
Mark Zuckerberg Is Acting Like Someone Who Might Run for President - Fjolsvith
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/zucks-sure-acting-like-someone-might-run-president/
======
jonheller
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.

~~~
blackflame7000
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.

------
eli_gottlieb
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.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
_" It'll be like the Clinton loss, but on steroids"_

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?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
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.

~~~
exclusiv
It's designed to require a President that has trans-regional appeal. It does
pretty well at that.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
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.

~~~
exclusiv
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.

------
gist
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.

~~~
rabbyte
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.

------
billconan
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.

~~~
saghm
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.

------
joezydeco
Buy Twitter, kick Trump off both in 2017, start running in 2018. I could live
with that.

------
AndrewKemendo
Surely he's smart enough not to get into politics. I fail to see the upside
for anyone at his wealth/power level.

~~~
jbob2000
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.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
This is the only possible reason that might be helpful, but even in that case
I would say that it's a distraction.

Better/Easier to buy the congressmen and presidents off to build legislation
in your favor.

------
tyingq
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.

~~~
amalrik_maia
It seems to me the opposite, he already has more money than he can ever spent,
now he wants power.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
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.

~~~
rabbyte
8 years is a century to network with the most powerful people in the world.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
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.

~~~
rabbyte
> It's literally less than a century

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.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
_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.

------
littletimmy
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.

~~~
__derek__
Just for clarification, George W. Bush is 5'11".

------
bruceb
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.

------
swalsh
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.

------
bbctol
Zuckerberg 2020: Because enlightened despotism is better than the regular
kind!

