys 6y ago
  His foundation has massive political clout, especially in developing countries. And he has no shareholders to answer to.
  - cyberlurker 6y ago
    I didn’t say he wasn’t powerful now, but he was CEO of Microsoft before they were investigated for violations of anti trust law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
- goatherders 6y ago
  Lol. You think there is a single member of congress that tells their secretary "take a message, ill call him back" when Bill Gates calls?
frakkingcylons 6y ago
I think most people would agree that today’s Facebook has more of an impact than Microsoft.
- nip180 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. Microsoft is largely responsible for introducing computers to everyday people. They championed a mission of “a computer on every desk and in every home” in a way no one else was. I have strong doubts that PCs as we know them today would be a thing without Microsoft’s influence. We should also not discount the timing of highly usable Windows and Microsoft software with the explosion of internet usage in the developed world. In the 90s and early 2000s Windows/Intel introduced computers and the internet to the masses. Edit: Microsoft’s portable and highly desirable software lead to computer hardware being a commodity and drastically lower prices. This, combined with the timing of WWW, ignited a revolution for which Facebook is just a subset of its impact.
  - bluedino 6y ago
    Facebook is the internet of the masses today
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
    Everything you said is absolutely true. I don't disagree with Microsoft's impact in the world is substantial. But it is arguable that Facebook's ability to control/spread disinformation and propaganda in regards to political elections around the world is a different, but just as powerful impact.
refurb 6y ago
More power? I would disagree. Maybe more impact, but not more power or influence.
- goatherders 6y ago
  Disagree completely. Bill Gates is easily one of the dozen most powerful people on earth due to connections and money. He is not beholden to shareholders and can apply his considerable influence wherever he likes without getting board approval.
  - refurb 6y ago
    We can disagree. I think once he’s no longer at the helm of one of the largest tech firms in the world, he’s lost a lot of leverage. Not to say he isn’t still very influential, but he’s on the sidelines of business now. And being a leader in business means having a lot of power.
- brianobush 6y ago
  Gates foundation with an endowment of 46.8 billion, and around 5 billion annually to research. That is a lot of influence to direct.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Oh he’s still very influential, but in a much smaller pond of philanthropy. When he was CEO of Microsoft he captained a much bigger ship.
twhitmore 6y ago
I totally understand this. I believe BG's ability to influence, guide and sway global efforts must be enormous. I would think he can probably setup a call with any leader in the world. Some people only understand "power" in the sense of military or corporate decisions. (This is where Trump misses the big idea.) But imagine how powerful it is to be able to set the agenda, and have most of the world follow you and agree to commit resources in the direction you set. I would say soft power generally beats hard power, due to being more efficient in terms of costs, creating more buy-in and generating less resistance.

mjfl 6y ago

The "thirst for power" is too much of a normie thing for Mark Zuckerberg to be interested in. I feel like he has this genuine delusion that Facebook serves this higher purpose and wants to see it through until people agree with him. I think he would prefer people to consider him as more innovative than Elon Musk than to have 'power'. Whether or not he will achieve this, well...

stickfigure 6y ago
Plus, nobody wants to go out on a low note.
tikhonj 6y ago
A genuine belief in what you are doing—and then effectively pursuing that over opposition—is going to depend on having and using power. It's not pure "thirst for power" in the sense that power isn't the ultimate motivation, but it's almost indistinguishable operationally. (And, historically, it seems hard to tell when one becomes the other or vice-versa...)
acoard 6y ago
Zuckerberg has always been obsessed with power. He was leading all-hands meetings by having the teams shout "Domination!"[0][1] He's always been obsessed with Roman Emperors too, particularly Augustus (though as a Romanophile myself, I relate). Kara Swisher mentions this a lot. Even in his early days he was the "alpha nerd." Dude is obsessed with power and always has been. He explicitly cultivates this image of being above it all and just wanting to connect the world, but if you watch Facebook/Zuckerberg's actions they're always about expanding power. Similarly, Augustus PR was legendary enough to found a dynasty. He never called himself an Emperor, just the "first citizen", a citizen like everyone else, and he only was the "first" one to provide peace and stability to the people.[2] He only acquires personal power at all costs for you. Also, Zuckerberg builds shadow profiles of everyone that ever browses a website that has a facebook 'Like' button on it because it and will never delete your data because he's creating a connected global utopia. [0] https://www.wired.com/2012/05/network-effects-and-global-domination-the-facebook-strategy/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/network-effects-and-global-dom... [1] https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/11/17221344/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-cambridge-analytica https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/11/17221344/mark-zuc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeps#Roman_Emperor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeps#Roman_Emperor

dgudkov 6y ago

>Which is what humans have craved since the dawn of time. In any political system other than Western democracy power is essential for physical and financial safety, if you are wealthy. Power, of course, can be attractive on its own, but in a Western democracy it can also be optional. In all other political systems it's absolutely mandatory - wealthy people without power quickly cease being wealthy.