This is a better article than the typical personality piece or character assassination, but the thread here shows the problem with these things: there just isn't that much to discuss. Once a public figure or celebrity has grown beyond a certain size—I don't know what the threshold is, but it's lower than 1 Zuckerberg—they become a generic theme, and people mostly just repeat their pre-existing feelings about them, as well as practicing the social rituals that humans do on such occasions.
Public figures of this sort become cartoon characters [1]. The way we relate to them reminds me of how the Greeks used to talk about their gods, and at times also of the feces-hurling behavior in other primates. I don't mean that dismissively, I mean it almost literally (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23406290). These discussions are fascinating because they're so repetitive and so consistent. But their content is not interesting, because they're not about content. They're deep social behavior.
It's always been a principle on HN to emphasize content over personalities [2], and that principle has served well over the years. I think I've learned something about why: it's because intellectual curiosity and social curiosity are different things. Social curiosity is what lies behind gossip, fascination with celebrities, and so on—the lives of others, if it's ok to adapt that phrase. Intellectual curiosity has to do with expanding one's view of the world. Both are deeply human, but HN is a site specifically for intellectual curiosity. That explains why articles and threads like this invariably miss the bullseye here.
This article specifically points out Zuckerberg's sweating at D8. This may have been a different instance, or I may be wrong.
But I seem to recall a story that at this event the temperature was turned up because Jobs was so sick. Can anyone else corroborate this? It may have been in Issacson's book.
> 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.
> But he isn't even an atheist anymore and is embracing religion and Judaism[1].
This pivot literally happened as the rumors that he was thinking of running for office were coming out. He then decided to pull a "traveling across America to meet with the people" and promptly got destroyed by people realizing he is doing this to run for this office.
Frankly, I would take a machine as an leader over a lot of other options we have. Predictability and lack of emotional outbursts would be great qualities to have in a leader.
But what do you do when it starts basing everything on statistics or something less/not compassionate to life? And who determines what metrics and data it uses to make its decisions?
Zorlot-19 has decided to end the lives of everyone over 90 and that drinks mountain dew because its determined its a net negative on.. what, GDP, mortality rate, fertility rates, tax rates..
Seems like a compassionate overlord would be great but we've fallen for that a few thousand times in history.
edit: While I'm here, anyone have any interesting books on robots/droids/overlords/whatever beginning to manage society?
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.
Schwarzenegger would be a walk-in, regardless of which party he gets behind him.
There is a parallel reality where Democrats pushed hard to change the eligibility rules during Obama’s second term, selected Ahnold, and continued the Obama legacy of slow-going, moderate social progress. Sadly we are in a darker timeline.
Arnold took a political beating from both sides when he failed to accumulate the capital to push any of his ideas through, and the experience appears to have left the governor with no enthusiasm to continue.
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.
You don't need charisma when you can insert yourself into people's notifications, Facebook and Instagram feeds, have a near-live overview of the majority of the voting population, know their political bias, cultural heritage, and much, much more.
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.
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?
Zuckerberg couldn't run as anything but a democrat either. Cambridge Analytica and the like ensured that, but his beliefs (as far as he has shown any) are leaning democrat with libertarian tendencies at best. His lack of moral spine is compatible with both parties (not equating said parties to be clear).
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.
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.
I think it's possible to learn it, but a lot of charisma comes from empathy and focus on others. Awkward people can be very charismatic if they give the vibe they care about you. True selflessness isn't something most politicians are really known for..
It's a longstanding American tradition that many of our politicians are successful businessmen who made a fortune and then used their wealth to finance their political campaign(s). This is more or less how our current president got into power.
I think Trump is the only American president who never held a political office before becoming president. He was wealthy and famous for decades as a very successful businessman and he apparently spent many years contemplating running for president.
I once wrote a blog post titled something like "The 70 Year Old Political Virgin." I suspect a lot of the drama we see with this presidency is rooted in the fact that he has no prior political experience.
He has prior experience with people talking about him because he was rich and wealth is a kind of power, but it's not the same as having real political power where you can command armies and what not. I think this is why he engages in so much inflammatory rhetoric, which isn't appropriate for the President of the US, and I think it's why he seems so thin-skinned about people saying things about him.
When he was merely famous for his wealth, people talked about him as gossip, basically. Now, people talk about him because what he says and does impacts their lives in significant ways and he doesn't seem to know how to deal with the fact that this is just part and parcel of holding a powerful office. It's not actually personal.
For much of the history of the US, the path to the presidency was rooted in "well, first you need to be a General in the military." From what I gather, that's not been true in recent decades.
My father and ex husband were both career military. The military has a culture steeped in ethics surrounding making hard decisions about who lives, who dies, who dies so that others will live, etc. I think it is good experience for taking the reins of power, in part because being the President of the US also makes you the Commander in Chief.
Heinlein wrote fiction about a future America where you had to have military service to run for political office. I am not comfortable with suggesting this should be a standard, but I do wonder if we should add a new proviso to the bid for presidency that you either need prior military experience or you need to have held some other political office first.
Zuck could 100% be elected president someday. It certainly seems more plausible than I would have said about Trump in say ~2012.
- The US worships rich and successful businessmen in general.
- Facebook is the most powerful media empire the world has ever know. It could easily mobilize to support a Zuck campaign.
- His charisma and current reputation are obviously votes against him but reputation is malleable (see previous point re: media empire) and political training could probably go a long way.
Being famous and rich is not what got Trump in and the factors that got him in would be somewhat different for a liberal. And in the general factors that matter for a president, Zuck has about 0 of the ones that matter (charisma, likeability, relatability, toughness, outspokenness, bluster, comedy, incisiveness, a relatable or admirable background, etc).
He’s a privileged rich white kid on the spectrum, I give less-than-Bloomberg chances (same charisma, less experience and relatability).
Agree on the overall argument, but your assumption that Zuck is a “liberal” seems, on the face of it, pretty unfounded. He financed Republicans and effectively allowed Trump free reign on his platform, over and over.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t completely agree with that. From most sources, Bloomberg wanted to run even in 2016, and did a lot of work on that front, till the end when he somehow changed tack to “not split the vote”.
While he did officially make a late entry in the race, started throwing a lot of money and research power quite early. It just so happened that the American public looks at more factors than just a lot of money.
To me they both seemed woefully underprepared and at a loss for answers when the spotlight was put on them during debates.
I guess executives delegate a lot , so much that on their own they might feel exposed and unprepared because there is no one to assist, at least when thrust into unfamiliar ground.
Bloomberg's basic problem is that people in Iowa hate his personality. Had he actually put in the work, being a billionaire may well have been enough if not for having a major disqualifier like that.
