"... at his philanthropy that could be perceived as partisan, and he has tamped down employee activism at Meta said [friends, advisers, and executives], who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so or did not want to jeopardize their relationships with Mr. Zuckerberg.... 'The political environment, I think I didn’t have much sophistication around, and I think I just fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem,' Mr. Zuckerberg said during a
recent interview at a live podcast event in San Francisco. Last month, Mr. Zuckerberg publicly expressed regret around some of his political activity in a
letter to Congress. He said that in 2021, the Biden administration 'pressured' Meta into censoring more Covid-19 content than Mr. Zuckerberg felt comfortable with. And he said he would not repeat the contributions he made in 2020 to support electoral infrastructure because the gifts made him appear not 'neutral.' Mr. Zuckerberg’s evolution has drawn comparatively little attention compared to that of tech titans like Elon Musk... But it is also reflective of a larger shift in Silicon Valley, where chief executives have grown frustrated with contentious social issues. Their response has largely been to back away from it."
From
"Mark Zuckerberg Is Done With Politics/He was once a backer of liberal causes. Then everyone seemed to turn on him. Now he wants to stay away from politics — if that’s possible" (NYT).
Musk openly supports Trump. Maybe Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump. Wouldn't that look the same as being "done with politics"? There are certainly advantages to hiding one's support for Trump. And we're told he's had 2 one-on-one phone calls with Trump in the last few months.
Posts
22 comments:
I'll take a page from the NYT style book. Our host says, without evidence, that Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump. Now that may well be the case--but if it is a secret, how does our host know it to be true?
"…he said he would not repeat the contributions he made in 2020 to support electoral infrastructure because the gifts made him appear not 'neutral.'
He was like $400 Million 'not neutral', right?
He said that in 2021, the Biden administration 'pressured' Meta into censoring more Covid-19 content than Mr. Zuckerberg felt comfortable with.
So, there was some level of censorship that he would have been comfortable with?
A month or so ago, I started listening to The All-In Podcast. I intended to listen from its inception in the early weeks of COVID but... well, kind of got sidetracked by other projects, so I haven't listened in order and have not yet come across the point where the guys who aren't David Sacks start to question their commitment to Silicon Valley progressivism. I am still looking forward to discovering how that came about
"Our host says ... that Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump"
Fact check: False. That's not what our host says.
To me at least, when someone says they aren't into politics or they are a political it is more likely than not they probably see themselves as more right-aligned than left-aligned. So this might suggest Zuckerberg is secretly Pro-Trump but it could also just be him hedging his bets in case there is a Trump victory.
Without Zuckerbucks promoting WI voter fraud in Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay etc... perhaps Democrat absentee voter fraud is weakened. Let's hope. It was very real in 2020. But...our liberal Supreme Court reinstated the stuff boxes, so they're trying their best.
FB is still censoring posts and/or flagging them as misinformation even when they are from reliable sources. Occasionally, forwarding memes (like the picture of Queen Elizabeth looking under the hood of a Ferrari) that are already out there, then being told by FB that they violate community standards, look like intentional entrapment. The picture in question had a caption saying she was a certified Ferrari mechanic, so it probably wasn't true, but the unsuspecting used would have no easy way to confirm or deny that - so why allow it on the first place?
Conversely, there are plenty of pro-Harris memes pushing the false claim of grocery store price gouging. At least when I post responses showing that they aren't doing so, based on comparable profit margins and higher costs for production and transport, FB doesn't flag my responses.
"Our host says ... that Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump"
Fact check: False. That's not what our host says.
Don't you think that might have been Skeptical's point? That's where I went with it.
Maybe Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump.
Zuckerberg is scared.
He knows damn well his money was used for Democrat absentee voter fraud. Would be a natural reaction if he regrets it.
"He knows damn well his money was used for Democrat absentee voter fraud. Would be a natural reaction if he regrets it."
I don't think he regrets it. I think he fears prosecution.
Perhaps he finally realized that supporting people who want to kill you due to your ethnicity is no way to go through life.
I think Zuck got a signal from the Mothership that he was in violation of the Prime Directive.
If there is an NYT style book, can someone get them to include a provision that "around" is not a synonym for "relating to"?
Eternal vigilance is the price of linguistic sanity.
Burned once by the Democratic state is a shame. A second time in a handmade tale would be insane.
"to support electoral infrastructure"
I love how they invariably leave out that part that the infrastructure that he supported was limited to heavily Democratic precincts and designed to turn out Democratic votes specifically. Oh yeah, and that his employees, engaged in this partisan effort, had read/write access to official voter rolls.
Monica Lewinsky said that the true measure of power was to have absolute confidence that you would never be asked a question you did not want to be asked. She was absolutely right.
Pull my other finger
He also said in public that Trump's response to being shot at was, "the most bad ass thing I have ever seen." Sounds like he woke up, maybe.
Maybe Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump.
Maybe Zuckerberg is lying. I don’t think he regrets a damned thing he did. What is the evidence that Meta is backing off it’s partisanship in the slightest?
"...who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so or did not want to jeopardize their relationships with Mr. Zuckerberg...."
Grassed him out, did they? Cowardly snitches. Or - maybe it was an "authorized leak." Whatev's.
I guess that technical genius and political idiocy can cohabitate in the same brain, but I'll assume that he knew exactly what those Zuck Bucks were doing.
Jamie: I was getting at the fact that our host said "Maybe Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump," whereas Skeptical Voter claimed she said "Zuckerberg secretly supports Trump." There is a world of difference between the two when it comes to how much evidence you need in support. Plus, Skeptical Voter asks "how does our host know it to be true" when our host explicitly says she doesn't know it to be true.
Post a Comment