Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Could Run Facebook While Serving in Government Forever (techcrunch.com)
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
Only the Zuck can save us from Trump
Is this supposed to be some kind of news or something? Do you miss Dice yet, fellow readers?
Resign.
stock is enough?
A person who runs a company known for its political bias running for office...
You have no shame. At all.
Zuckerberg is already at the top of the fake news feed
It had been a while since slashdot reminded us to worship Zuckerberg. I can't say I was missing the call to prayer or anything, but I had noticed its absence.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Is he an immortal? A vampire? a Howard?
The summary is confusing. Owning a certain amount of stock or having the board's approval qualifies him to serve in government? With less stock or without board approval could he not serve in government?
Since he refuses to hire older workers, and practices age discrimination, why would older people vote for him?
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).
or any of the rest of Red State America. Foolish shareholders. Sycophant board. Doesn't end well for Fakebook.
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.
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?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
It's not about Zuckerberg being appointed to or running for political office. The justification for this news story is the jab at the end about "fake news," lest we forget for a moment that we are all smart people and nobody we know voted for Donald Trump, therefore there must be foul play.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Yet another person I will be very happy to vote against.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?
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
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.
Just when I think, "at least things can't any worse," you slap me in the face and spit on me. -_-
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Fuck the Zuck.
That is some flagrantly transparent overton window shit right there!
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.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Now, every psycho billionaire in America has seen how it's done.
God help us, because the two parties won't.
Every day these posts get worse and less veiled. Pretty sure we'll see slashdot running official ad's for Facebook and Apple instead of just "news stories"
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.
Fuck Zuck!
How fucking dense do you have to be not to realize this? Facebook is SIGINT raised to the extreme power. He has been "part of the government" for many years now. Lets make it official. Maybe he too can be president one day if the Bilderberg group says so.
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.
With all data on individuals he has access to, whether or not they have a facebook account. him going to the government would just be awesome.... NOT!
Here's a quote 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
WHY would we want him in office?
In politics, what could possibly go wrong.
From The Telegraph, Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is no longer an atheist:
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 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 that found 53% of those surveyed would reject an atheist presidential candidate, leading "never held office" (52%), age 70-80 (36%), adulterers (35%), and gay/lesbian (27%). Both polls concluded that being atheist was among the least positive aspects as well (Gallop had atheists at the bottom of the list with 54% positive, beating Muslims (58%) and gay/lesbians (68%), while Pew had atheists as tied with gays/lesbians at 5% positive, with the only less supported group being adulterers (2%).
The Gallup poll also tracks favorability of these traits over time, demonstrating that support for an atheist presidential candidate is very slowly improving from 1978's 40% to 1999's 49% to 2012's 54%. Contrast that to the support for a Jewish presidential candidate, which has grown from 82% to 92% to 91% in the same respective polls. They also break these figures down by political party: Republican voters care more about these sorts of things, and their atheist/Jew favorability gap (48% vs 95%) is far greater than the Dems' (58% vs 92%). The GOP's 95% willingness to vote for a Jew is even larger than their willingness to vote for a woman (92%).
Zuck may milk the Jew+Businessman stereotype for personal gain but he is also showing his diversity through the aforementioned visit with the pope. Expect to see similar press-friendly stories on his 50 state tour, whose primary objectives will probably be publicity and then research for where he wants to align his political platform.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
>> Of course, getting elected would require the faith of the people which has been shaken by the fake news scandal.
Good God, the "fake news scandal" is itself "fake news" and you people (of a particular political persuasion) fell for it. Shaking my head at how easily manipulated you people are.
"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?
Trump has shown that you don't need to work your way through a state legislature; in fact, it was his selling point against a "business as usual" opponent. He also showed that one doesn't need to spend big to get the press, although with Zuckerberg earning $21,000 per minute, Zuckerberg could buy the press and silence both Democrat and Republican opponents. (Like atheism, there's good reason to avoid joining the entrenched players.) Trump is the leader that the USA deserves, but Zuckerberg has the power to be the leader that the USA needs. Since Zuckerberg is a businessman first, I want to know more about his "Get rich quick" policies before I expect "hope and change".
... you know...
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 decades, and I am quite concerned that if this trend continues, it will be politically expedient for some asshole to lead this country to another civil war. At the very least there can be no particularly good argument against getting more information from the voter about their preferences.
For the record, and not that I enjoy his brand of politics more, but I suspect that the real loser of this recent election was Gary Johnson. He had some gaffes, but I feel like he would have had much stronger support if anyone had any expectation that he would win -- which is exactly the problem with FPTP, it encourages people to vote tactically, against their actual preferences.
Want to cast a real anti-Establishment vote? Support ranked choice voting. It's time to kick the lizards out, and they can take their damned political machine with them.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Who can fight against a so powerful mind control system.
First they make tests, now he want more.
Its the really citizen Kane.
The world is going bad.
Some of the establishment GOP idiots TRIED that play, but then Trump cranked-up the ol' Twitter box and SHAZAM! the whole thing fell apart... so the thing you allege happened, did not actually happen, thanks to Trump.
You win today's award for "Fake News Presenter on Slashdot"
Note: As odd as it sounds, there is actually a legitimate argument about this. The office in question was setup after the house page molesting scandal as an attempt to clean up that mess, but it has been used by both Republicans and Democrats to make nasty attacks upon each other because anonymous complaints were enabled. Before that office was created, the House had a bi-partisan ethics committee that traces back many decades and used to handle such matters as well as anything run by politicians can. Had the House eliminated the modern office, the stuff would have defaulted back to the old committee. Trump's bigger argument was not so much about the substance of which mechanism handles such issues and more about the congress having bigger more-important fish to fry.
"1) Nobody serious (read: current political leaders, people with net worth in the billions, or more than 10% of the country's population) is suggesting that the election results are invalid, or that Donald Trump should not be sworn in as president. It's not like the Birther movement or anything... *cough*"
(a) LOTS of people, including some of our mast famous entertainers, people from the Clinton campaign, news people, college professors, etc ARE suggesting Trump's election is invalid,so are you saying none of these left-leaners are serious people?
(b) I VERY tired of Obama and his supporters whining about the "birther" stuff. Obama made money for years off the claim he was from Kenya (that's how his literary agent listed him while he was making money from his books) and rather than spending YEARS hiding his birth certificate, he could have done what every president before him did when asked: just pull the actual certificate out and show it. Obama could have ended the whole thing in MINUTES and at ANY TIME. He prolonged it as a way to make some of his opponents look crazy and then lump ALL his opponents together and claim they all were racists. The reason the birthers were so suspicious is that he first claimed to be from Kenya and then when challenged on eligibility to be POTUS he his the one thing that would easily end the issue.
"2) Nobody is saying that Donald Trump was elected so there must be foul play. People are saying there is foul play due to the evidence being presented."
(a) Actually, yes, there are progressives claiming Donald's election while all the polls said he could not win is indeed proof of foul play.
(b) What evidence, exactly, has been presented? That FBI report? Have you READ the thing? It's a content-free document. The DNC talking point that "all 17 agencies agree"? Can you name those agencies? Do you TRULY believe the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or the Office of Naval Intelligence did an independent investigation of John Podesta's e-mail phishing an independently concluded that insanely smart Russkie spies brilliantly figured out how to crack his account (ignoring the fact that the doofus used the password "password")? Let's face it, the Obama administration is just shovelling a load of horse manure here and telling us "all 17 agree" as part of a narrative (which aligns nicely with that Ben Rhodes bragging about how easily the Obama admin manipulates liberal journalists)
"3) If the current evidence doesn't suggest to you that there has been foul play, then what evidence would you need to convince you that there was?..."
How about ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SMIDGEN of evidence rather than just wild claims by political appointees who were assuming they had 8 more years of comfy employment ahead and suddenly found that Trump was heading into office? There has not been ANY actual evidence presented, just lots of general accusations spiced-up with a TON of innuendo. General accusations that some Russian (implication: tied to Putin) got at Podesta's e-mail using some exotic means (rather than a simple phishing that everybody on the net is familiar with) and then (via persona/methods unknown/unproven) passed the info to Wikileaks which then somehow provided honest info about team Hillary which allowed the voters to (gasp!) see through some of the fake team Hillary image-making and thereby had some (not measured) effect on the vote that then allowed Trump to win in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (where he campaigned really hard and which Hillary took for granted)
Facebook has done so much to better society, it makes total sense the the guy who created it should become president.
</sarcasm>