Slashdot Mirror
In the Age of Trump, Tech CEOs Cast Themselves As the New Statesmen (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader shares an insightful story on Buzzfeed News: Mark Zuckerberg isn't running for president of the United States, but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. On Tuesday morning, the Facebook CEO kicked off the company's annual developers conference in San Francisco with a glancing shot at Donald Trump, followed by a reiteration of the company's oft-repeated pledge to bring the world together. Zuck's not alone. Last month Apple CEO Tim Cook led his keynote with a similar stump-speech vibe. He dove right into the company's national security and privacy fight against the FBI. Two weeks ago Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told attendees of the company's annual Build developers conference of plans to "move our society forward," asking "profound questions" of his developers:"Is technology empowering people or is it displacing us? Is technology helping us preserve our enduring values such as privacy, or is it compromising it?" Google CEO Sundar Pichai hasn't delivered his big keynote yet (it's coming up May 18), but late last year he issued an open letter in support of Muslims after Donald Trump suggested he'd blanket-ban the religious group from entering the United States. Welcome to 2016: where tech's biggest leaders are no longer selling themselves as innovators, creative geniuses, or domineering tycoons, but as world leaders -- statesmen shaping the course of human history.According to a report from last month, several tech executives -- including Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Sean Parker -- met recently to discuss how to "stop Donald Trump." Musk, however, later refuted such reports.
Companies banding together to exert control on governments is nothing new. This only seems new because it at least appears they aren't doing it for financial reasons, but instead are doing it for a real public good. This appears to be a good shift to me, but the cynical side of me still smells a rat.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Trump is not the first nor are 'tech' CEOs the only CEOs to play this game.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This is nothing new. Highly successful, rich business people have a long history of trying to affect society and government policy.
Love sees no species.
"According to a report from last month, several tech executives -- including Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Sean Parker -- met recently to discuss how to "stop Donald Trump." Musk, however, later refuted such reports."
Funny when what they should be doing is:
- Understanding why people are attracted to Trump - what makes them so upset.
- Provide a better alternative that still addresses their issues & needs.
- Realize that it is their web sites (Social Media especially) that is used to spread Trump's message.
They both like to trample over our privacy for their own gain.
You lost me....
.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Where corporations are states unto themselves and you have no rights.
>> Age of Trump
What office does he hold? What are the chances he will ever hold office?
FB is such a conundrum. On the one hand, it makes it easy for people to keep in contact and a lot of my hobby (photography) just can't be done without it. On the other, it does the following:
1) Allows people to associate only with people who agree with them, fostering a herd mentality and sense of "us vs. them"
2) Allows people to say utterly terrible things about each other in very public contexts
3) Allows people to create virtual lives which are infinitely more interesting than their real lives and the real lives of those who follow their pages. People only get to see what they are allowed to see. Can you say "envy"?
It's hard to say whether it brings people together. It does some but it does a wonderful job of tearing people apart. The whole internet does that. I'm not sold on whether it's been a net positive or net negative. On the one hand, the positives are really good and the internet does some things nothing has ever done before. On the other, the negatives are soul-crushing and utterly debilitating. Many people simply cannot handle the power the internet gives them (and I don't claim to be one of them). Given how bad the lows are, it may be doing more harm than good.
... and the supposed champions of the people are now happy with the corporate influence.
Because some CEOs are more equal than others... Oh, wait, Koch brothers hate Trump too, so let's suspend this campaign.
The noble aim of #NeverTrump justifies all means, does not it? Principles are for wussies anyway...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Just like that Starbucks ad with all those good words juxtaposed with bad words and I'm sure Schultz and all his proggy friends think they are on the right side and all the flyover rubes are the wrong side. This is what passes for insightful at buzzfeed, etc.
Fascism should more correctly be called corporatism, because it is the merger of corporate and state power.
During the Apple vs. FBI argument it was regularly bandied around that Apple was more powerful and made more money each year than most countries on Earth.
Apple. By itself.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
"Those with the gold make the rules."
On a related note, it looks like the /. editors are caving in to the temptation to post political clickbait articles. It's going to be a long summer.
Like most people, Zuckerberg sounds stiff and fake when he reads a script. He either needs to speak extemporaneously from bullet points, or should learn to read a script more convincingly. Whoever's writing his scripts needs to bring in a dramatist to make the dialog more realistic.
Note that I didn't necessarily say a "tech CEO" because a lot of tech CEOs are just politicians in disguise. However, I would definitely like to see our country run by intelligent, thoughtful people at some point before I'm gone. Politics is too corrupt now, and relies too much on cronyism, connections and money to be effective. There are just too many people giving politicians money to get their way that nothing gets done in favor of less-wealthy individuals. Having someone who's incredibly rich already might actually be a good thing, because the lobbyists would have less of an effect. Your average Congressman is a lawyer or mid-tier businessman if they're not a career politician, so they're not exactly hurting. But, they're obviously not immune to lobbyists offering money, trips, favors, or anything else.
I think even a dispassionate technocratic leader would restore a lot of balance to the economy and society in general. Even a really rich tech CEO with rich friends would probably take a step back and say, "Hey, is it such a good idea to remove all middle-class jobs from the US? Maybe we should keep some." Not because they care, but because they know that a strong middle class continues to consume, and poor/unemployed/unstable people don't buy things.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/why-buzzfeed-doesnt-do-clickbait
That is why tech companies refuse to hire women or minorities.
too late. already there.
Satya Nadella told attendees of the company's annual Build developers conference of plans to "move our society forward,"
Yeah Microsoft is really interested in moving society forward.
is just fascism on steroids
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Facebook actually drives people apart, and in very bad ways. Facebook gets between people in personal relationships. Facebook enables and encourages the echo-chamber mentality. Facebook stifles the spreading of good ideas between non-cohorts. Facebook creates a "head-in-sand" environment that promotes mental sheltering as opposed to mind-opening.
These are all things that Facebook was made to do BY DESIGN, because it inserts itself between you and other human beings. Facebook is trying to be the toll booth of interpersonal interaction. That is not bringing people together.
Don't worry, kids, the supposed oligarchy is only bad when it's the Koch brothers or other conservatives and libertarians; when it's "the good guys" that promote stuff progressives like, it's A-OK.
Nadella asked, " Is technology helping us preserve our enduring values such as privacy, or is it compromising it?"
Coming from the man who heads a company whose product EXPLICITLY invades ones privacy, whose company has direct and omniscient control over someone's equipment, who can decide whether or not you're allowed to use the software you purchased (assuming you didn't get a free upgrade), the man's hypocrisy is stunning.
Then again, as we've read time and again, CEOs and the like have a sociopathic streak in them. Maybe his warped mind doesn't grasp that what they are doing is invasion of privacy.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I think even a dispassionate technocratic leader would restore a lot of balance to the economy and society in general.
Alright, I am not making an Ad Hominem attack on the parent - only making on observation that agrees with him.
The Chinese government is like that. Their leadership are scientists and I think one economist.
While we in the US are thinking to the end of the quarter, the Chinese leadership are thinking to the end of the Century.
Learn from your competitors as they did from us. They moved from strict Leninism to a quasi-capitalism and have improved their lot markedly.
We, on the other hand, have stuck to our values dogmatically.
When the rules of the game change, playing the same as you did will make you a loser.
Things were looking really good for a few weeks after Dice sold the site. We were getting some great submissions on the front page, having to do with relevant subjects like science, math, computing and technology.
But things have started to slide recently. We are seeing more and more submissions about politics, with only very tenuous ties to technology, science, and other relevant topics.
What makes it worse is the anti-Trump slant that nearly every one of these political stories has. I don't even support him, but I don't want to see blatantly biased attacks on him here, either.
Trump clearly represents a lot of Americans, given how much support he has gained across the nation.
His policies aren't even that bad, despite what the media and leftists like to misleadingly claim. Defending the nation's borders and enforcing immigration law are perfectly acceptable and sensible things to be supporting in any nation. Putting an end to flawed and economically-harmful "free" trade is perfectly acceptable and sensible, too.
I come to Slashdot to read news that the mainstream outlets don't do a good job covering. And I don't come to Slashdot to read the irrelevant political claptrap that's all over mainstream sites!
Slashdot is a niche site, like it or not, and its success will come from focusing on that niche and targeting it as well as can be done.
Some fools will come along with the "but $SOME_IRRELEVANT_POLITICAL_ISSUE matters!" nonsense. Well guess what! In the context of Slashdot and its science/math/tech/computing niche, politics and political issues don't matter!
I really wish that Slashdot goes back to objective submissions focusing on relevant math/science/computing/tech, rather than these anti-Trump political attacks we keep seeing.
So maybe we are headed towards having the first American Zaibbatsu. Although, actually, I think the real power of some of these new companies lies in the fact that they are highly multi-national. They can pick and choose different legal systems for different operations. They can choose where different assets and operations are taxed (or not taxed.) Through lobbying and financial muscle they can influence politics. Apple, Google and Microsoft are certainly very powerful in terms of the technologies they have control over and those are technologies which run a large part of the world. Amazon is probably the closest to being structured as a vertical monopoly so, maybe, they will be the first to resemble the classic Zaibatsu except at an international scale.
"America, after all, was and is a country of immigrants,” Pichai wrote Yes, so the native Americans had nothing to worry about.
Well they're international players .For some, the majority of their product is outside the USA. They're literally operating at a level ABOVE the USA. The politics involved can affect their business both good and bad. NOT stepping into the political arena could doom their business.
This is the political process. Everyone gets to have their say about "oh god no, anything but that". It's a bit unfair that they seem to have a louder voice than us little folk, but that's kind of the nature of power.
It's less of a terrible thing than backroom deals and international trade agreements negotiated in secrecy. And far less terrible then bribes and campaign contributions wink wink nudge say the word. If anything it's a step in the right direction as opposed to super PACs whose sole purpose is to obscure who is actually advocating what.
The point we really have to worry is if they start forming their own military units or push for extraterritory and the right to defend it. That and ancient dragons ushering in an age of magic. mmmm, now I want me some more Shadowrun.
Most of these CEO's are delusional to the thoughts of the common man.
Translation: more cheap, family-free, exploitable H1B's for Facebook Inc.
Table-ized A.I.
I guess since it's a bunch of billionaires ganging up on just one, I have to side with Trump because he's the underdog here.
eeeeuuuughhhh
I am not on Facebook, the system keeps changing your settings then say you have opt out again. So you had opt'ed out, but you are in so we are saling your info again. I have blocked their IPs since they are pirates! They are worst than the NAS, getting other websites to help steal your information... log in with Facebook.
It is time for these people like Zuckerberg (pronounced: suck-a-bird) to get off the stage of self promoting, to getting on the stage with people in the support of real privacy.
He hates older people, thinks they are worthless and don't deserve jobs in his company regardless of their qualifications, abilities and passion for their work. Only young people are worthwhile in his book.
He hates US Citizens and lobbies non-stop for more H1B visas.
He thinks no talent exists outside of Silicon Valley in the United States.
He thinks ONLY black lives matter, and nobody else's life matters.
He is clueless, out of touch, and basically wrong on so many things he makes Trump look brilliant (and that's an achievement!). Statesman? HAH!
"World Economic Forum" - where rich people meet with politicians.
Italy tried the successful CEO route. They elected TV mogul Silvio Berlosconi to prime minister 4 times!
Suffice it to say, it didn't turn out so well. Italy has massive unemployment and massive debt.
Running a country is completely different from running a company. You can't just fire people when you don't agree with them, or make sweeping changes because you think it's the right course of action. Countries aren't just big corporations. The sooner people get this through their head, the better.
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
By paying their fair share of taxes, and not using tax havens.
>> Unless the Democrats do better than anointing Hillary, his chances are pretty good
Says who? All the polling to date suggests Hillary would wipe the floor with Trump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
The amusing thing about polling data is that they are so ephemeral.
Why, if we had the election in November, we could have elected Carson!
And at that same time, Nate Silver was predicting Rubio would get the nomination, because endorsements are a much better predictor than polling data, dontcha' know.
A couple of months ago polls gave Trump a 70% chance of winning the nomination, now he's a coin flip.
The problem with relying on polling data is that it makes the assumption that the election would be held right now. While that might be useful for future planning, it still has assumptions.
Not the least of which is that Trump hasn't been focusing on the general election at all, so he's been letting Clinton slide (until recently). Or that the media is lumping all polling data together, when it's well known that some polls are biased.
I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump, and virtually *none* of them are in Clinton's direct control. Such as:
1) Another terrorist attack
2) Clinton gets indicted
3) The US *declines* to indict Clinton
4) Clinton collapses due to stress/exhaustion
5) Trump stops being provocative and gets a more presidential attitude
6) Trump makes some common-sense promises, such as to fix airport security and simplify the tax code
7) Trump starts spending money on the campaign, instead of relying on free publicity
I forget what the other three were, but they definitely weren't something Clinton could affect.
If the polling data were that accurate, we wouldn't need to have an election at all
Two weeks ago Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told attendees of the company's annual Build developers conference of plans to "move our society forward," asking "profound questions" of his developers:"Is technology empowering people or is it displacing us? Is technology helping us preserve our enduring values such as privacy, or is it compromising it?"
What in the flying fuck? Microsoft knows exactly the negative impacts technology is, and has been, having on user freedom and privacy. They've been on the wrong side of this debate for at least 2 decades now. This man is either incredibly stupid or incredibly evil.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
What is real funny is when Trump announced he was running everyone laughed thinking that no one would support or vote for him.
But now he has supports and votes everyone's against him.
Including republicans and politicians who don't like that he is supporting himself money wise.
They only do things in their own interest.
Zuckerberg expects to profit handsomely from mass immigration when he gets all the cheap workers he wants. But he doesn't care about workers over 30, though. Racism bad, ageism good?
Tim Cook is all for privacy except he builds his products in a country with a severe lack of it. He takes harsher stances on states that pass "religious freedom"/"anti-LGBT" (whatever) laws.
They're all for progressive governments, but they refuse to pay the taxes on it.
On top of it, most the high-level employees at these companies get great benefits (maternity/paternity leave and so on). Workers at the bottom get the shaft. They've got plenty of contract workers that don't get these benefits. Not to mention the workers they employ in other countries (Facebook employed Egyptians to check every uploaded picture for offensive content and whatnot).
Highly successful
hoarding money is a sickness, not a success
Cut out the middle man.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Terrorists blow up a school in Pakistan and Americans vote for Trump. Simple cause and effect.
No need to attribute to plutocratic machinations that which can be adequately explained by logic. [...]
So Donald Trump is POTUS. You wake up in the morning, and legitimately wonder if today President Trump is going to:
Okay, wait.
Each of these would benefit the people of this nation. Directly, immediately, and clearly.
- Begin a campaign of mass deportations:
Translate: more jobs for citizens
- Decide we shake down Mexico for billions of dollars and divert significant steel and cement production to build a big ass wall;
Translate: prevent illegal immigration, lessen some conflicts in border states, make construction jobs available
- Decide to cut an entire federal agency;
Translate: reduce the deficit
- Decide to end a major work visa program;
Translate: citizens keep their high-tech jobs, don't have the indignity of training their replacement
- Simultaneously shit on the tourism industry and the Constitution by announcing an entire religion is forbidden from entering the country
Translate: temporarily make us feel safe
(Also, declining tourism? Have you noticed the effect DHS has had on our tourism?)
- Say some offhanded ridiculous thing that makes it harder for people in $your_industry to do business here or abroad;
Counter: something that sounds bad, but that businesses abroad don't care about
- Say something cute about [minorities/women/Muslims/poor people/some other group he thinks are 'total losers"] that paints America and American businesses in a bad light;
Counter: As opposed to, for example, putting Muslims in a gulag indefinitely, torturing prisoners, bringing down democratically-elected governments?
- Embarrass the country; act like running the country is a reality TV show;
Counter: I suppose that depends on what your definition of "is" is. (Elect his wife!)
- Try to shout over, or interfere with, or shut down a media outlet that's giving him problems;
Counter: baseless conjecture. "Shouting over" is something his protesters do.
- Refuse to raise the debt ceiling and/or let us default on some obligations;
Translate: force the government to reduce the debt
- Cause worldwide condemnation and mutiny by ordering our armed forces to kill terrorists' family members;
I'll give you that one.
- Pull troops out of Japan and South Korea and try to hand them nukes to make up for it;
Translate: Implement a cheaper solution that gets us out of a potential conflict area, letting us divert resources to fixing our own problems.
Regardless of what kind of job he's done running his own private sector interests, his unpredictability and volatility (a source of personal pride for him) would cause perpetual fear and chaos in the global economy.
I'm sorry, I thought the president would be concerned with the interests of Americans!
I didn't realize the welfare of non-citizens were more important that the lives of our own.
Corporations and the wealthy can donate as much as they'd like to political campaigns.
Thanks to The Supremes.
Can't wait for facebook to go to that special 'Myspace' so we don't have to hear from this idiot any more.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Check out the cover of this week's Economist magazine (as shown for EU countries).
Because when I hear the word "statesman", the first thing I think of is Donald Trump... no wait, that's the word "asshole"... sorry!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I believe that Trump is just highlighting a lot of the issues that some people have been complaining about for a long time (decades). Money has always influenced politics to some degree, and people with money always claim to be or want to be "thought leaders". Things like Citizens United just made the problem worse, but really not "different".
People in power hate both Trump and Sanders because they are vocalizing the problems without regard for their "political career". The Democrats do not seem to care as much because their base seems fine with Hillary being coronation a year ago. The Republican base was never okay with the previously chosen "Jeb" so it's been rough for them from the start.
I think it's great that people are finally able to see some of the corruption. I doubt much will change any time soon, but we have to start somewhere.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This is precisely why our country is fucked.
This is not an era of celebrity political power. It's one election where the GOP yet against failed to put up any viable candidates and spent the last 8 years programming their supporters with propaganda about how bad the country is and how horrible Obama and basically all liberal are. They have spent billions of dollars over the last 30+ years to push this narrative every year and propaganda does work. This is nothing more than a leadership and talent vacuum in the GOP that allowed someone like Trump to opportunistically jump in at a very weak point for the GOP. The GOP entirely did this to themselves, but that is beside the fact. Trump's honeymoon won't last more than one election cycle because he is going to lose to Cruz and then if he runs third party he will lose to Hilary because the GOP votes will be split and there is zero chance of a victory that way, even against Sanders neither Cruz nor Trump running side by side would beat Hilary or Sanders. It's really all up to Trump if he wants to give Cruz a shot at winning by stepping out or if more likely based on his persona Trump will want to keep his supporters, particularly because the GOP is working against him to support Cruz and plans on winning in a rather unfair way. That will only give fuel to Trump potential third party run and he may as well go ahead and brand a political party while he is at it.. even if only for one election cycle. It will make more money for him if he brands it. I don't think the Trump Party is a smart move though. Cruz and the GOP can only pray that Trump backs out after he loses the delegate count. After this cycle Trump will lose half or more of those GOP voters, though not soon enough for the GOP and Cruz to not get destroyed in the Presidency and maybe in congressional races, especially if we have two conservative candidates in the General fighting each other. Trump isn't the kind of guy to backdown, but in this case he has no good options. He can't beat Hilary and the GOP, not even close. He doesn't even have half the GOP voters.
Hillary was chosen for the next president back in 2008. Remember that "secret" meeting between Hillary and Obama? The one they met in Chantilly Virginia.... The same place Bilderburg was meeting at that exact same day.. Hillary was promised to get the next presidential nod if she let Obama get the nomination and she step down.
Think about this. Obama has said she won't be prosecuted for her email CRIMES. Then we find out that Trumps daughter is friends with Chelsey. Hell the Clinton and the Bush families are good friends too - go lookup the news stories... Trump is friends with the Clinton's we have all see the pictures.... The whole "fued" stuff is utter crap! I don't know how anyone CAN'T see through it.
The whole Trump/Cruz thing is a ruse to make people think they have a choice. Please..... It doesn't matter WHO the republicans appoint (regardless of peoples votes).
These Tech guys are just throwing money away. Trump has no chance in hell of even getting the nomination. The RNC has said so. The RNC won't let Cruz be the ma either... This just shows they "tech giants" are plain stupid as hell.Go ahead waste your time, effort and money.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
And why would anyone think some random guy is running for president?
I guess they're taking the "Baron" part of robber baron seriously.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT