
If Mark Zuckerberg runs for president, will Facebook help him win? - humility
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/09/mark-zuckerberg-president-facebook-algorithm
======
jackblack8989
I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is
considering him as the most serious candidate.

If anything Trump would be afraid of non-politicians, given the anti-
establishment sentiments prevalent recently and fueled by Sanders.

In my opinion, Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of
corrupt crooks. The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the
nomination, turning off lights on their side. That's the votes that swung in
Trump's favor. Rather than reforming themselves, they diverted attention by
concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat.

With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a
chance at beating Trump for the second term.

~~~
jswizzy
I would vote for Trump to prevent Sanders or Zuckerberg from being President.
As far as I'm concerned the Democratic party died sometime during Obama's
second term when they decided that they didn't need working class people
anymore.

~~~
scriptkiddy
I can understand your disdain for the Democratic party. I share it.

However, if I may offer up some counter points on Sanders specifically.

First, let's be clear that the republican party does not have the interest of
the working man at heart either. Let's not forget that the first actions of
almost any republican candidate in recent times almost always involve tax cuts
for higher income brackets and budget cuts on education, infrastructure,
health care, and environmental programs. These budget cuts adversely effect
the working class.

Second, Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party. In fact, the
system was purposefully rigged against him. This isn't a conspiracy theory.
Many high ranking officials of the DNC have admitted to it.

Third, Sanders was the working class' best hope. He was in favor of raising
taxes in all brackets in order to raise money for public works programs,
universal healthcare and no-cost tuition for higher education. As you might
imagine, these platforms definitely rustled some feathers. Not only was his
platform based around dismantling the racketeering industries that are higher
education and medical insurance, his platform also seemed somewhat _gasp_
socialist. Socialism is a dirty word in the U.S. no doubt because of the cold
war. However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in
Europe and also in Canada.

Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever
run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the
pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his
platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and
equality protests.

All I'm asking is that you understand that Sanders wasn't a Dem candidate. He
wasn't running on party platforms. He was purposefully ousted by the party
because they knew he wouldn't listen to them and their corporate backers.
Sanders used the Dem as a way to gain legitimacy. He really had no choice
considering that most people in the U.S. consider third party candidates to be
a joke.

~~~
DanCarvajal
>Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever
run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the
pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his
platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and
equality protests.

That scares me the most, I want a pragmatic president, not an ideologue.

~~~
scriptkiddy
I don't have a problem with it as long as the ideas aren't harmful.

------
DanCarvajal
Zuckerberg is only hyping running so he looks more important to the Chinese
government so he can get more leverage for getting Facebook into China. He's
doing this because rolling over by creating backdoors and censorship tools to
appease the Chinese Gov was apparently not enough. It's a scummy move but
given our current president ......

------
bradleyjg
Whenever his other merits or demerits Zuckerberg seems to have very little
mass charisma (i.e. the ability to fire up a crowd or inspire people over tv).

Look at some recent matchups and think about who had more mass charisma:

Clinton v Trump

Obama v Romney

GWB v Kerry

GWB v Gore

Clinton v Dole

Does it make any sense at all for a party to nominate a candidate with poor
mass charisma?

~~~
zghst
No. Especially since Trump is a master at projecting emotion on a mass scale.
Zuckerberg could not rely on photo ops and videos to convey an emotional
message when Trump is going to be shouting to audiences of thousands. He
should just sit this one out, don't jump the gun on this one.

------
hellofunk
The ol' Zuck means well and I think he'd give the go a nice solid try with
proper intentions. But I do not think he would be that successful in the
office, whatever "successful" means these days.

~~~
karmacondon
Why not? Zuckerberg is clearly a smart man, and he seems to be as qualified as
any one else. Infinitely more qualified than the current occupant of the
office. Just because you don't think of him as a politician doesn't mean that
he won't do a good job.

~~~
nilkn
Why is Zuckerberg infinitely more qualified than Trump? Both came from wealthy
families. Both are billionaires. Both are only capable of running due to their
billionaire status. Neither has any experience of any kind in politics.

Folks were worried about Trump's conflicts of interest, but Zuckerberg quite
literally owns one of the nation's largest news redistributors which is
already actively taking steps to control which news is shared.

~~~
659087
> Zuckerberg quite literally owns one of the nation's largest news
> redistributors which is already actively taking steps to control which news
> is shared.

Not just the nation. He controls much of what the developed world sees and
reads, and has access to and control over much of the developed world's public
and private communication.

~~~
smokeyj
Let's not forget the whole free-basics ordeal. Zuck is just gross.

------
SubiculumCode
I have thus far avoided any Zucker interviews, but I will say that I have had
enough of presidential conflicts of interest. Facebook is too big, and he
would need to completely divest.

------
zghst
I hold a contradiction over Zuckerberg. He would work harder than most to
understand issues, fundamentally transform government to embrace tech, and
also have a very powerful platform to reach out to voters directly.

However, given all of this, running as a Democrat would not protect him from
the same pressures and problems as Trump. It would probably exacerbate
tensions, with him ending up much more isolated than Trump from the political
establishment. If we think the Trump presidency and its coverage are hectic,
just imagine the air when Zuckerberg blows through all of the weak political
candidates. Everyone D and R will unilaterally oppose Zuckerberg, 10x as they
do Trump, just because of his power.

Additionally, it's dangerous gamble for Zuckerberg to run, as all Facebook
products WILL face a massive exodus stoked by political enemies. The debate of
him vs Trump will not please anyone. His path to the nomination will feel so
forced like a repeat of Hillary's campaign without all the enthusiasm.

Despite all of this, in my recommendation, it would be incredibly foolish of
Zuckerberg not to run. If not in 2020, at least afterwards.

2020 is not an election anyone should want to be involved in. Ever. With the
optics and warping that Trump's campaign style involves, traditional campaigns
(and even with an adept tech strategy, direct messaging, etc.) do not work
against Trump. Even co-opting his strategy and style (energy, heart, voice) is
suicide. It would take an exceptionally practiced person to channel, reflect
and amplify the frustrations of the electorate as a candidate to displace
Trump.

~~~
bogomipz
>"I hold a contradiction over Zuckerberg. He would work harder than most to
understand issues, fundamentally transform government to embrace tech, ..."

What does this mean?

Do you believe that the US government doesn't currently "embrace tech"? Look
up 18F and the USDS.

Do you not think that every law maker in Washington doesn't have a smart phone
and an ipad?

Would "embracing tech" somehow result in less pork barrel politics, partisan
gridlock, deficit spending or kicking the can down the road on policy making?
These are the real structural issues with Washington not the lack of tech in
the workplace.

------
gspetr
People are seriously considering Mark "The People's Privacy Champion"
Zuckerberg for president?

[http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-
ims...](http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-
help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5)

>Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

>Zuck: Just ask.

>Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

>[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

>Zuck: People just submitted it.

>Zuck: I don't know why.

>Zuck: They "trust me"

>Zuck: Dumb fucks.

I suppose the 2020 edition of this would look like this:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone in the United States

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 320,000,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: I became the president.

------
sotojuan
Can Zuck rise people up like Trump and Obama did? I doubt he could give a
politics/"vote for me" speech without half the people falling asleep.

------
mrdoops
I think the modern presidential role needs more technological savvy and broad-
scale systems thinking than in the past. I'd put those abilities at a greater
weight than typical political communication / dealing. There are tech
CEO/Founders/Businessmen I would rather have in the White House than
Zuckerberg, but there are very few politician/lawyer types that I would prefer
over Zuckerberg.

Facebook's practice of experimentation and data-driven decision making is
something our country needs more of. Incentives are pretty out of wack, in
many cases the only way to align incentives is with information systems
regulating more complex relationships. I'd also like to see some really
aggressive pushes towards infrastructure improvements in internet, education,
and transportation . All of these are things I think Zuckerberg would be a
good bet to organize.

------
amatheus
Given the power Facebook have, does Zuckerberg even need to run for president?
I think that's the problem with these huge companies.

------
taxicabjesus
El Presidente (Señor Teflon Trump) has a unique set of skills that Mr.
Zuckerberg probably doesn't have. These have been covered by the hypnotist
cartoonist, Scott Adams:

    
    
      Like many of you, I have been entertained by the 
      unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On 
      the surface, and several layers deep as well, 
      Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard 
      with inadequate credentials to lead a country.
    
      The only problem with my analysis is that there 
      is an eerie consistency to his success so far. 
      Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of 
      system at work under the hood?
      
      Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the 
      hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has 
      employed on you. (Most of you know I am a 
      trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of 
      mine.)
      
      [...]
    

\- Clown Genius (August 15, 2015),
[http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-
genius](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius)

Two posts later was _Wizard Wars_ [1], which discusses some of the hypnosis
training that El Presidente went through.

[1] [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-
wars](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-wars)

Milton Erickson (the grand master) -> John Grinder -> Anthony Robbins ->
Donald "Teflon" Trump

The Clintons [Bill & Hillary] are also friends with Anthony Robbins. I don't
know why Hillary didn't learn anything - maybe it's because she was a career
politician who spent her formative years interacting with politicians, instead
of with real people.

Adams pointed out somewhere that Teflon Don's pastor growing up was Norman
Vincent Peale, who wrote _The Power of Positive Thinking_ and other books
about effective mental habbits. Señor Trump used his persuasion training in
his reality T.V. show, in building his twitter audience, and in his
presidential campaign.

One Saturday morning, when I was going to get the taxi, I heard a blurb on NPR
about the screening of the Milton Erickson Foundation's new documentary,
Wizard of the Desert [2] [3]. I called one of my "Project Passengers" [4] and
let her know that we were going to this screening.

Later I had a session with the president of the organization. Dr. Zeig
precisely identified how I was sabotaging my efforts...

[2]
[http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/](http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/)
(auto-play video, starts with Anthony Robbins)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4)

[4]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085)
\- she is doing very well now, no thanks to the State's efforts. Her family &
"art therapy" & "peer support" training were much more helpful with getting
her alcohol use under control than was 2 years in minimum security prison.

~~~
quadrangle
The entire line of thinking that Scott Adams has is basically comparable to
being a dedicated pickup-artist.

Adams has studied all the tricks of how to manipulate people and rationalizes
it to the point of deluding himself. It's like saying that if you're a pickup-
artist who _successfully_ seduces your target using all manner of clever and
manipulative tactics, well, they were indeed seduced so, you judge that they
liked it and had a good time, so it's all good.

Adams is obsessed with persuasion to the point of completely ignoring _what_
you persuade people to do or think. Like an avid pickup-artist who treats
Casanova as the hero to model, Adams sees that Trump is successful at
manipulating people, so he sees that as all the proof needed that Trump is to
be admired and treated as the ultimate model to follow.

Short version: Adams is a lousy source for actually understanding Trump. Adams
is right about some things and wrong about others, and he is among the most
extreme victims of confirmation bias I've ever seen.

A good understanding of Trump and the aspects Adams talks about is this:
[https://newrepublic.com/article/124803/donald-trump-not-
liar](https://newrepublic.com/article/124803/donald-trump-not-liar)

~~~
taxicabjesus
> Adams has studied all the tricks of how to manipulate people

There is more than "tricks" to effective communication. _THIS_ is Milton
Erickson's insight, and this was what my comment was about. 'Tricks' were all
Hillary Clinton had in her linguistic arsenal (ex: calling Trump 'dark').

You ignored my whole comment, and just compared El Presidente to a 'pick up
artist'. (The premise of that field is the lesson I had to give to one of my
female passengers one night, about the 'difference between boys & girls':
[http://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-
boys-...](http://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys-
girls.html) \- women get to take their pick of potential suitors, whereas men
have to market themselves effectively. Sometimes men resort to using
linguistic 'tricks' to get women into bed. Women would be well-served by being
able to recognize the language patterns that are sometimes used...)

"If the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and
expecting a different result, then that's exactly what Clinton was doing in
this campaign. There was zero evidence from the Republican primary that a
traditional campaign would work against Trump. But she ran one anyway. Why?"
\- [https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/06/politics/hillary-
clinton-...](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/06/politics/hillary-clinton-
memoir/index.html)

Your New Republic article is from 2015, which was before El Presidente steam-
rolled the republican primary field. Do you have anything newer?

~~~
quadrangle
There's better and worse tricks, and then there's real communication. Scott
Adams is like Hillary Clinton — both full of mediocre tricks, although there's
a big difference. Adams seems to really believe what he's saying and so comes
across more compellingly (despite lacking real substance and intellectual
rigor). Clinton seems to be obviously deceptive and bad at hiding it (even as
she's deluded herself much of the time).

The New Republic article aged better than almost all the other press out
there. I referenced it because it's correct and clear.

I'm not sure why you brought up Clinton, but let me make this completely
explicit: zero of the insights or persepctives on Trump need to describe him
in contrast to Clinton, and there's no basis to think that critics of Trump
have anything good to say about Clinton necessarily.

My point mostly wasn't even about Trump. I'm not saying Trump himself is a
pickup-artist and that's it. I'm saying that SCOTT ADAMS has an ideology
comparable to that of pickup-artist culture and his (Adams') admiration for
Trump is based on seeing Trump as a master pickup-artist who also can be
assumed to just have the best of intentions for everyone. Adams and Trump are
different types of fools.

