Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Government Social Networks United States Politics

Zuckerberg Could Run Facebook While Serving in Government Forever (techcrunch.com) 181

Reader randomErr writes: Closer look at SEC documents reveal that Zuckerberg only needs to own enough Facebook stock or have the board's approval to be allowed to serve in the government. This comes hours after, Facebook co-founder said his 2017 personal challenge is to meet and listen to people in all 50 states, hinting that he may have intentions of getting into politics. Without the limit, Zuckerberg has the opportunity to be appointed or elected to a more significant office and have as much time as he wants to make an impact, rather than just dipping in potentially as a cabinet member whose terms typically last less than two years. Of course, getting elected would require the faith of the people which has been shaken by the fake news scandal. Some would surely view a role in government as a selfish push for power despite Zuckerberg's massive philanthropy initiatives. Certain government offices might have historically required him to give up control of Facebook, but Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg Could Run Facebook While Serving in Government Forever

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:05PM (#53606095)

    Resign.

  • stock is enough?
  • ... and why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twebb72 ( 903169 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:10PM (#53606131)
    Zuckerberg is already at the top of the fake news feed
  • It had been a while since slashdot reminded us to worship Zuckerberg. I can't say I was missing the call to prayer or anything, but I had noticed its absence.
    • by sunking2 ( 521698 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:31PM (#53606277)
      And yet they didn't post the story about how he admitted that being an Atheist was just a phase. That would have made peoples heads explode.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        So can we drop the act now? The media is completely corrupted, it is 100% a tool / weapon to be used against you.
        There are no safe places. Not here, not anywhere.

        Can we stop coddling the soft hearts who refuse to believe santa claus isn't real?
        Can we stop waiting for the right opportunity to rip off the coverings and call everything for what it is and just DO it?

        It's all fake. All of it is fake news. Inherently fake. Just because something includes bits of real things doesn't mean its real.
        We need to stop n

        • by Anonymous Coward

          "It's only entertainment. A superficial urgency, poster board mentality. Only entertainment. Tightly constrained, the buzz that remains, is the story of how we run our lives."

          "Controlled and copied, they've planted the seed, that sprouts into your picture of the world."

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          So can we drop the act now? The media is completely corrupted, it is 100% a tool / weapon to be used against you.

          Welcome to gamergate. Here's your complimentary patriarchy card. You'll receive your shrieking harpy attacks in the next 2h-4 weeks, with claims that you're a sexist, racist, misogynist, racist who's worse then ISIS and Nazi's. And in the next 2 weeks, you should receive the first attempts to have you fired from your job for not following the narrative and speaking out against the system.

          • The real purpose of the "gamergate" story was to label that whole controversy as being about "video games" or something and to stop people from seeing that it was really glaring evidence of ubiquitous corruption throughout the entire media system.

            Anyway, there may be a lot of work to fill in between, but if the people who see how things are going withdraw in significant numbers, it only takes a few people to destabilize the economy. By refusing to work and making an effort to reach others there's really not

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @04:48PM (#53606767)

        In the USA, one must profess a love of religion to be elected. Perhaps this is why he's renouncing his atheism.

      • that being an Atheist was just a phase. That would have made peoples heads explode.

        Yeah, being called "just a phase" would definitely piss off all of us who have been atheists our whole lives and live in a 80% atheist environment. Or I guess our phases are better than his phases!

      • What he tweeted was:

        "No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

        Of course, he was going to complete the sentence with "as a means to control people.", but that would have pushed him over the 140 character limit.

      • Is he now also into worshiping himself?
  • Forever? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:10PM (#53606143)

    Is he an immortal? A vampire? a Howard?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Is he an immortal? A vampire? a Howard?

      Probably a higlander dick. They act like they're so rare and moral yet they meet up all the time by chance and always do a lot of killing.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Since he refuses to hire older workers, and practices age discrimination, why would older people vote for him?

    • Since he refuses to hire older workers, and practices age discrimination, why would older people vote for him?

      He could be appointed to some position. Age discrimination is present within the government but works in reverse though. You pretty much have to be over 40 to receive an appointment, and being over 50 or 55 definitely increases your chances, but money helps even more, and he's got more than enough of that.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Age discrimination is present within the government but works in reverse though.

        I can't remember the last presidential candidate we had that was under 35.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm assuming this is a joke. But just in case someone doesn't know, being 35 or older is one of the few "legal" requirements set by the US Constitution in order to be eligible to become President of the United States of America.

  • by j2.718ff ( 2441884 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:14PM (#53606163)

    So Facebook would let him run for government... but it's more important that he demonstrate to the government that he won't have any potential conflicts of interest (unless he runs for President, of course).

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I find it interesting that the same tech rags that say that Zuckerberg can still own interest in Facebook while running for political office are the same tech rags excoriating Trump for owning businesses while running for, and ultimately being elected as POTUS.

      And then there's the whole fact that the Democrats conveniently forget that their hero JFK was massively wealthy and owned businesses as well. They also weren't screaming for Hillary to give up all interest in The Clinton Foundation, just that she ne

      • by Anonymous Coward

        It's not about the money it's about the character. JFK wasn't a decroded piece of crap like Trump, and had an honorable service record and political record prior to becoming president. Trump, however, is exactly the kind of shyster who would use his position for personal gain because that's all he's done his entire life. He hasn't done one single thing in his life that wasn't about making Trump richer. And look at who he's put into his cabinet. None of those greedy fuckers have any interest in fixing Americ

    • So Facebook would let him run for government... but it's more important that he demonstrate to the government that he won't have any potential conflicts of interest (unless he runs for President, of course).

      Why? We've elected billionaires before, and he still runs the company, no matter how many shareholders there are or what the board says. Is there any chance the board wouldn't give their approval?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Well of course Zuckerberg wants to get into politics. It was signaled long ago, but became abundantly clear when he suddenly disavowed atheism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/30/mark-zuckerberg-says-hes-no-longer-an-atheist-believes-religion-is-very-important/). You can't be serious about politics in the good ol' USA unless you're a devout religious something-or-other.

    • Well of course Zuckerberg wants to get into politics. It was signaled long ago, but became abundantly clear when he suddenly disavowed atheism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/30/mark-zuckerberg-says-hes-no-longer-an-atheist-believes-religion-is-very-important/). You can't be serious about politics in the good ol' USA unless you're a devout religious something-or-other.

      That may have indeed been a piece of the foundation for a later public service career. He's not ready yet, I think you need to wait at least a few months before you completely flip-flop on a significant belief, even in today's political climate.

  • by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:26PM (#53606241)
    It's not about Zuckerberg being appointed to or running for political office. The justification for this news story is the jab at the end about "fake news," lest we forget for a moment that we are all smart people and nobody we know voted for Donald Trump, therefore there must be foul play.
    • And then the tangible aspect of this utter insanity comes: the censorship. That is the real purpose of "fake news" isn't it? It is not only to flood the "newsfeed" with "OMG FAEK NEWZ" to sponge up the leaking toxic emotions from part of the country.
      It's another step on the road to absolute censorship.

      They are rounding up everything to put a nice bow on it now. People believe they are looking on reality from a clear vantage. They can see how some of the other simple people are being manipulated by a clearly

      • Wow, you've exhibited a first, a sort of psychopathic apathy, wherein "Everything's fucked, so let's just kill lots of people I think are stupid."

        Well, I think you're pretty bloody stupid too, so maybe we could start with you.

      • Didn't Hitler try that already. "They are the blame for all our woes, let's kill them all".

        Either get a better hobby to alleviate the stress you currently are exhibiting or get psychiatric help FAST!!!

  • Yet another person I will be very happy to vote against.
    • Re:wow, great (Score:4, Insightful)

      by uvajed_ekil ( 914487 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:33PM (#53606297)

      Yet another person I will be very happy to vote against.

      Therein lies the problem with modern American politics. Far too often we are stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, casting our ballots against someone rather than for anyone we truly believe will represent our best interests. I don't have an easy solution, but the problem is clear, and our system is screwed.

      • by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:37PM (#53606303)
        Of course you vote for a lizard. You wouldn't want the wrong lizard to get in, would you?
        • Of course you vote for a lizard. You wouldn't want the wrong lizard to get in, would you?

          My point exactly. I don't want to elect lizard overlords at all, but if a nice, thoughtful, moderate human can't make it out of the primaries, then I have to pick the least smelly, least treacherous lizard. That doesn't sit well with me.

        • This is why we need to ditch First Past the Post. The voting system encourages two large parties, which tend to be more alike (and centrist) than not, just because of the large numbers involved. But then we still need voters, so our party politics focuses around wedge issues. Our politicians very deliberately set us against one another, because they must. They have no incentive to do otherwise, nor to de-escalate any of these issues. American politics has become more fiercely partisan over the last few deca

      • Re:wow, great (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:40PM (#53606333) Journal
        My new hypothesis is that democracy isn't focused on getting a good leader, its purpose is to make it easy to get rid of a bad leader without a bloody revolution. That is the main benefit of democracy.
        • That is precisely what democracy is. It is a means to throw out a government without the need of guns and high explosives.

      • The solution is easy and has been mathematically proven for literally hundreds of years: use a Condorcet method [wikipedia.org] to count ballots and strategic voting is a thing of the past.

        The much harder followup problem, however, is how to get the people in power, who benefit from the broken system we have now, to implement that easy solution to something they consider a feature, not a bug.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    What the fuck are the TFS and even the headline about??
    Granted, English is only my second language. But surely this weird drivel follows no discernible structure. Who edits this shit? Is this on purpose, as most headlines read so convoluted to be barely intelligible?

  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:39PM (#53606323)

    Just when I think, "at least things can't any worse," you slap me in the face and spit on me. -_-

    • by Anonymous Coward

      At least it doesn't turn around and call it a thunderclap and rain.

  • by acoustix ( 123925 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:57PM (#53606455)

    Anyone who thinks that Facebook can actually cut down on the fake news posts should take a look at their efforts to stop the clickbait posts. It's gotten worse. Much worse.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Now, every psycho billionaire in America has seen how it's done.

    God help us, because the two parties won't.

  • Every day these posts get worse and less veiled. Pretty sure we'll see slashdot running official ad's for Facebook and Apple instead of just "news stories"
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Doesn't this guy have enough freakin' power already? A politician with access to personal info of 1in 4 people is the last thing we need. And, politicians are allowed to own stock. This is stupid dangerous. He'll also be in a position in which profiles may have to be divulged "voluntarily" to defense agencies. He's not the answer to not having Hillary in office, but that's the part he will play to keep people happy under Trump.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This explains why Zuckerberg has renounced atheism. He could not get elected President in the US as a declared atheist. If he's going on the stump with the goal of the Whitehouse (having seen how easily Trump did it), he needs to get his ducks in a line now.

    • From The Telegraph, Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is no longer an atheist [telegraph.co.uk]:

      The Facebook founder [...] said he believed religion was "very important". It comes after a year in which Zuckerberg, who was raised Jewish, met the pope and [...] praised the Buddhism of his wife Priscilla Chan, posting a photo of himself praying during a visit to a pagoda in Xi'an.

      Last week, Zuckerberg posted a message on his own Facebook page wishing followers a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. In response to a comment asking if he was atheist, he said: "No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

      This makes perfect sense for a wannabe politician: A 2012 Gallup poll [gallup.com] concluded that potential voters were more likely to refuse to vote for an atheist candidate (43%) than a candidate that was Muslim (40%), gay/lesbian (30%), Mormon (18%), or Jewish (6%). Similar results were found in a 2014 Pew survey [pewresearch.org] that found 53% of those surveyed would reject an atheist presidential candidate, leading "never held office" (52%), age 70-80 (36%), ad

  • Trust him? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by myid ( 3783581 ) on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @06:24PM (#53607297)

    Here's a quote [wikiquote.org] from Mark Zuckerberg:

    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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Seems to me perfect politician stock.

  • WHY would we want him in office?
    • WHY would we want him in office?

      To repair the damage done with China by Trump?

      • What damage? He hasn't done anything to China yet?

        Oh, I get it, you supported someone else to get to the White House. Gotcha, bias recognised.

      • You think China was ever our friend? They're as bad as Russia without the good parts. They play nice every once in a while because of our huge consumer base and ridiculously friendly trading agreements. At least TPP won't be going forward to make things even worse.
    • ...because Donald Trump is too charismatic?

  • In politics, what could possibly go wrong.

  • "Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President."

    Can he also re-write the Constitution's emoluments clause with a mighty tweet?

    • by Askmum ( 1038780 )
      It is just what we need. More oligarchs. Robert Michels looks to be more right by the decade.

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson

Working...