Social media of all places is a tough place to try and find consensus. Some would argue that a global social media platform simply doesn't scale.
Still, he's successful by many measures because it has scaled.
Money is a token of power, billions in the bank influences politics.
He spent millions trying to fix education. And what was his reward? At best the experiment failed. But we saw how the power structures felt threatened by his experiment.
And now I see presidents refusing to leave office and presidents' administrations pushing media censorship. Everyone should be concerned about this move towards Oceania.
In a definition of “neutral” that only a Silicon Valley CEO could embrace, this article seems to be saying that misinformation will be less policed on the platform and he will be more friendly to Trump.
The article even attempts to pre-apologize for this 40-year old billionaires political choices, framing them as innocent (he’s really a nice progressive libertarian, really) and that he feels so hurt by criticism.
We really have to stop thinking of Zuckerberg as a naive youngster. It’s appropriate to treat his statements with skepticism. I don’t know anything about the man other than what I read in books or news, but many Silicon Valley CEOs are lining up behind Trump because they expect him to regulate them less. The only difference with Zuckerberg is that he seems to prefer to appear above the fray.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/faceboo...