He's acting more like someone that's finally bored with business and wanting to delve into philanthropy. Not an uncommon pattern for people with more money than they can ever spend.
Except power in US politics is fleeting. 8 years. That's the most you can be at the "top." Maybe being a long standing senator is better - even then though, it's a fight every 6 years.
You can however influence successive political parties around the world if you have a big enough company.
It's literally less than a century, and look at what former presidents are doing now.
Who has more power over a longer period of time: Bill Clinton or Bill Gates? I argue Gates.
It's just going to get magnified too, as technologies dominate everything. The government can't keep up.
The US Government is not designed such that the president or any other job "runs the country" or has crazy power. That's the whole point of the constitution. Even if you consider nukes, despite what you read in policy they aren't a one man decision. People resign instead of using them, just look at the NIxon/Kissinger conversation about nuking Vietnam.
So there is an upper limit on power in the government. There is no upper limit on power in the private sector.
That's not how metaphors work. When you're the head of state, you have unique access and influence that others need. You become an unavoidable actor in the networks of power that manage the worlds resources. Your access will go deeper into those networks than by any other means.
> It's just going to get magnified too, as technologies dominate everything. The government can't keep up.
That's not how the world works. Technology is simply an extension of our will, we fashion it to govern us, but it can never replace us. The "private sector" is just another branch of governance and exists purely in legal forms. I do believe technology can be a liberating force and that we can design a system of incentives that reduces the need for human dependencies but it would be absolute terror to remove us from the instrumentation of the world.
edit- can't reply to you below so I'll reply here: AGI is just the latest fashion, it's still technology which means it still extends from our will. Technology is an ancient human practice, digging into the world with our understanding and forming tools to manage it. It's as old as clothing or written language. That we can replicate or automate our will doesn't negate that our will is being represented and that everything must conform to our needs or be taken as damage. It's fully possible to exterminate ourselves by removing our role from the universe but this isn't something I advocate.
When you're the head of state, you have unique access and influence that others need.
You have the same access and influence as a F50 CEO, but for longer.
Technology is simply an extension of our will, we fashion it to govern us, but it can never replace us.
Famous last words.
edit: I'll just say it, the company (and I believe it will be a company) that builds AGI, will for a brief period be more powerful than the collection of all nation states.
> Who has more power over a longer period of time: Bill Clinton or Bill Gates? I argue Gates.
Right, but Clinton wasn't a CEO of a tech company before he was president. A better analogy would be who would have had more period over a longer period of time, Bill Gates as he is now, or Bill Gates if he had become president after stepping down as CEO of Microsoft?
Kind of and depending on who is being talked to. As soon as you leave office you lose the reason people care about you: your ability to influence levers of power. That is unless you start something else big or had something big before you came into office.
So yea, former presidents aren't really power players after they leave office - they still have influence but nothing at the same level as the people at the top of the Forbes list because they control so little.
If he does, he will guarantee that his opponent wins. Voters these days seem to hate Silicon Valley types. It'll be like the Clinton loss, but on steroids.
In fact, we should probably all band together to stop him from running under any major-party banner.
Don't be so sure. The so called Fake-News / Facebook stories is partly credited with Trump win. Mark Zuckerberg has over 70 million followers and likes etc. All he has to do is sit back and let his Campaign PR team go nuts over that page :) https://www.facebook.com/zuck
Clinton also lost 2 million democratic votes that switched to third party compared to the 2012 election so let's not pretend that fake news is her downfall, considering it was the media bias that gave her an edge in the primaries.
People dislike Silicon Valley types because they are perceived as pretentious, arrogant, weak physically, yet intimidating intellectually. Not that this is true for most, but still the animosity persists probably as a result of envy from workers finding themselves feeling their self-worth diminished by the loss of blue collar jobs
In this scenario, how many million more votes does he get than his opponent? Clinton got 2.9 million more, so when you add steroids does this number go up?
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised at a 5 million vote majority losing the Electoral College again. It's a structural problem, not one of the individual candidates. The system was designed to over-enfranchise rural landowners, particularly slave-holders. The more the population urbanizes, the greater the skew of the College vote away from the popular vote.
I don't really see how, seeing as the President doesn't end up having to appeal to rural Californian Republicans, urban Texas Democrats, or in fact anyone outside the four or so "swing states" whose outcomes actually have nonzero uncertainty. It's been most effective at setting the stage for regional warfare or breakup of the USA along the lines of the Civil War.
It certainly does. You can't win the Presidency unless you have appeal across several regions.
Hillary crushed the northeast and the west coast but that was mostly it regionally and she didn't win. A little appeal in the southeast or midwest and she would have won.
Zuckerberg isn't dynamic enough or even enough of a character (think Trump) to rally up enough people to win an election.
He would get a great deal of votes for sure.
But among other things, lack of the wow factor, and well this was one of Hillary's drawbacks. Ditto for Mitt Romney.
The main thing he has going for him is name recognition (a big factor for sure and honestly the only reason anyone would take him seriously as a candidate).
And despite what anyone thinks of Trump he did have a great deal of life experiences with a wide range of people (of all types) in multiple businesses vs. Zuckerberg who essentially went from dropping out of college to Facebook. As such I am not sure of his innate decision making ability given that most of the things he has accomplished have been done with handholding of the people around him.
Good points but it's worth considering what the world will look like in several years. The appeal of a predictably dry personality that centers around data-driven approaches to policy might be a welcome departure. A generation of youth, foreign to life before FB, would also have a deeper connection despite any complaints. In a sense, Zuckerberg already governed their lives, it's familiar and if a Trump administration brings hardships it will even feel nostalgic from a more innocent era.
To be clear, I oppose all Kings, just speaking to the circumstance.
Donald Trump wanted to be president so he could build resorts all around the world, using political clout to get favours.
Mark Zuckerberg would do the same thing, except he wants facebook everywhere instead of resorts. I could see him forcing ISPs to upgrade internet infrastructure, closing software patent loopholes, basically fixing all the stuff that makes technological development really annoying.
He recently announced that he is not an atheist any more. I'm thinking maybe this is related to his political ambition. I once had a discussion with an American friend on whether America would accept an atheist president. His opinion was that it's gonna be difficult.
I'm American, and I'd definitely agree with that assessment. I think a lot of people in the US would probably refuse to vote for a self-described atheist on principle regardless of any of the other characteristics and views of the candidate. Things have been changing for a while, but I don't think we're there yet.
Indeed. I saw a poll several years ago, and no, I don't recall where or have a citation, but something like 40% of Americans would accept a Muslim President, but only about 10% would accept an atheist President.
Problem with rich businessmen/women running for office is there are always a lot of consultants who tell them yes you have a good shot no matter the odds.
Rememeber Trump was an entertainer, they have a better track record.
The fact that he runs Facebook, is well, disconcerting... but if trends continue the 2020's will be in desperate need of people who actually understand the full implications of technology on social problems. I'm not sure Zuck would be my first choice, but a Silicon Valley mogul in the Whitehouse in the 20's might be necessary. If you look at Trump as the push back on globalism, there's going to be a pushback on technology on a very real scale in the near future. Globalism is our sneekpeek into the future.
I'm shocked there doesn't seem to be a mention of his complete lack of a natural, engaging personality as being the number one reason why he would never stand a chance as a candidate.
Admittedly I haven't watched many interviews recently, but has he improved his onscreen personality at all since the famous D8 interview? Judging by some more recent ones (ex the one with Jerry Seinfeld), perhaps not.
As we learned from the Nixon Kennedy debate, appearance matters. Mark may be a very capable tech leader but little of that carries over to commanding the most powerful military in the world.
I know it is mean to say, a 5'7" tall man will never be President in this day and age of celebrity elections. The last 5'7" president was John Adams. The last president under 6 feet was Jimmy Carter, and he was 5'10". Almost all presidents have been over 6 feet tall.
44 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadYou can however influence successive political parties around the world if you have a big enough company.
Who has more power over a longer period of time: Bill Clinton or Bill Gates? I argue Gates.
It's just going to get magnified too, as technologies dominate everything. The government can't keep up.
The US Government is not designed such that the president or any other job "runs the country" or has crazy power. That's the whole point of the constitution. Even if you consider nukes, despite what you read in policy they aren't a one man decision. People resign instead of using them, just look at the NIxon/Kissinger conversation about nuking Vietnam.
So there is an upper limit on power in the government. There is no upper limit on power in the private sector.
That's not how metaphors work. When you're the head of state, you have unique access and influence that others need. You become an unavoidable actor in the networks of power that manage the worlds resources. Your access will go deeper into those networks than by any other means.
> It's just going to get magnified too, as technologies dominate everything. The government can't keep up.
That's not how the world works. Technology is simply an extension of our will, we fashion it to govern us, but it can never replace us. The "private sector" is just another branch of governance and exists purely in legal forms. I do believe technology can be a liberating force and that we can design a system of incentives that reduces the need for human dependencies but it would be absolute terror to remove us from the instrumentation of the world.
edit- can't reply to you below so I'll reply here: AGI is just the latest fashion, it's still technology which means it still extends from our will. Technology is an ancient human practice, digging into the world with our understanding and forming tools to manage it. It's as old as clothing or written language. That we can replicate or automate our will doesn't negate that our will is being represented and that everything must conform to our needs or be taken as damage. It's fully possible to exterminate ourselves by removing our role from the universe but this isn't something I advocate.
You have the same access and influence as a F50 CEO, but for longer.
Technology is simply an extension of our will, we fashion it to govern us, but it can never replace us.
Famous last words.
edit: I'll just say it, the company (and I believe it will be a company) that builds AGI, will for a brief period be more powerful than the collection of all nation states.
Right, but Clinton wasn't a CEO of a tech company before he was president. A better analogy would be who would have had more period over a longer period of time, Bill Gates as he is now, or Bill Gates if he had become president after stepping down as CEO of Microsoft?
So yea, former presidents aren't really power players after they leave office - they still have influence but nothing at the same level as the people at the top of the Forbes list because they control so little.
What makes you think that regular fair elections are going to continue indefinitely in the United States of America?
Do you contend that Zuckerburg would be running to become emperor for life of the US? I don't think that's a reasonable argument.
No, he'd have to assassinate Trump to get the position.
In fact, we should probably all band together to stop him from running under any major-party banner.
In this scenario, how many million more votes does he get than his opponent? Clinton got 2.9 million more, so when you add steroids does this number go up?
Hillary crushed the northeast and the west coast but that was mostly it regionally and she didn't win. A little appeal in the southeast or midwest and she would have won.
He would get a great deal of votes for sure.
But among other things, lack of the wow factor, and well this was one of Hillary's drawbacks. Ditto for Mitt Romney.
The main thing he has going for him is name recognition (a big factor for sure and honestly the only reason anyone would take him seriously as a candidate).
And despite what anyone thinks of Trump he did have a great deal of life experiences with a wide range of people (of all types) in multiple businesses vs. Zuckerberg who essentially went from dropping out of college to Facebook. As such I am not sure of his innate decision making ability given that most of the things he has accomplished have been done with handholding of the people around him.
To be clear, I oppose all Kings, just speaking to the circumstance.
Mark Zuckerberg would do the same thing, except he wants facebook everywhere instead of resorts. I could see him forcing ISPs to upgrade internet infrastructure, closing software patent loopholes, basically fixing all the stuff that makes technological development really annoying.
Better/Easier to buy the congressmen and presidents off to build legislation in your favor.
Admittedly I haven't watched many interviews recently, but has he improved his onscreen personality at all since the famous D8 interview? Judging by some more recent ones (ex the one with Jerry Seinfeld), perhaps not.