
Why Zuckerberg’s Lobby Is Collapsing Outside Of DC - dmoney67
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/why-zuckerbergs-lobby-fwd-is-collapsing-like-a-house-of-cards-outside-of-dc/
======
edw519
Mark Zuckerberg is no more a technology leader than a powerball winner is a
financial leader.

He has worked hard, but no harder than many others.

He is brilliant, but not any more than many others.

He is tenacious, but not more than many others.

He was is the perfect storm of the right place at the right time on the right
thing and played his hand beautifully. But he still hit the lottery.

The idea that lottery winners are suddenly Subject Matter Experts on other
things just because they have money, eyeballs, connections, or whatever is
silly. Out here in the diaspora, we pay little attention to the opinions of
powerball winners. Too bad the same thing can't be said for the fanboys and
followers in Silicon Valley.

This was inevitable.

~~~
pg
You would not say that if you knew him. I can tell you as both someone who
does know him at least moderately well, and someone who knows a lot of other
startup founders, that very few people indeed have his combination of brains
and tenacity. I wish more did, because I'd love to be able to fund them, but
Zucks are rare.

It's comforting to think that successful people were merely lucky, or became
successful by underhanded tricks, but as I've said before, if you have to
choose between two explanations and one gives you an excuse for being lazy,
choose the other one.

~~~
rayiner
I have to wonder how much of this is confirmation bias. There are lots of
brilliant, tenacious people, but a tiny fraction of them are billionaires.
Indeed, some of the most brilliant, single-mindedly tenacious people are doing
relatively poorly remunerative things like toiling away as a professor in a
mathematics department somewhere.

The question isn't whether Zuck is brilliant and tenacious, but rather whether
you could pick him out of a lineup of 100 similarly brilliant and tenacious
people who are nonetheless not billionaires.

~~~
pg
Oddly enough I know for a fact that I'd identify him as a very promising
founder. After 8 years of trying to pick founders, part of my brain has turned
into a founder detector that I can no longer turn off, and the first few times
I talked to Zuck, I found it hard to concentrate because I had to contend with
a screeching Geiger counter in my head. Consciously, of course, I knew I
couldn't fund him, but the Geiger counter isn't conscious.

~~~
candybar
I think there's a great deal of truth here, but it seems unfair to use the
tendencies of Zuckerberg, after he already became successful and has had years
of positive reinforcement of his abilities, as an example of why he was
destined to be successful. I'm sure a lot of people who were just as tenacious
as a young Zuckerberg, have become less so over the years after having failed
many times and discouraged. Some of them will rebound and others won't.
Perhaps Zuckerberg had a great deal to overcome, but as a distant observer, it
seems that he's learned the right lessons early in part because his effort was
validated.

------
snowwrestler
> See, their strategy feels like patronizing, as though us overly-idealistic
> Californians can’t possible deal with the realities of DC politicking.

It's apparent from this post that that is the truth.

For example this blogger writes as though he believes that the backlash
against FWD.us is a totally organic expression of authentic opinion in the
tech community. He mentions the truth in passing:

> after a list of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, boycotted
> Facebook over FWD.us-funded ads that praised Republicans for supporting the
> Keystone pipeline (below)

See, the opinion against Keystone is real, but the expression of it against
FWD.us has been juiced by a significant outpouring of resources by politically
savvy groups like the Sierra Club.

This is not an organic uprising by Silicon Valley. It's one set of
professional politickers (anti-Keystone) successfully leaching off the PR of
another (FWD.us). It happens all the time. But it can be hard for idealistic
people to spot because they tend to perceive one side of an argument as more
authentic, natural, or real, than the other--leading them to underestimate the
role of professional organizers in a given trend or action.

------
apalmer
I didnt really understand why so many 'outside' of the realm of big money
power movers 'attached' themselves to FWD.us.

Its completely counter to logic, the purpose as lobbying as it is today is
when a small sized population with extreme financial resources want to
influence specific legislature.

If you want to influence legislature and you dont have big disproportionate
finances at your disposal, dont turn to lobbying. Why a Zuckerberg, or Page,
etc have turned to this is one thing... why joe developer with say 100K in the
bank is jumping on board is beyond irrational.

Number 2, when you are buying politicians, doing it in public view is bound to
have negative 'PR' moments, you are buying politicians. Hello. There is a
reason this is done in private.

~~~
michaelt

      Its completely counter to logic, the purpose as lobbying 
      as it is today is when a small sized population with 
      extreme financial resources want to influence specific 
      legislature.
    

I was recently involved with the libel law reform campaign in the UK. A well
organised political campaign will often do a bunch of things - they'll decide
what they want and produce clear summaries. They'll work out how much
opposition this is likely to have and whether their desired outcome is
politically feasible. They'll find high profile failings of the current
legislation. They'll identify legislators who are likely to be sympathetic and
help get a foot in the door. They'll get news coverage. They'll organise
rallies where well-spoken people from organisations you've heard of explain
what's wrong with current legislation. The speakers will be organised, so all
points get covered and there's not too much repition. They'll invite their
supporters to invite their representatives to those rallies. They'll look for
celebrity supporters. And they probably do a bunch of other stuff behind the
scenes that I don't know about because I'm not an expert political campaigner.

Isn't hiring organised, experienced people who know how to do this politics
stuff what lobbying is? Surely lobbying doesn't just mean ladling out gobs of
cash to corrupt legislators?

------
san86
My beef is with the lack of details FWD.us provided. If you want to look at
how to grow a grassroot movement, look at Ron Paul. I certainly don't agree
with Paul's policies, but he provided his opinions on things that matter to
him in excrutiating detail. Instead of doing that, FWD.us provides vague
descriptions of what they support. I would love to know what their stand on
each of the major sections of the senate proposal is. Do they agree with all
of it? If not, which parts do they not agree with? What's their proposed fix?
Which ammendments do they support? Tehre are no answers to these questions. I
am done seeing successful people talking about what an awful time they had
succeding because of the issue. It was endearing at first, now it's boring (I
am one of those immigrants who is currently suffering a little bit due to
messed up policies, so I am sensitive to the sufferings.. but the videos are
just annoying)

------
jbooth
This reminds me of when Stringer Bell tried to get into lobbying on the Wire
and just got his money taken and no favors done for him.

------
grimtrigger
Politics requires moral compromise, something many technologists find down
right impossible. Thats not a bad thing, but it means that if you put the most
important technologists in the country on the same political group, its bound
to dissolve and splinter.

Successful movements focus on ideas, not people. FWD.us is too focused on
people.

~~~
michaelt
Perhaps I'm being dense here, but what do oil pipelines have to do with
Facebook? Facebook isn't an oil company, how are Facebook's interests served
by campaigning for an oil pipeline?

~~~
grimtrigger
> but what do oil pipelines have to do with Facebook

Nothing.

> how are Facebook's interests served by campaigning for an oil pipeline?

They aren't.

\-----

Facebook is only tangentially related to FWD.us. Its the political project of
Mark Zuckerberg.

~~~
scarmig
As someone who has experience in both tech and politics... this is off-base. I
say this as someone who thinks Keystone XL is an abomination that needs to be
shut down by any means possible (that does not result in the loss of life) and
who has no love for Facebook.

The stated goal of Facebook in this is to push for immigration reform. Elite
Republicans are, all told, fairly pro-immigration reform. They don't need
convincing. The "base," however, is virulently anti-immigrant (the same is
true to a lesser extent of the less-educated white and black portions of the
Democratic base as well). Running ads praising Republican politicians for
supporting immigration reform is not going to be effective and more likely
than not would cost them votes.

If Zuck wants to make sure he has their support for his policy agenda, he's
got to have something of actual value for them. It's not going to be votes,
but it has to be something you can easily convert to votes. Money is that, but
you can't just spend money on anything and expect to automatically get value
for your dollar.

------
kemiller
There's a simpler solution than lobbying to the problem of not enough tech
workers: increase their earning power, prestige, respect, and autonomy.

~~~
mpyne
Tech workers have to already be in the top 5 of all workers in those 4
categories.

If nothing else companies could hire _and train_ unskilled workers themselves
(this is how the military solves their particular problem even with poor
earning power, low respect and autonomy as issues).

------
crazy1van
Every time I read a story about tech industry lobbying efforts, it seems very
similar to every other lobbyist: favors for my industry, regulations for other
industries.

If the government didn't have such a massive impact on the bottom line of
industries, there wouldn't be an incentive for companies to lobby. As it is
now, a few million spent on lobbying is a bargain for favorable laws for your
industry.

------
hawkharris
My girlfriend works as an environmental consultant for the Keystone XL
project. She spends 13-hour days ensuring that the pipeline's route does not
interfere with cultural sites, animal migration, water bodies and many other
factors. She and her team will spend weeks re-routing if it means mitigating
an environmental risk.

Is the project infallible? No. But I would think twice before jumping on the
bandwagon to oppose it categorically because of what people are saying on
Facebook and Twitter. While I'm not privy to behind-the-scenes details, I've
witnessed first-hand and been very impressed by the project's commitment to
safety.

------
danso
I think tech people just have to get used to the fact that politics contains a
lot of strange bedfellows...not necessarily because politicians are corrupt,
but because they, in theory, represent hundreds of thousands of people to tens
of millions (such as a Californian Senator)...chances are, some of those
constituents have diametrically opposing viewpoints to many of the other
constituents.

For example...FWIW, Lindsey Graham was a key supporter of PIPA, the Senate
version of SOPA: <http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/G000359>

------
lifeisstillgood
Can I make a different suggestion:

Spend the millions in each of the State capitals, as openly and as _locally_
as possible. The state senators are unlikely to have seen such attention, and
most importantly, _State law is still law_.

Washington seems to be a good place for the outward face of the USA to speak
from, but seems not so hot for fixing internal problems.

~~~
walshemj
From outside the balkanised and overly complex nature of your local government
layer looks like the problem. 52 subtly different sets of laws and taxes is
not an efficient way to run a welk stall let alone a country.

Passing an constitutional amendment along the lines of the parliament act so
that an elected president can you know actually get on with running the
country woudl be a good idea.

~~~
twoodfin
You felt this way when George W. Bush was president, too?

~~~
walshemj
Yep the USA needs to grow up and reform its political structure into the 20th
century and away from the 18th century.

I remember one us politician saying on the BBC that the _unreformed_ House of
lords was better that the US House

------
crag
Obviously his "PAC" has a PR problem.

But a bigger problem is the way they are handling the immigration issue. They
seem to be contracting ONLY HB1 Visas. And ignoring many other [immigration]
issues that more Americans care about; like migrant workers; guest worker
programs (mostly for healthcare and agriculture); a clear path to citizenship,
etc, etc.

My other problem with this PAC is they aren't focused. They are backing ANWR
and Keystone? Neither have anything to do with immigration. So it's clear they
are trading favors for cash. Ok standard politics. But why not back Marriage
Equality or the end of the Drug War, or Feeding the poor - educating the poor?

I mean is Zuckerberg about to become the next Koch brother?

------
jcampbell1
I have no idea what this article is really about. Did FWD.us really pay for
the ad in that YouTube video? What are the actual facts that I should know?

Both the article and the top comment on HN seems to be infected with
borderline conspiracy theories.

------
gojomo
People didn't like FaceMash, either.

The cynical favor-trading approach of FWD.us isn't for everyone... but maybe
A/B testing will show it works better for achieving the tech industries'
goals.

Those who prefer other approaches should start their own activism group,
working the same shared issues, within their preferred framework. A 1-2 punch,
and trying a diversity of strategies, is most likely to achieve success.

------
damoncali
What is it about the tech industry that makes it so politically inept?

~~~
mpyne
Look at HN everytime a CFAA case comes up (as only one example) and just watch
and learn.

In the tech industry's world there's no such thing as:

\- compromise or shades of gray

\- computer-related crime

\- a actual public servant, or an honest judge

\- competing industries (only "old dinosaurs")

and you could keep going with examples. The worst part is that most of the
time the tech industry is actually right, but as it stands they can't even get
onto the field, let alone make forward political progress. It doesn't matter
how morally right you are if you refuse to work with stakeholders to get a bad
law fixed.

------
michaelochurch
As I get older and see what most of "technology leadership" is turning out to
be, I'm unhappy with it.

I feel like a lot of technological new money behaves like women in gangs. How
so? Well, many sociologists have found that women who join gangs are _more_
prone to violence and cruelty than the men; they go overboard in "proving
themselves" and miss the fact that gangs are mostly about business, not
cruelty and machismo (which are necessary, at measured but sometimes severe
levels, to protect an illegal business; but otherwise undesirable) for their
own right. Why? Of course, it's not that women, across the board, are more
that way. It has more to do with the small set of people who join criminal
gangs, and the fact that the even smaller set of women who join end up getting
into a try-too-hard pattern.

We see a lot of so-called "technological leadership" falling into
historically-common new-money patterns of right-wing politics and bad
workplace cultures (fast firing, closed allocation) because, instead of
replacing the old elite, they become a caricature of what they were supposed
to be pushing out.

On the whole, the resurgent right-wing business elite of the Welch era
(1977-95) was worse than the politically centrist old-board northeastern elite
it replaced. And it seems that the "technology elite", when they go into
business proper (i.e. personnel matters, not merely new product development)
and politics is even uglier than that one. They aren't right-wing because it's
not "cool" to be conservative, but they're politically apathetic and can be
played by more skillful operators in both parties.

So now I'm going to reveal the secret about "technology leadership". They
aren't either. Mark Zuckerberg may be an exception; he's too young and too
successful to have a refined skill at the judgment of character, so I'll give
him a pass, because he seems to be a good guy in spite of his visible
mistakes. But most of the people who have swept in and become the "fundable"
(now MBAs with connections, who have outcompeted true technologists for VC and
tech-press attention) don't really care about technology. They just heard that
"tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so
deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take
advantage of them. That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our"
industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level
implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it
turns out to be true.

~~~
thetrumanshow
Love this. I have felt at times that I am simply a mine from which some smart
business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. This kind
of relationship is becoming more and more frustrating over time.

I feel like we sold our birthright.

~~~
michaelochurch
_I feel like we sold our birthright._

We did, and for what?

One in a thousand of us gets to be to be a billionaire, and the other 999
suffer declining autonomy, less interesting work, less stable employment
conditions, and a psychotic housing market driven not by engineer
compensation, but by the zillion VPs of NTWTFK (Non-Technical-Who-The-Fuck-
Knows) who cash out their equity before it becomes toilet paper and can afford
to bid up, into the mid-seven-digit range, what were supposed to be middle-
class houses.

We can take our industry back, but it won't happen in VC-istan.

~~~
Zimahl
_We can take our industry back, but it won't happen in VC-istan._

It all depends on what you want, and unless you read this website with a grain
of salt you are just playing into it.

HN is about the big score. Sure, sometimes there are insightful articles on
building a business but really this place is all about big ideas, big funding,
big acquisitions, and the corresponding big cashout. The long-tail business
that makes money and provides a service for it's customers is really what is
valuable, and you can still be a millionaire.

I think a lot of the young developers think too much of the results - money,
women, cars, houses, toys - and not what it takes to get there.

~~~
michaelochurch
If you start a similar forum based on the mid-growth/mid-risk sector that VCs
deride as "lifestyle businesses", I will be there.

I'd like to see a continued interest in the "big ideas" and technological
advancement, without the big-money obsessions that make our generation so
exploitable. Real machine-learning work == made of awesome. $850 million
acquisition == who gives a fuck?

------
edwardunknown
Another Frank Underwood quote:

"Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power - in this town, a mistake
nearly everyone makes. Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling
apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for
centuries."

I wonder if this lobbying group thought that by throwing a little money their
way they could persuade the Republicans to stop being Republicans. Instead the
Republicans dragged Zuckerberg down with them and probably capsized FWD.us.
There aren't any moderate Republicans, at the end of the day none of them are
going to support what Zuckerberg wants with immigration reform and this whole
thing seems fantastically naive.

~~~
jessaustin
I suspect they want the same thing wrt immigration: more immigrants with
commercially exploitable skills, admitted through programs that maximize
commercial exploitation, while still pandering to the cretins' demand for more
and higher fences.

