Type to search

Mark Zuckerberg: The Most Dangerous Presidential Candidate Who Isn’t Yet

Business Media Politics Top News US

Mark Zuckerberg: The Most Dangerous Presidential Candidate Who Isn’t Yet


Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

If I’m honest, the main reason I can hardly bear to look at Facebook isn’t its well-documented negative effect on mental health, its tedious photos of people I barely know and hardly remember, or the videos it automatically generates of the lowest and most desperate moments from my life, accompanied by ukulele.

None of that. I’ve come to hate Facebook because every so often, a box appears on the screen telling me I might want to like the Facebook page for Mark Zuckerberg. And there he is, grinning like a cartoon imp at me and millions of other unfortunates, intruding with his gangly stomp and his eyes full of monstrous wonder.

I do not like Mark Zuckerberg. But he wants me to.

Let’s not pretend Zuckerberg isn’t up to something, and whatever it is, he shouldn’t be allowed to do it. He’s claimed repeatedly that he’s not interested in making a presidential run, but if he isn’t, his behavior simply makes no sense. Normal, everyday megalomaniacal billionaires might decide to go on a year-long, 50-state tour of America, dropping in on hard-working folks and small business owners, publicly rhapsodizing about the food in every roadside diner they happen to come across. But they probably wouldn’t do it while accompanied by President Obama’s former campaign photographer. Tech giants might be keen to hire some political intelligence. But if it was just smarts Zuckerberg was after, he wouldn’t have snapped up the strategist and in-house pollster who disastrously mismanaged the last election for Hillary Clinton. Our new breed of dorky oligarch micro-messiahs might constantly promote Big Ideas That Could Save World. But they don’t proclaim that the good people of Wilton, Iowa, “share these values around mobility.”

So much for innovation. Mark Zuckerberg can send solar-powered drones to beam Facebook-only internet across the global south, but he can’t deviate from the tired folksy script of every other self-important grifter who decided he wanted the power of life and death over every human being on the planet.

There are some very good reasons why Mark Zuckerberg should not be allowed anywhere near the presidency. For a start, he will lose—to Trump or to whatever other monstrosity the Republicans run against him. He can only embody the politics of bland aspiration and imperious technocratic mumblings, alienating the left and inflaming the right. Second, with the entire media basically functioning as a command economy run by Facebook, Zuckerberg in office would constitute a conflict of interests and a potential for corruption so vast it would make any of Trump’s misdeeds look like minor accounting problems. Third, it would entrench the long slow rot of electoral politics, permanently establishing the nuclear codes as the private property of TV clowns and gussied-up motivational speakers. Fourth, he keeps on describing Facebook as a “community” based on “friendship,” rather than what it is—a social utility that occasionally reveals itself as a seething plasm of technologically mediated dislocation. Finally, the tech industry is a hive of inflated egos and reckless self-regard, widening the wealth gap, steadily consigning most of the human population of Earth to the status of surplus flesh, and it must not be let anywhere near political power.

All of these are very good reasons. But they’re not the most pressing or the most urgent. The real reason all Zuckerberg’s dreams of power have to be crushed now before they bear terrible fruit is this: in the 13 years since he first launched Facebook, he never gave us the dislike button.

If you want to know what Zuckerberg would be like as the warlord-in-chief of human history’s most terrifying empire, go to Facebook and look at the seamless nothing where the dislike button ought to be. It’s not just that it’s thoroughly undemocratic. For as long as Facebook has been an inescapable fact of life, its users have been clamoring for the ability to dislike each other’s posts, and Zuckerberg will not give it to them. Instead, we’ve gotten a series of incoherent cosmetic overhauls—groups are now pages, pages now have groups for pages—that nobody asked for and which are met with an immediate hatred that gives way to impotent acceptance.

It says a lot about his style of leadership. He knows what’s best for us, and he’ll do it, and what we think doesn’t really matter. But it’s more fundamental than that. Commenting on his refusal to add the dislike button, Zuckerberg said, “Some people have asked for a dislike button because they want to be able to say, ‘That thing isn’t good.’ That’s not something that we think is good… I don’t think there needs to be a voting mechanism on Facebook about whether posts are good or bad. I don’t think that’s socially very valuable or good for the community to help people share the important moments in their lives.”

He wants to deprive people of their ability to say no.

What’s at stake is nothing less than the possibility of negation or distinction. After all, at the core of managerial centrism is an instinctive reluctance to say that anything is good or bad. Zuckerberg’s idea is that Facebook can be a discursive space without conflict, in which people can simply share what they want, and meet a quantifiable reward. Everything starts with zero likes and grows from there: you accrue social currency mollusc-like onto yourself, until you’re encased in a hard shell of likes and shares. Everything finds its inherent value, and a community is formed. It’s a shadowless world of pure positivity. But the ability to oppose is essential for anything approaching a critical activity; it’s only by some kind of negation that thought can wrench itself free from what simply is. Negativity, as Hegel puts it, “is the energy of unconditional thinking.” A world of countable positivity is a world that is, essentially, mute.

More simply, this is not how society or politics really work. They do not form a kind of harmonious totality, where we all start from the same place and reach upward. Politics is a sphere of competing interests, agonisms and class struggle, in which the success of one set of aims always means the defeat of others. The expansion of labor rights means muzzling a powerful class of industrial capitalists; civil rights for ethnic minorities means tearing apart an entrenched system of white supremacy. Politics is struggle. But in the Facebook utopia, struggle is supposed to be impossible. There’s no contestation; instead, what is deemed to be bad is simply canceled out, removed silently and overnight by a team of invisible moderators.

In this context, a lot of Zuckerberg’s weirder pronouncements start to make sense. Earlier this year, he published a long, jargon-choked manifesto titled Building Global Community. He wants the world to be coded like Facebook—and by Facebook—as a community based on connections and commonality. The struggles going on in the world don’t need to be won, they just need to be subsumed through a greater inclusion in this community. It’s padded out by a lot of friendly sounding pap like:

“The purpose of any community is to bring people together to do things we couldn’t do on our own. To do this, we need ways to share new ideas and share enough common understanding to actually work together.”

In the end, it can all be summarized in five words. No dislike button, for anybody.

Of course, Zuckerberg isn’t the first to promote these kind of ideas. The notion that a national or supernational entity forms a cohesive community without internal conflict is as old as politics itself, and everywhere it’s put forward it’s as a mask for horrific acts of exploitation within that community. Zuckerberg is different in that he seems to genuinely believe it. This is why he might be the most dangerous presidential candidate yet. In the same way that the Republican party spent decades churning out paranoia and nonsense for a base of frothing reactionaries until they finally found themselves saddled with a president who actually believes everything he reads on Breitbart, the Democrats might be about to create a monster of their own: someone who mouths all their nonsense about never disliking anything and never saying that anything is bad with absolute conviction, a cherub-cheeked gargoyle of pious equanimity, entranced by his own capacity to bring everyone together, as those who suffer are smashed brutally underfoot. And then he’ll turn his terrifying grin toward us, and say: you might like this.



  1. Richard Prescott August 24, 2017

    “The real reason all Zuckerberg’s dreams of power have to be crushed now before they bear terrible fruit is this: in the 13 years since he first launched Facebook, he never gave us the dislike button.”
    Yep, I have often wondered why there never was a dislike button. And even after they “expanded” the buttons from like to what they have emoji-wise, still no dislike.
    When just about every other site that supports commenting having “like-dislike” buttons, why does Facebook still have only “like”.
    (like) (love) (laugh) (wow) (cry) (angry)
    Your choices. Just what is wrong with the simple “dislike”? No-one of the 5 new buttons conveys that simple response, I “dislike” this.

    1. dpaano August 24, 2017

      I wonder if Trump would have as many “likes” as he currently has or whether the “dislikes” would outnumber the “likes.” It would be interesting to see, but it would surely piss him off!

      1. ivory69690@yahoo.com August 25, 2017

        Naaaaaaaaaaaa im sure the more dislikes he’d enjoy he thrives on the dis likes that’s were the addicted junky gets his FIX OF ATTENTION .

        1. dbtheonly August 26, 2017

          He was minus 3 million in “Likes” the last I looked.

  2. underledge August 24, 2017

    Zuckeberg couldn’t be any worse than the clowns which ran in the past. The fact that he isn’t a politician is the best thing going for him.

    1. dpaano August 24, 2017

      Yeah, that’s really working for us now, right?

      1. dbtheonly August 24, 2017

        Anything that’d break the hold of Trump, the Religious Reich, the Gun Nuts, and the Libertarian Lunatics, is okay in my book.

    2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth August 24, 2017

      The “fact” of not being a politician should not ipso facto mean it’s a good thing. This false rationale is why Trump got elected—he was considered a non-politician.

      It’s time we try using our God-given intellect, intuition, wisdom, and a person’s demonstrated ability to show a selfless nature in regards to the needs of fellow human beings, to decide who is qualified. Not money, not showmanship, not bluster, and not solely based n whether one was a politician formerly.

      Mark has a dangerous, openly sinister quality of being self-absorbed and shallow.

  3. Dapper Dan August 24, 2017

    I have to agree that after letting a novice i.e. someone who’s never held a major elective office or even served in the military should be allowed to be President. Mind you I have no issues with Zuckerberg being Jewish or even being much younger than me but allowing a billionaire businessman regardless of their party need to stay away from politics. We saw how inept Arnold Schwarzenegger was as Californias Governor and the Golden state is now doing much better under its current Governor Jerry Brown since 2011

  4. dpaano August 24, 2017

    Seriously, we don’t need another unqualified, non-political weirdo running this country….we’ve got that now and it ain’t working. We need someone that knows what he or she is doing, has the tact and diplomacy to deal with our foreign allies, and isn’t all about trying to “outdo” the previous president! We need someone who can restore this country’s reputation and make us a “great nation” once again instead of being the laughing stock of the planet!

  5. Aaron_of_Portsmouth August 24, 2017

    As I read the numerous articles about the damage Facebook is doing to the mental abilities of those who use it excessively, it is clear that Zuckerberg comes from an upbringing where superficial and nodding acquaintance of fellow human beings is sufficient for human interactions. In Mark’s world-view, it isn’t important to take the time to really get to know people. His product reflects this personality, and is damaging entire segments of youth and young adults to the point that they’re driven to suicides at an alarming rate because of the inability to interact face-to-face with real people.
    Facebook, and other forms of Social Media, have transformed large swaths of people to the point where they prefer contact by Texting rather than verbal communication; via remote connection, rather than going out and attending social gatherings to meet people in person.

    Donald’s Twitter habit is a case in point—Twitter, like Facebook, has rendered those who have become addicted to its use to being incapable of articulating any thought or opinion w/o resorting to Twitter-phrases, acronyms, and other oft-repeated short-hand terminology. Donald may already have had serious neural damage before he became a Twitter addict, but Twitter has made his illness worse. Zuckerberg is doing the same to millions of users the world over, in a quiet and insidious way.

    The thought of a shallow-minded person who has trouble forming personal bonds with people should make it clear that the world can ill-afford in these days to have anyone assume any position of leadership on a national level.

    1. WriterGuy10 August 24, 2017

      I’m one of those people who thinks Facebook has HELPED me connect with other people. I’m in touch with former roommates, ex-girlfriends, and friends I went to school with whom I hadn’t spoken to in 30, 40 or even 50 years.

      Yes, I’d rather text than call some times. But that’s because I’d rather RECEIVE a quick text than stop what I’m doing to take a phone call.

      Social media is like any other tool: it can be abused. But in the proper doses, it’s a great new means of communication.

      Zuckerberg is NOT my first choice to be an elected official. But seriously, can he be any worse than the people in Washington and in most state legislatures today? I doubt it.

  6. WriterGuy10 August 24, 2017

    Whatever your problems with Zuckerberg or Facebook, there’s this: He’s not stupid; he knows how to read and write beyond a fourth grade level; he’s not the product of a political or financial dynasty; he wasn’t born on third base thinking he hit a triple; he doesn’t generally have temper tantrums in public; he’s never boasted of his ability to sexual assault women; he believes in science; and he’s not on the far side of retirement age. How bad can he be?

  7. Kev789 August 25, 2017

    He can start by running for a local office, then U.S. house, then senate, then president assuming the public takes to him. He’s 33 years old; so with ~ 12 years public experience under his belt he could then run for pres at least 7 times.

  8. ivory69690@yahoo.com August 25, 2017

    ive been watching reading and interested in all this election bull starting more so on Obama’s first term I liked him but I thought the country was too racist to put him in the white house so I never reg. to vote then I was surprised 2nd term I reg. first time in my life mind you . as for now ppl. are saying we need some one to run against the DUMPSTER DONNY . no we don’t just need another gop in the house we need a DEM . I still like Hillary the GOP been planning on pulling all the crap thy pulled on her for years back pretty much around the start of Obama’s 2nd term (maybe even sooner ) what she should of done right after the DUMPSTER took the house then is when she should of started calling out all these gang of pinheads =GOP and like thy did before all the investigations thy got nothing . she should on had them do it all the DUMPSTER promised he would the pathological liar . it all stop why ???????????/ because the GOP’S job was done thy smeared her with all the BULLSHIfT . she should of not felt bad for her self she should of stayed in the news and been loud and often talking about every thing even bad mouthing the DUMPSTER (that would of been easy ) today she could been getting reporter to interview her in a heart beat . then she could be saying all the BULLFHIfTING and all you got id DDDD =DUMPSTER-DONNY- DONSENT-DO . she could be calling out the gang of pinheads = GOP about all their investigations and in the same breath saying DUMPSTER DONNY where’s all the promises ?and even better saying DONNY have you told you 5 lies for today . she could been killing THE DONNY DUMP CLOWN SHOW . and all knows he wouldn’t let anything go he wouldn’t be getting no sleep tweeting 1 -2-3-4-5-6 in the morning . by the time the next election Hillary could cleaned up a lot of the GOP BULLSHIfT AND COULD BE RUNNING IN 2020 and could win


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.