Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#41

Post by imgabe »

edblarney wrote: post #23
imgabe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't vote for Zuckerberg? Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative. Granted, it might be a concern that he would use his position to help his company, which is why officials usually have to put their assets in a blind trust. He would still hav…

"Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative." "Technically" it would be a massive conflict of interest and probably illegal. Having someone own/control/influence a major chunk of the media establishment and also have public responsibility is a pretty…

That is what blind trusts are for. This isn't a new thing. People who own businesses have been elected to office before. Yes, there can be "conflicts of interest", but it's not like he's going to sneak into office and start making Facebook-friendly laws without anyone realizing he owns Facebook.

"Probably illegal" is unhelpful non-information. It's either illegal or not. We do have a process for becoming a candidate that verifies whether all legal requirements have been met, you know this, right?

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#42

Post by jessaustin »

chrischen wrote: post #27
ithinkinstereo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent announcements and actions by Zuck suggest that he's going to run for office one day. 1) Reveals he is no longer an atheist ( http://nypost.com/2017/01/02/mark-zuckerberg-reveals-hes-no-... ) 2) 2017 New Years goal to meet people in every 50 state ( http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-personal-goal... ) etc.

It suggests he may be Buddhist. You can't really use a religion other than Christianity if you're pandering to Americans.

No atheists really are the worst. (Perhaps it would be better to say they would be considered the worst by the stereotypical stereotypical American?)

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#43

Post by platz »

fsloth wrote: post #28
brandonmenc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have been living in a dystopian sci-fi novel since 1945.

Yep. 1. Cities destroyed by atomic weapons 2. Rockets 3. Computers 4. A dystopian one party nation state murdering millions of it's own (murdering en masse is nothing new but usually there was some excuse - soviet system brought state instituted terror to a whole new levem).

We have been living in a dystopian sci-fi novel since 33 AD. Or, if you prefer, 66 million years ago.

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#44

Post by dj-wonk »

rokosbasilisk wrote: post #8

Politics and tech mixing sounds bad for global shared tech. Seems like tech or internet balkanization is coming fast.

Why do you say "balkanization" and what do you mean by it?

Why might it be bad? Why might it be good?

There are so many factors. For one, I'd rather have someone in government who understands technology. So many parts of government are lacking in basic technical capability.

On the other hand, I find Facebook's awareness of the social fabric to be somewhere between inchoate (that's charitable) and a convenient illusion that is fundamentally mostly marketing-driven. (I don't fault a company for being market-driven; however, such incentives are not structured to properly serve people and communities).

But I don't know too much about Facebook's social design as compared to Zuck's goals for possibly serving in government or where he would like Facebook to go.

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#45

Post by __derek__ »

CptJamesCook wrote: post #26
satysin wrote: post #13

I was going to post asking what experience Mark has in government but then I remembered the American population just voted to elect a reality TV 'star' and rich-from-daddies-money mediocre businessman as President. So yeah I guess Mark is highly qualified in that he has several times Trump's net worth.

Another way to describe Trump is that he ran a business that created more value than the S&P 500 (the top 500 businesses on US stock exchanges) over a 30 year period, created a world famous brand associated with quality and luxury, created a tv show that dominated ratings for a decade, and crushed two political dynasties that have held power for almost 40 years.

You could, except that none of those descriptions are true.

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#46

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fsloth wrote: post #28
brandonmenc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have been living in a dystopian sci-fi novel since 1945.

Yep. 1. Cities destroyed by atomic weapons 2. Rockets 3. Computers 4. A dystopian one party nation state murdering millions of it's own (murdering en masse is nothing new but usually there was some excuse - soviet system brought state instituted terror to a whole new levem).

> usually there was some excuse - soviet system brought state instituted terror to a whole new levem [sic]

Perhaps on an absolute basis, the Soviets were the worst, but on a relative-to-population basis history is littered with meaningless massacre.

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#47

Post by pera »

imgabe wrote: post #16
pmiller2 wrote: post #2

Why does this sound like the plot to a dystopian sci fi novel? Facebook's interests aren't anything close to my interests.

Then don't vote for Zuckerberg? Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative. Granted, it might be a concern that he would use his position to help his company, which is why officials usually have to put their assets in a blind trust. He would still hav…

Americans have this odd tendency to vote for celebrities.

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#48

Post by voidray »

imgabe wrote: post #16
pmiller2 wrote: post #2

Why does this sound like the plot to a dystopian sci fi novel? Facebook's interests aren't anything close to my interests.

Then don't vote for Zuckerberg? Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative. Granted, it might be a concern that he would use his position to help his company, which is why officials usually have to put their assets in a blind trust. He would still hav…

I think the point is that he could use his immense power and unique platform to win regardless of what you or I might want.

And to put it in context, powerful businessmen with no prior gov't experience are now emboldened to run for the highest office (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dimon-idUSKBN...) which, as an aside, doesn't require putting your assets in a blind trust.

Re: Zuckerberg could run Facebook while serving in government forever

#50

Post by woofyman »

imgabe wrote: post #41
edblarney wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative." "Technically" it would be a massive conflict of interest and probably illegal. Having someone own/control/influence a major chunk of the media establishment and also have public responsibility is a pretty…

That is what blind trusts are for. This isn't a new thing. People who own businesses have been elected to office before. Yes, there can be "conflicts of interest", but it's not like he's going to sneak into office and start making Facebook-friendly laws without anyone realizing he owns Facebook. "Probably illegal" is unhelpful non-information. It's either illegal or not. We do have a process for becoming a candidate…

It's not a blind trust if he knows what's in it.
Post reply on HN