[Digit-Al]

I can see a number of potential reasons why Zuck wouldn't want to be US president.

Firstly, it seems to me that it could potentially poison his brand overseas. Everyone knows that Facebook can potentially exert a lot of influence in very subtle ways. How many countries would want most of their citizens under the potential influence of a company owned by the president of a potentially hostile country? It could cause Facebook to be banned in some countries (like it already is in China).

Secondly, it could be argued that the owner of Facebook already has more power than the US president, so it would be a step down. After all, Facebook has influence over more people than POTUS. And considering the subtle ways we can be manipulated by social media, it can surely be argued that he can influence people more directly and more powerfully than POTUS.

So it seems to me that becoming President gains him nothing but aggravation and stress, and stands to lose him valuable overseas business.

[lettergram]

Although I agree Facebook has a lot of subtle influence, it's only to a point. I firmly believe (no evidence) they are unable to change most peoples minds, they may be able to change their moods.

People create their own social bubbles outside of Facebook, Facebook then gives those social bubbles a way to communicate (messages, images, etc.) online - that's it. If Facebook started trying to do more manipulation, i.e. tried to change peoples minds or something, then people would likely stop using Facebook, because it would no longer be subtle.

[dogruck]

I disagree that the head of an online advertising company has more power than the POTUS.

[T-hawk]

The POTUS has 300 million users. Facebook has 2 billion.

[pscsbs]

The POTUS has nukes and one of the most highly trained and best-equipped militaries in the world. Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant.

Power is not measured by “users.”

[qq66]

The President of the US indisputably has more destructive power than the CEO of Facebook, but the ability to kill people is not the only measure of power. And, how would the President shut down Facebook in an instant? The US President's powers are highly constrained, as many of them have complained about.

[dogruck]

I'd like a better understanding of your viewpoint.

What actions do you think Zuck could take which would demonstrate that he has more power than Trump?

And, why do you raise the hypothetical of Trump shutting down Facebook? In particular, it's my understanding that many of Trump's foes are blaming FB for his win.

[qq66]

I only raise the point about "Trump shutting down Facebook" in response to the comment "Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant." It simply isn't true. The President of the United States often can't even get the legislative platform that they ran on through Congress. I don't see any way they can shut down a major US corporation in an instant, unless with the cooperation of dozens of different parties within the government. The power of the US presidency is staggering and fairly unconstrained when it comes to killing millions of people with nuclear and conventional weapons. It's pretty constrained in every other arena.

As to actions that Zuck could take to show that he has more power than the POTUS? As I mentioned, constructive power and destructive power are of different natures, so that the power of an artist building a great sculpture is not really comparable to the power to smash that sculpture with a hammer.

[orevidence]

many people are blaming many silly things for Trump’s win, especially as a distraction from their own glaring flaws

[dredmorbius]

Power depends on a great many things. The form in which it's expressed, the interactions through which it's transmitted, the cost and refraction period before it can be re-used, all matter.

Nukes are indeed powerful, but media organs have started wars before.

Remember the Maine!

[dogruck]

Fair enough. What's the hypothetical sequence of actions that Zuck might take to start a war?

[dredmorbius]

Find a tinderbox. Toss a match.

History is your guide, the tactics have not fundamentally changed. The process isn't certain, and, as in many cases, the principle ingredient is disinhibition, recklessness, or ignorance.

And if not Zuckerberg, the next new-media mogul to hold the attention of a few billion eyeballs. More, I might add, than any media empire in history.

[catskul2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvkuePL7oDY

[Karunamon]

Is the mainstream media powerful in that they can shape opinion?

If yes, then Facebook must necessarily be powerful by the same metric.

If no, why not?

[dogruck]

The US just had a national election where every mainstream media outlet fervently supported the losing candidate.

In any case, even if the MSM effectively shapes public opinion, the POTUS commands the armed forces.

[Karunamon]

I'm not sure that's relevant here. The only way that flies is if the armed forces are deployed against the companies in question, something that is expressly forbidden in federal law. (And if that ever becomes an issue, the USA as we know it has already ceased to exist)

[dogruck]

Shockingly, my post was quickly downvoted a few times. Seems that several HN users also think that Zuck has more power than Trump.