[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.

[petra]

Trump made a large fortune into a small one. Zuckerberg did better, financially, and probably in a much harder industry .

[SubiculumCode]

Because Trump likely has true psychiatric issues.

[cirgue]

> Just because you don't think of him as a politician doesn't mean that he won't do a good job.

This is a really silly argument. Zuckerberg is not a bad candidate because it is hard to imagine him as a politician. He is a bad candidate because we can see the impact of Zuckerberg's attitude toward the general population in the way he manages the Facebook platform. That is not a society anyone wants.

[slackingoff2017]

The product zuck runs is sleazy by nature, and he's made a lot of statements that tell me he's either naive or out of touch with the average persons reality.

I think Trump is a twit but I would rather have someone that seems grounded, like bill gates for example, than a guy with floaty dreamland ideas that Facebook can make everyone like each other.

[fweespeech]

> 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.

I'm pretty sure we'll see a Zuckerberg Presidency the same way we see Facebook being run as a business. He'll do the minimum to keep people happy and then quietly sell you out behind closed doors.

Intelligence is important, but intelligent people with very little in the way of ethical standards are far more dangerous than they are helpful.

[yummybear]

If by "qualified" you mean not being misogynistic, racist and mentally unstable, then yes. Zuckerberg is more qualified.

But being a politician is not just having an opinion about things - it's also being a strategist, and having a sound knowledge about how the political system works, ethics and being able to cooperate with people you disagree with. Traits Zuckerberg has yet to show he has.

[jacquesm]

On the ethics front I would say there is ample evidence Zuckerberg does not have any worth mentioning.

[jacquesm]

Being smart is not by itself a positive trait just like a hammer is not per-se a good tool. It all depends on how you use your smarts (and your hammer).

Zuckerberg in office could do better than Trump but for now I don't see him as a net positive to the world, magnifying that by handing him the keys to the kingdom could do a lot of damage.