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
Re: WTF Slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
The stories seem fine to me. The users and moderators have declined in quality. You're a big part of the problem. Buzz off.
Who approved this posting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Resign.
How much (Score:1)
... and why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another facebook slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just another facebook slashvertisement (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:1)
"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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re:Just another facebook slashvertisement (Score:4, Insightful)
In the USA, one must profess a love of religion to be elected. Perhaps this is why he's renouncing his atheism.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Forever? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is he an immortal? A vampire? a Howard?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
but will older people vote for him? (Score:2, Interesting)
Since he refuses to hire older workers, and practices age discrimination, why would older people vote for him?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
what about conflicts of interest? (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
getting into politics (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Let me interpret this for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Either get a better hobby to alleviate the stress you currently are exhibiting or get psychiatric help FAST!!!
wow, great (Score:2)
Re:wow, great (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:wow, great (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Partisan Politics (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
That is precisely what democracy is. It is a means to throw out a government without the need of guns and high explosives.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any indication at all that Obama intends on defying the Electoral College's decision? Yes, he's trying to leave a few poison pills for Trump, but he's still President until January 21st, and thus enjoys the full powers bequeathed to him by the Constitution and by Congressional statute. If he wishes to use those powers to fuck around with Trump, well, then history will be the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Close, January 20th... at noon ET.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any indication at all that Obama intends on defying the Electoral College's decision? Yes, he's trying to leave a few poison pills for Trump, but he's still President until January 21st, and thus enjoys the full powers bequeathed to him by the Constitution and by Congressional statute. If he wishes to use those powers to fuck around with Trump, well, then history will be the judge.
He's already signed a new lease in the same town. You don't do that unless you plan on moving.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What? Are you even sure that's English? (Score:2)
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?
Well done reality! (Score:3)
Just when I think, "at least things can't any worse," you slap me in the face and spit on me. -_-
Re: (Score:1)
At least it doesn't turn around and call it a thunderclap and rain.
Facebook & Fake News (Score:3)
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.
Trump is only the beginning (Score:1)
Now, every psycho billionaire in America has seen how it's done.
God help us, because the two parties won't.
what the fuck is the point of this?? (Score:2)
Power Hungry (Score:1)
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.
no longer atheist = possible president (Score:1)
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.
Americans prefer Jewish candidates to Athiests (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Seems to me perfect politician stock.
Biggest Question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WHY would we want him in office?
To repair the damage done with China by Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I get it, you supported someone else to get to the White House. Gotcha, bias recognised.
Re: (Score:2)
Your outrage at his accepting a phone call is as false as China's outrage. Neither means squat. He has not harmed anything, he does not yet have authority to harm anything. Once President, I hope he continues to recognized Taiwan, the One China myth ne
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...because Donald Trump is too charismatic?
The Master of Fake News (Score:2)
In politics, what could possibly go wrong.
American Oligarchs (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
A human being die in some time... (Score:1)
Re:Zuck 2020! (Score:5, Funny)
He will keep us safe from news
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Make News Fake Again!
Re: (Score:2)
What Predator vs. Alien? (Or was that the last presidential election?)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need a Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura candidacy for proper "Predator vs" politics.
Re:Zuck 2020! (Score:4, Informative)
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
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
But he stated it as if it were common knowledge so nobody would challenge. He's depending on idiots to just accept it. Get with the manipulative program dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling me Slashdot is posting FAKE NEWS in TFS?!?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our congressional leaders can't pass a law against it, it's prohibited by the constitution for the legislative branch to interfere with the executive branch in that way.
In what "way"? Please point to the passage of the Constitution that you're claiming makes this restriction. The only argument I've seen is it puts additional constraints on qualifications to be president (in addition to age 35 etc.) but that sounds pretty weak to me, since Congress can also pass laws saying the President can't commit all sorts of crimes. The issue isn't a matter of qualification (what the president does BEFORE taking office) but rather a decision to continue acting in problematic busines
Re: (Score:2)
Also, an amendment which merely laid out a few ground rules for exactly what constitutes a conflict of interest would be pretty ineffec
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
Yes, because the law is the only possible constraint. Ignore centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition and public morality were imaginary all along! It's the law or nothing!
I bet you're a small government conservative, too, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because the law is the only possible constraint. Ignore centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition and public morality were imaginary all along! It's the law or nothing!
I bet you're a small government conservative, too, aren't you?
As a small government conservative: laws.amendments that restrain the power of government are great! "Centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition" are worthless for protecting us from assholes. Of course, so is the Constitution once there are enough asshole in the SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
As a small government conservative: laws.amendments that restrain the power of government are great! "Centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition" are worthless for protecting us from assholes. Of course, so is the Constitution once there are enough asshole in the SCOTUS.
That last sentence is particularly telling. When you come right down to it, after you've stripped away the puffery and pageantry, laws really are just a set of rules we agree to abide by because the benefit to society is greater when we do. They're really nothing more than articles in the social contract that Hobbes defined way back when.
And as you rightly note, they are designed as asshole repellent. Their purpose is largely not to set norms, but to curb extraordinary, often sociopathic behaviour. Lawless
Re: (Score:2)
The boundaries weren't there at all.
This is just media spin, again, as usual. Past presidents have (or still are) filthy rich and have substantial investments.
You don't have to be the managing CEO of a company to get benefits from decisions that impact the industries of companies you own. Oil and Steel are two examples among many.
While the president may be the most visible, most politicians come from or have substantial wealth...and if one thinks they don't take that into account on their own scale their
Re: (Score:1)
" Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there "
Oh, they were "there" - they just weren't codified into law, because that was never necessary before. We never had a billionaire fraud property owner pariah win the presidency in the modern era.
Re: (Score:2)
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
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
There were there as tradition, like most things are, for instance filibusters were mostly a tradition never laws, many things work that way under the assumption that elected official and grownup responsible people, and it was assummed no one would elect people with obvious conflicts of interest, so previously presidential candidates promised to use blind trust because they were good honorable people, Trump is none of those things, except possibly 'people'.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's going to nationalize the Silicon Valley companies.
But of course he might screw up and try to nationalize Silicon Graphics or Silicone Valley (the San Fernando Valley porn industry), then deny he ever did it, then threaten to sue anyone who calls him on it. I just hope that doesn't end in a massive wave of bankruptcies (for Silicon Valley, SGI is already dead and Silicone Valley will never die).
Re: (Score:2)
... Silicone Valley will never die
I would not bet on that. If 9/11 did not teach companies about providing redundancies to everything in the event of disaster, we would be foolhardy. There are plenty of other states that could provide EVERYTHING that Silicon Valley provides with a little effort. I would hope that Silicon Valley would not be so arrogant to make the assumption that they are irreplaceable.
Re: Zuck 2020! (Score:2)
I'm not sure you understood the post you responded too...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either side would be wrong by understatement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a college dropout who became a billionaire. I thought Red State America loved that? Or do you also have to be a racist?
You just tell them what they want to hear and they'll vote for you, whether you make any attempt at being sincere or not. When they are reminded of your past opposite positions, just deny that ever happened and make some half-assed attempt to play to their fears about something else. In short, lie. Seems to work pretty reliably these days. And you don't have to be a racist, but you absolutely shouldn't denounce racists either, because every white vote counts, even the evil ones.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of folks who voted Trump and a Republican Congress are about to find that out with Obamacare, as it becomes clearer with each press conference that the Republicans have no actual plan, and are more than likely simply going to tinker with the ACA, and that the "great repeal" is going to be little more than a rebranding, with some funding changes, and probably defunding of Planned Parenthood and a means for Catholic and Evangelical employers to squeak out of having to pay for the birth control.
The block grant plan will be the most fun to watch, because it's going to mean an even greater health care disparity between the poorer (and more often Red states) and the wealthier (more often) Blue states. But overall, the likes of Paul Ryan are making it as clear as they dare that there isn't going to be an overnight repeal of Obamacare, which means the transition is going to be multi-year, and longer than the life of the current Congress. It makes me wonder if the Republicans will simply use the whole thing as a delaying tactic, make the changes I suggest above, rename it and then try to use it as a feather in their own cap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, those poor Blue states, with their higher standards of living, and where women won't be forced to die of ectopic pregnancies because "GOD!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a lot of folks who voted Trump and a Republican Congress are about to find that out with Obamacare, as it becomes clearer with each press conference that the Republicans have no actual plan, and are more than likely simply going to tinker with the ACA, and that the "great repeal" is going to be little more than a rebranding,
That's certainly what we're afraid of. But there are some hints the GOP is finding it's long-lost balls, and waking up to the fact that, since a big jump in exchange insurance rates played into last election, a big drop in rates would save their asses in the next.
Otherwise: fuck the GOP. I don't know a single conservative who actually likes the GOP, it's merely the barely lesser evil. The pendulum swing that brought us Trump has just begun, and unless the GOP is nimble, it won't survive as a party to the end of it all. And if the Dems aren't scared by the level of support Bernie got, they should wake up - that wave is still rising, too.
Re: (Score:2)
The money is going to have to come from somewhere. Since it's clear that the pre-existing condition part of the ACA is immensely popular, that means that the Republicans are going to have to find a way to keep it alive. All I've heard thus far is talk of block funding and high-risk pools, and you get to fill in the blanks and how those will jive. If you're going to make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable insurance, it means somehow those people are going to have to be subsidized, ei
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The fundamental problem is the death spiral: young, healthy people don't want to pay for the high-expense folks, so simply drop insurance, causing rates to rise and more to drop.
The straightforward solution is a high risk pool, as we do for car insurance, but that doesn't stop the death spiral. The only remaining sane options are tax-funded: either medicaid for the high risk (which would be unpopular once people find out how bad doctors that take medicaid are), or, my prediction, government-as-re-insurer.
S
Re: (Score:2)
This also applies to the Democrats as well.
This is why I looked at this election as this wasn't about two parties vying it out. There was a third party that was behind both parties that has always been manipulating both sides in
Re: (Score:2)
You just tell them what they want to hear and they'll vote for you, whether you make any attempt at being sincere or not.
The most important thing when running for elected office is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made!
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this a case of counting eggs before they hatch?
Does someone presume he is just going to be given a "significant" position in government? Where is he getting it from? Who is electing him? Obama and Soros? Are we to just accepting that we are returning to self-proclaimed monarchy and nobility?
CAPTCHA: royally
To your last question, yes, we're already seeing something like that. And though I think Zuxk is unlikely to accept an appointment, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. He is close with Peter Thiel, FB CEO Sheryl Sandberg has already shown a willingness to open a dialog with the Trump administration, and Zuck holds some anti-net neutrality positions and could have a lot to gain from major FCC changes. Big business interests are going to rule much more so than in recent times, so playing ball with Trum
Re: (Score:2)
The gross accumulation of wealth is destabilizing. It should be universally capped and indexed to inflation. Start with the President via a Constitutional Amendment. Something like $10 million ($20 for married couple so President and First Lady) should be more than sufficient.
So if I'm elected as a single parent you punish my kids by halving their immediate family's maximum wealth? What if there is no First Lady, or the president's spouse is male?
$10 million seems arbitrary, and low. I went to school with plenty of kids whose parents you've never heard of but have more than $10 mil to their names. And good luck passing that. I totally get where this is coming from, but it unrealistically idealistic. And how would you stop a would-be billionaire president from transferring most
Re: (Score:2)
So if I'm elected as a single parent you punish my kids by halving their immediate family's maximum wealth?
Your kids can still keep 100% of the money that they earn for themselves. If they are individually destitute, having access to a parent with $10m is no "punishment".
But with just me they'd have access to only $10 mil maximum inheritance, while kids of two parents in the White House would potentially inherit twice as much. That's just not fair. This is a stupid discussion anyway, not going to happen.