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

Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

stingingfly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#31

Post by Tostino »

windthrown wrote: post #22
Trasmatta wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that Zuckerberg would be allowed to use Facebook to push his presidential campaign? I feel like he would have to divest himself of the company entirely first. Then again, that's maybe too much of an expectation, given our current political situation.

You'd think so...but I also thought it would be politically unpalatable for Trump to refuse to divest from his business. And once in office, the emoluments clause of the constitution has been shown to be pretty toothless.

> pretty toothless

Entirely toothless.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#32

Post by mcculley »

Trasmatta wrote: post #13
ginko wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg has the charisma of a fish though.

Yeah, I keep seeing the "well, Trump won!" argument anytime somebody suggests that a certain person wouldn't win an election. But that ignores Trump's unique characteristics that allowed him to gain a significant and loyal following. I feel like Zuckerberg trying to run would be a Mike Bloomberg situation. Remember when that happened?

What if one had the money to hire a bunch of people who understand why Trump one and had no moral code? Bloomberg had the money. He just wasn't enough of an asshole to appeal to the US voter.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#33

Post by hashberry »

> Easier to conceive of Mark Zuckerberg as a machine.

The memes of Zuckerberg as Data from Star Trek always amuse me.[0] Sure, it's teasing, but Data is a likable character! Data doesn't strive to be superior but to be more human, even if this means being analytical instead of emotional.

Mark Zuckerberg would be far more interesting if he were "evil"--if he tried to create new values, if he tried to replace God. But he isn't even an atheist anymore and is embracing religion and Judaism[1].

And then of course we must separate the man from the corporation: Facebook is a public company has an obligation to its shareholders to make money. Facebook stopped being about Zuckerberg a long time ago... it is now about surveillance capitalism.

[0] https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/354/185/719...

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-embraced-h...

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#34

Post by mc32 »

fatbird wrote: post #26
jraines wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just those who will make it their business to believe it’s possible (politcal consultants). Exhibit A: Bloomberg campaign If they were eligible, Schwarzeneggar (years ago) or Musk (now), would have a better shot —- still small —- because it would be a circus. And we have evidence that a circus can get you elected.

A bit weirdly, Bloomberg is exhibit B; Howard Schultz's attempt a few months earlier was Exhibit A, and about as successful. At some point, those same consultants had to convince Bloomberg he wouldn't be another Schultz.

Honestly both of them just winged it. They were unprepared for debates and when they had answers they were uninspiring, to say the least.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#35

Post by luckylion »

ardy42 wrote: post #19
youeseh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charisma can be learned.

> Charisma can be learned. Did Hillary Clinton learn it? Of all the people in the world, she's probably the one who had the most incentive and motivation to "learn" charisma, if it was possible.

I always got the impression from her public persona that she thought she didn't need charisma, that she had "earned it", and that the power she had accrued over the years should be enough to deliver the victory to her.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#36

Post by mc32 »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #30
smacktoward wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're rich enough, you quickly get surrounded by people who are happy to agree with any damn fool notion you come up with.

As Mike Bloomberg can attest to, this is not enough to be a presidential contender.

He and Schulz winged it and treated it like a jock treats finals. “I’ll pull an all-nighter and I’ll get an A”. Nope like most people who don’t show up for class and do an all-nighter, they got a D- and failed.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#37

Post by lowdose »

hashberry wrote: post #33

> Easier to conceive of Mark Zuckerberg as a machine. The memes of Zuckerberg as Data from Star Trek always amuse me.[0] Sure, it's teasing, but Data is a likable character! Data doesn't strive to be superior but to be more human, even if this means being analytical instead of emotional. Mark Zuckerberg would be far more interesting if he were "evil"--if he tried to create new values, if he tried to replace God. But…

> Facebook stopped being about Zuckerberg a long time ago

When did he change the voting structure of Facebook?

I remember Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of voting shares of Facebook and hence Mark = Facebook?

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#38

Post by SCUSKU »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #30
smacktoward wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're rich enough, you quickly get surrounded by people who are happy to agree with any damn fool notion you come up with.

As Mike Bloomberg can attest to, this is not enough to be a presidential contender.

That being said, Bloomberg entered the Democratic primary very late and does not own one of the largest propaganda machines in the world. If done right, Zuckerberg might have a decent shot. After all, Bloomberg achieved ~18% [1] in the polls despite his late entry.

[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2...!

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#40

Post by adjkant »

mcculley wrote: post #32
Trasmatta wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I keep seeing the "well, Trump won!" argument anytime somebody suggests that a certain person wouldn't win an election. But that ignores Trump's unique characteristics that allowed him to gain a significant and loyal following. I feel like Zuckerberg trying to run would be a Mike Bloomberg situation. Remember when that happened?

What if one had the money to hire a bunch of people who understand why Trump one and had no moral code? Bloomberg had the money. He just wasn't enough of an asshole to appeal to the US voter.

> He just wasn't enough of an asshole to appeal to the US voter.

Based on his marketing tactics I'm inclined to disagree there. IMO he also lacked the charisma that Zuckerberg would struggle with.

Post reply on HN