If Mark Zuckerberg runs for president, will Facebook help him win?

September 9, 2017 11:00 AM

Facebook can shift elections. That’s why, with rumors swirling that the social media CEO might run, transparency is needed now more than ever.
posted by adamcarson (82 comments total)

I'd say the revelations are a campaign killer, but campaign killers don't work the way they used to so....

On the other hand, is Facebook on its own going to be able to skew the election without Russian hackers and CA doing the targeting for them? My assumption is he's going to primary out any Dem contender or run thrid party, and the Russian/GOP alliance are still going to want Trump. I guess if he's third party they'll have an interest in using him to kneecap the dem, especially if it's a leftish leaning Dem he'll have a chance of pulling centrists from.

Also: Fuck the Zuck.
posted by Artw at 11:08 AM on September 9, 2017 [12 favorites]

If Facebook falsehoods can steer elections then its irresponsible to have it in private hands.
posted by The Whelk at 11:10 AM on September 9, 2017 [32 favorites]

If Facebook falsehoods can steer elections then its irresponsible to have it in private hands.

Totally agree. Any technology capable of controlling elections should be in the hands of the government.
posted by paulcole at 11:14 AM on September 9, 2017 [20 favorites]

I have never been less worried about a presidential candidate actually winning since the Zuck rumours started. Like, if the last election, and, in hindsight, every other election, showed us anything, it's that voters go for perceived (emphasis on perceived) authenticity and candor over calculation and carefulness every time. Zuck basically has all of Hillary's flaws without any of her experience or ability. Not even facebook can put that guy in the white house.
posted by dis_integration at 11:15 AM on September 9, 2017 [13 favorites]

I suspect the Dems will want to run the most boringly centrist candidate possible, which largely inoculates against him, unless it's Clinton which makes him a certainty. Would take centrist Dem over Clinton and Clinton over Zuck and Zuck over Trump but I suspect Trump has the advantage in any of those scenarios.
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

You know who ought to run for president? Tom from MySpace. He's friends with everybody.
posted by kevinbelt at 11:16 AM on September 9, 2017 [49 favorites]

Jack from Twitter would be big with all the Nazis.

Maybe we should turn over everything to whatever robot runs LinkedIn.
posted by Artw at 11:18 AM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

Would probably take R The Rock over D The Zuck as well.

What a fucking weird place post-America is.
posted by Artw at 11:23 AM on September 9, 2017 [20 favorites]

I just keep remembering that nearly all the "candidates already famous for something else" were either Republicans or Conservative Independents, and a decade or two ago, there was a lot of talk about a potential Liberal Celebrity Savior: Ben Affleck. It makes me kinda wish Justice League would bomb so he has plenty of time to do politics, because, honestly, we could do a lot worse than Batman for President.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:34 AM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

Christ, this just gets worse and worse.
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on September 9, 2017 [8 favorites]

Maybe they'll change the rules to let Bono run.
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on September 9, 2017 [4 favorites]

No, that will distract his role as U.N. Secretary-General Bono.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:38 AM on September 9, 2017 [6 favorites]

Well I guess the upshot is if Zuckerberg runs, we already have Jesse Eisenberg ready to portray him in the biopic. I hope Fincher directs again too.
posted by FJT at 11:41 AM on September 9, 2017 [5 favorites]

If they change the rules, I'd go with John Oliver first. If not, Stephen Colbert is my first choice, with the future prospect of Samantha Bee as the First Woman President. Late-night TV hosting should be a requirement, with Daytime hosting being automatic disqualification. Sorry, Oprah.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:41 AM on September 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

He's got absolutely no constituency. But if he put a UBI at the centre of his campaign he might get somewhere.
posted by moorooka at 11:41 AM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

I hate this phenomenon of somebody thinking that just because they are a celebrity, or successful business owner, that they are all of a sudden qualified for office - let alone the office of President of the United States.

Dammit, I want an expert in the office! I want someone who has worked their way up from city council or state legislature or dog catcher! I want an insider with years and years of experience! I don't want any more goddamn celebrities vying for the office! I guess that makes me un-American, but whatever. I want an expert.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 11:42 AM on September 9, 2017 [98 favorites]

Would probably take R The Rock over D The Zuck as well.

No more unqualified celebrities or Republicans. Ever. If the choice is him or Zuck, then I choose revolution. Neither of them is qualified for a fucking school board.
posted by middleclasstool at 11:45 AM on September 9, 2017 [34 favorites]

I hate this phenomenon of somebody thinking that just because they are a celebrity, or successful business owner, that they are all of a sudden qualified for office - let alone the office of President of the United States.

Al Franken is a good example of a celebrity who did the homework before running for office. I'd vote for him for president in a heartbeat.

If the next election winds up being Trump vs. Zuckerberg, then it's time for the presidency to be demoted to a ceremonial figurehead.
posted by ejs at 11:54 AM on September 9, 2017 [50 favorites]

America really should be looking at how electing a criminal to a single position, the presidency, allows the destruction of great swathes of the government and maybe changing that. Probably behind getting rid of all the gerrymandering and vote suppression that allows Rs a lock on other branches of government but still up there.

Really Trump should mean a good long hard look at Americas entire system of government with the realization that if it allows him to happen big chunks of it must be very broken.
posted by Artw at 12:00 PM on September 9, 2017 [25 favorites]

Trump was never really a "successful business owner", he was a Brand for many years before The Apprentice, with the full support of The Liberal Press (I think real estate ads in major newspapers bought a lot of that). 1989 Trump is part of the current storyline at Doonesbury Reruns, and even Garry Trudeau is treating him almost nicely...

So a 'liberal Trump' would have to be someone who the Media has given mostly a free ride... so maybe Fallon would be more solid than Colbert. In business, you won't get better than 'moderate': Buffett's too old but Bloomberg has government and media experience and Bezos may be the only tech billionaire bigger than Zuck.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:00 PM on September 9, 2017 [5 favorites]

"Liberl Trump" is going tp Joss Whedon so fucking hard as soon as the media pays attention to them though. And unlike Trump it will hurt them.
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

Any technology capable of controlling elections should be in the hands of the government.

How would you even propose that work? Would you really want something that could shift the balance of an election in the hands of the current government? Or even a government that's friendly to your views?

Facebook doesn't control elections, it's just one of many forms of media. You really don't want to live in a society where all the media, at least all the news, is controlled by the government. Very, very few government institutions that purport to be non-partisan actually are, and as we're finding out, a lot of things that we think of as standard and good about government are cultural institutions that can be discarded by a regime that doesn't care for norms rather than something codified into law.
posted by Candleman at 12:06 PM on September 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

I think that comment was ironic?
posted by ejs at 12:11 PM on September 9, 2017 [14 favorites]

blaming Facebook for the loss of the election is like blaming Exxon Mobil for climate change. Look in the mirror and you'll see who gave both their power.
posted by any major dude at 12:14 PM on September 9, 2017 [5 favorites]

Zuckerberg would uphold systemic racism in the US, so I could see white America falling for it.
posted by elsietheeel at 12:15 PM on September 9, 2017 [5 favorites]

Many years ago, I told a frenemy who was a Giant Businessman and had all kinds of high-falutin', Randian notions about How It All Works that America's most important industry was bullshit -- movies and social media and shitty television -- and I wish I'd been wrong but I obviously was quite right.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:15 PM on September 9, 2017 [9 favorites]

Well I guess the upshot is if Zuckerberg runs, we already have Jesse Eisenberg ready to portray him in the biopic. I hope Fincher directs again too.

There is literally an award-winning film about Mark Zuckerberg, and the point of the whole thing is that he's a total piece of shit.


Trump was never really a "successful business owner", he was a Brand for many years before The Apprentice, with the full support of The Liberal Press (I think real estate ads in major newspapers bought a lot of that). 1989 Trump is part of the current storyline at Doonesbury Reruns, and even Garry Trudeau is treating him almost nicely...

Berke Breathed had Trump's number from day one.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:16 PM on September 9, 2017 [16 favorites]

This is another MeFi thread that is just calling out for an "Irony Tag" (and a "Sarcasm Tag"). I've estimated that 33-40% of my previous comments here were unserious. (Not the Colbert for President part)

Zuckerberg would uphold systemic racism in the US
Not even Obama put much of a dent in that...
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:18 PM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

So how did Berlusconi work out for Italy?
posted by clawsoon at 12:23 PM on September 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

It's a little Orwellian to talk about regulating information flow from sites that publish political "misinformation." Who is supposed to make that jugement? Certainly fake news is rampant and did influence the election, but you don't throw away basic principles about freedom of press just because you don't like the outcome of an election...
posted by Veritron at 12:23 PM on September 9, 2017

I don't know if fascilitating Russian spies making everyones gran racist in strategic locations with pin point accuracy is quite what is meant by "free press".
posted by Artw at 12:29 PM on September 9, 2017 [9 favorites]

They would certainly exist without manipulation. They are however undoubtedly a Russian strategic asset.
posted by Artw at 12:41 PM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

Did you miss the bit where American history was forever altered last year in part because of Russia pushing a racist presidential candidate via Facebook? Theres been a couple of FPPs about it including this one?

Really i'm scratching my head here at how you are failing to draw a connection.
posted by Artw at 12:44 PM on September 9, 2017 [15 favorites]

And really if you want to get into it it's Russia Spies --> Cambridge Analytica --> Potential Racist Trump Voting Grandmas --> Trump presidency --> Russia Wins.
posted by Artw at 12:46 PM on September 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

Also the degree to which a free press and a non-owned by Russia government are currently present are extremely questionable.
posted by Artw at 12:48 PM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

America really should be looking at how electing a criminal to a single position, the presidency, allows the destruction of great swathes of the government and maybe changing that. Probably behind getting rid of all the gerrymandering and vote suppression that allows Rs a lock on other branches of government but still up there.

Yes, and wasn't there also a thing where Gödel found a loophole in the Constitution that would allow for an autocratic regime? I'd like to find that too.
posted by middleclasstool at 12:51 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

Well, you can question that he was pushed into power by Russia and that they have influence over him if you want, but at this point the weight of evidence is against you.
posted by Artw at 12:52 PM on September 9, 2017 [6 favorites]

You are absolutely trying to quibble here.
posted by Artw at 12:58 PM on September 9, 2017 [4 favorites]

Mod note: Cut it out you two. If you want to talk about Facebook and Zuckerberg or this article go ahead, but stop the "yuh huh"/"nuh uh" stuff.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:00 PM on September 9, 2017 [9 favorites]

Another point that probably should be considered is that Facebook now has defacto control of the advertising money stream for most online news content, either by that content being reached by Instant Articles or the inroads they have been making into the advertising technology everyone else uses. So as well as gating the news that gets viewed they are also miving into a position where they could gate the news it is profitable to publish.
posted by Artw at 1:07 PM on September 9, 2017 [5 favorites]

Another problem: Study Finds ‘Collusion Network’ of Fake Likes on Facebook

So similar to the russian twitter bot army articles can be driven to the top of peoples feeds by co-ordinated pseudo automated campaigns.
posted by Artw at 1:12 PM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

Why we can’t trust Facebook’s story about Russian ads
posted by Artw at 1:16 PM on September 9, 2017 [5 favorites]

In a sense it will, but in general he won't need its help because it'll be built in. If he runs, his platform will be the platform of Facebook users. His messages will be taken from their (our) messages. In a single day he could take the questions from all of the presidential debates as a corpus and generate 100 positions that account for all of them, along with arguments pro and con, from the message and post data already contained within the Facebook servers. All in the voters' actual words.
posted by rhizome at 1:46 PM on September 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

I have never been less worried about a presidential candidate actually winning since the Zuck rumours started.

To echo Artw, I'm less concerned about Zuck winning than I am him splitting the Anti-Trump vote. Unless his plan is to register R and primary Trump, I don't see this working well for America.
posted by pwnguin at 1:46 PM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

I'd point out that he didn't seem to be considering a run back when conflict of interest was a real thing and not a joke.
posted by Artw at 1:48 PM on September 9, 2017 [6 favorites]

Lets just nominate Angelina Jolie and have done with it.

Jolie vs Trump. That's a contest I can get behind.
posted by fshgrl at 1:54 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

She's mean to orphans.
posted by Artw at 1:57 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

I'm quite sure Zuckerberg was well aware of the power of the Facebook platform to shift elections -- and that's a charitable verb -- long, long ago. It might be the single tech platform with a user base that correlates very strongly to, you know, people who actually vote.

If anything, I expect he's annoyed that we're all discussing it now, years ahead of his plans.

(I like imagining an annoyed Zuckerberg. If he's annoyed a lot more in the future, that probably means the world's gonna be okay.)
posted by rokusan at 2:00 PM on September 9, 2017

Bring back talking paperclip. I thought he was an arsehole at the time but there's time to rebuild his profile and he at least always tried to be helpful .
posted by biffa at 2:21 PM on September 9, 2017 [10 favorites]

Crazy thought: how about a Leftist?
posted by R.F.Simpson at 2:35 PM on September 9, 2017 [7 favorites]

Like Brad Pitt?
posted by Artw at 2:48 PM on September 9, 2017

If all you want is a liberal celebrity who can beat Trump, Oprah Winfrey's the one for the job.

But I say look among the up and comers in the Democratic ranks for another Obama.
posted by orange swan at 3:06 PM on September 9, 2017 [3 favorites]

Ah yes, another deporter in chief who continues American imperialism abroad.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 3:25 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

So. What do we think Z's platform would be? Serious question.
posted by KleenexMakesaVeryGoodHat at 3:38 PM on September 9, 2017

Democracy only eats what it kills.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:55 PM on September 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

If the Dems get captured by Zuckerburg, then who will be the Republican's counter plutocrat candidate for 2024? I'd say Peter Thiel, but he's disqualified by being of German origin.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 4:22 PM on September 9, 2017

I'd say Peter Thiel, but he's disqualified by being of German origin.

DRAIN THE POOR 2020!

Who would be VP? Ghouliani for the all undead ticket?
posted by Artw at 4:25 PM on September 9, 2017

Jessamyn-Cortex 2020: For A Meta Tomorrow
posted by Wordshore at 4:47 PM on September 9, 2017 [18 favorites]

(Though should that ticket not come to pass, I've already placed a bet on the 2020 US Presidential Election)
posted by Wordshore at 5:07 PM on September 9, 2017

So. What do we think Z's platform would be? Serious question.

I'm serious, he'll adapt his platform to what people want, as analyzed from Facebook itself.
posted by rhizome at 5:16 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

With an undercurrent of less tax on people who own Facebook.
posted by Artw at 5:19 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

That'd be more of a Bezos move.
posted by rhizome at 5:20 PM on September 9, 2017

Also the terms of use for your eyes now say that he can stream from them at any time.
posted by Artw at 5:38 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

Oprah is a good choice, pair her with an admiral of some kind.
trump won white men
and women, I don't know a Dem who wins white men in swing states but Oprah would get the middle white women... plus then Trump will drop Pence to pick Martha Stewart as VP
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 5:49 PM on September 9, 2017

Hey, don't diss my girl. Martha loathes Trump.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 5:59 PM on September 9, 2017 [8 favorites]

Senator: Facebook ads were directing people to like pages, get news streams
posted by Artw at 11:02 PM on September 9, 2017

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media [2011]

The US military in 2011 was spending $200 million on a program that amounts to an army of Twitter bots for targeted online harassment. "it's good US media now understands how easy and common it is to manipulate populations via social media which is why many countries ban it." And so now the guy who owns one of the apparatuses designed to drive people insane is going to run for president. He would be a fool not to use it to manipulate peoples' perception of reality.
posted by indubitable at 11:08 PM on September 9, 2017 [2 favorites]

I feel like rhizome is really onto something when it comes to Zuck crafting policies/messages in direct response to available FB user data. He would be foolish not to. It's terrifying to think about, even if it is just an attempt. Psy ops, information war, propaganda, fake news, whatever version of this you want to consider. Frankly I don't think it's wise to discount the possibilities of whatever forms it takes in the next elections.
posted by panhopticon at 2:24 AM on September 10, 2017 [3 favorites]

A long read from lrb concerning Facebook and Zuckerberg: "You Are the Product" by John Lanchester.
posted by cwest at 4:36 AM on September 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

There are bots. Look around.

Social networks enable malicious actors to operate at platform scale, because they were designed for fast information flows and virality. Bots and sockpuppets can be used to manipulate conversations, or to create the illusion of a mass groundswell of grassroots activity, with minimal effort. It’s incredibly easy to deploy bots into a hashtag to spread or to disrupt a message — quote stuffing the conversation the way a malicious HFT algorithm quote stuffs the order book of a stock. It’s easy to manipulate ratings or recommendation engines, to create networks of sockpuppets with the goal of subtly shaping opinions, preying on proximity bias and confirmation bias.
posted by Artw at 8:15 AM on September 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

"You Are the Product" by John Lanchester. MeFi's Own bluebeetle

I think if Zuck had any serious thoughts about running, he was already thinking of way to use his 'Social Network'(I can't use that term without scare-quoting it) to customize his message to target specific voters. And I'm sure he's majorly pissed to find that somebody beat him to it on the cheap AND it's the Worst Possible somebodys.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:20 PM on September 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

"Al Franken is a good example of a celebrity who did the homework before running for office. I'd vote for him for president in a heartbeat".

Al Franken has a political science degree from Harvard. He's been involved in politics since the 70s. He didn't just do the homework. He is a qualified public servant who happens to also be a celebrity.
posted by Tarumba at 11:14 AM on September 11, 2017 [4 favorites]

Mueller Probe Has ‘Red-Hot’ Focus on Social Media, Officials Say
posted by Artw at 10:18 AM on September 13, 2017 [1 favorite]

From Artw's link above:

Facebook officials likely to face Congress, key lawmaker says

Dude, I was having such a shitty day, you don't even know. Thank you for the hit of schadencackle.
posted by schadenfrau at 10:26 AM on September 13, 2017

Something that might not help Zuckerberg: Facebook lets its advertisers target "Jew Haters"
posted by clawsoon at 5:46 AM on September 15, 2017

Last week, acting on a tip, we logged into Facebook’s automated ad system to see if “Jew hater” was really an ad category. We found it, but discovered that the category—with only 2,274 people in it—was too small for Facebook to allow us to buy an ad pegged only to Jew haters.

Facebook’s automated system suggested “Second Amendment” as an additional category that would boost our audience size to 119,000 people, presumably because its system had correlated gun enthusiasts with anti-Semites.

Hmmm.
posted by Artw at 5:49 AM on September 15, 2017 [1 favorite]

We found it, but discovered that the category—with only 2,274 people in it—was too small for Facebook to allow us to buy an ad pegged only to Jew haters.

Well apparently their big data "science " is pretty flawed because that's like an order of magnitude or 10 off from the real number of antisemites on Facebook, if my experience is at all representative.
posted by dis_integration at 6:05 AM on September 15, 2017

That's probably just the self identifying ones.

The superset is interesting.
posted by Artw at 6:13 AM on September 15, 2017

To Fix Its Toxic Ad Problem, Facebook Must Break Itself
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on September 18, 2017

In other Facebook news: Facebook bans Rohingya group's posts as minority faces 'ethnic cleansing'. As hundreds of thousands flee a brutal campaign by the Myanmar military, the social media company labels an insurgent group a ‘dangerous organization’
posted by homunculus at 3:35 PM on September 20, 2017

Facebook axed 'tens of thousands' of accounts before German election
posted by Artw at 11:24 AM on September 27, 2017

Mark Zuckerberg asks for forgiveness from ‘those I hurt this year’ in Yom Kippur message
posted by Artw at 12:03 PM on October 2, 2017