The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: "Inflaming Debate," Mark Zuckerberg "Called for More Free Speech — Not Less"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times “news” section:

Defiant Zuckerberg Says Facebook Won’t Police Political Speech

In an address at Georgetown University, the Facebook chief executive called for more free speech — not less — as his company has been assailed for allowing lies and falsehoods to appear.

By Cecilia Kang and Mike Isaac, Oct. 17, 2019

 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Cortes says:

    The free market seems to be relegated when it comes to exchange of ideas about the world.

    We’re free to see what Mark and Donna allow us to see. How fortunate we are to have disinterested, noble individuals like Mark and Donna make our decisions for us.

    Films you’re unlikely to see on mainstream broadcast TV soon include “Zardoz.”

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  2. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:

    This is becoming a big talking point for the Democrats, that Big Tech needs to be police so-called “fake news.” Of course, the Dems haven’t specified who decides what, exactly, is “fake news” but I’m sure they have some ideas…probably a whole government agency will be dedicated to the purpose eventually. I wonder what it will be called? “Ministry of Truth” seems a little too on the nose.

  3. It’s pretty damned bad when Mark Zuckerberg is the lesser of two evils.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Kronos
    , @Lagertha
  4. SFG says:

    Hey, if trade restrictions can move from left to right, why can’t free speech?

    Seen this? It’s pretty good…

    https://areomagazine.com/2019/10/17/why-conservatives-should-read-foucault/

    It’s actually a nice framework for critical thinking…

    Who said this?

    The New York Times, ‘paper of record’ and mouthpiece of the Eastern Establishment, media division.

    On what authority?

    Their status as paper of record, and the accumulated status and credibility they gained over the past century or so.

    and what are they justifying?
    Restriction of speech on the social media platform Facebook, in order to suppress viewpoints they disagree with.

    • Agree: snorlax
  5. Yes, it’s clear the Democrats are not the party of free speech. I think that has been clear for some time now.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  6. Anonymous[747] • Disclaimer says:

    How did Mexico become a bridge to the US not only for Central America but all the world?

    Airport security is tight, but once you land, it’s just a walk across to America.

    But in this particular case, Mexico did something right.

    https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/10/18/609009/Mexico-US-deportation-India-Ecuador

  7. Kronos says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    At least he’s not running for President.

    If he did for 2020, I’d bet the LGBT would’ve waved signs saying “Will Suck for Zuck.”

  8. MZ is a liar and a snake.

    He bans conservatives all day long.

  9. Without social media we never would have had Trump or Brexit. It allowed an actual debate to happen about whether or not england, europe and the US are actual sovereign nations or just economic zones. Social media is a major threat to the top down revolution we have been living through. Obviously these people would shut it down completely if they could.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @MBlanc46
  10. anon[590] • Disclaimer says:

    • LOL: BB753
  11. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “Of course, the Dems haven’t specified who decides what, exactly, is “fake news” but I’m sure they have some ideas…”

    Actually, it’s both the left and the right, especially the Coalition of the Right and Left Fringe groups, who decide what is Fake News. How? By living in an echo chamber that rewards confirmation bias. Selection attention and selection perception personified.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  12. Mark Zuckerberg’s speech today shows how little he learned from 2016, and how unprepared Facebook is to handle the 2020 election. https://t.co/2JHCuihexR

    — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) October 18, 2019

    Facebook is supposed to “handle” the 2020 election? In what way? For whom?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @El Dato
  13. Forbes says:

    Watch what they do, not what they say. Watch what FB/Zuck does, not what FB/Zuck says.

    Media types are marvels at misdirection in order to distract from their intentions.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  14. J.Ross says:

    Everything about this is perfectly Orwellian, centrally Zuck lying about not wanting censorship, but also the idea that failing to condemn Russian interference strenuously enough is the new being the first to stop clapping.

  15. J.Ross says:
    @bigdicknick

    Forty Congresscritters just signed some ominous but vague intent-statement thing condemning “imageboards” — which means any internet forum where you can post a picture with your reply, but they’re “clearly” talking about 4chan. 8chan has been down since Christchurch, but these geniuses are still compaining about it. They’ve given up on any recognizable vestige of Western civilization and decided to bet it all on censorship. They know they cannot have their matrix as long as there is a corner somewhere where people can whisper.

  16. J.Ross says:
    @Anonymous

    And it’s hilarious that the Zombified Russian Nothingburger (Second Impact) is full of brave lying, such as the idea that Mik Mulvaney completely substantiated the entire quid pro quo case (news flash, he didn’t).

  17. El Dato says:

    Demagocrats and Repugnicans find that Zuckerberg is fine as long as he is “our kind of fine”.

    Forget privacy abuses, liberals call to DeleteFacebook after learning Zuckerberg met with conservatives

    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been meeting with conservative commentators, journalists, and politicians in “small, off-the-record dinners” and “informal talks,” Politico revealed on Monday, … This, the mainstream media and many liberals on social media have declared, is an outrage. The hashtag #DeleteFacebook was trending for most of Monday as Woke Twitter finally realized the fourth-richest man in the US, who infamously called Facebook users “dumb f***s,” was an unworthy trustee of their digital lives. Just kidding – they were upset that the platform had become yet another tool of white supremacy.

    Meanwhile Zuckerberg has his own ambitions. Which includes monetizing people and harvesting their time as if they were industrial chickens. And maybe take some money from TLAs on the side (I don’t know but I wouldn’t be surprised.)

    Libertarians applaud of course because the lofty concept of “free consumer choice” is not infringed and “entrepreneurship” is clearly on a roll in this particular case … but is that really a consumer choice and kind of entrepreneurship one should have on the life menu above the heading “drugs and other bad thing”?

    2019-10-18: Zuckerberg lays out grand vision of Facebook-fueled utopia – too bad it bears no resemblance to the platform he’s actually built

    “Giving more people a voice gives power to the powerless,” Zuckerberg gushed, describing how students using the early version of Facebook got more involved in their community and achieved more in life. More than a few people were shocked when he reinvented the platform’s origins from a ripoff of “Hot or Not” that got him called before Harvard’s administrative board for violating students’ privacy to a way for students to express their opposition to the Iraq War.

    Now it’s getting interesting (but … Seeing AT&T execs behind bars? Not gonna happen.)

    Pack your pyjamas, Zuck: US bill threatens execs with prison for data failures: Senator Ron Wyden’s on the warpath with ‘Mind Your Own Business Act’

    A proposed law bill in the US aims to give regulators genuine powers to go after companies that fail to protect citizens’ privacy up to and including jailing bosses.

    The brilliantly titled “Mind Your Own Business Act” (PDF) would give the Federal Trade Commission, which is responsible for privacy protections, the power to do more than just fine companies that drop the ball with their customers’ data.

    Ron Wyden, Democrat senator for Oregon, said: “Mark Zuckerberg won’t take Americans’ privacy seriously unless he feels personal consequences. A slap on the wrist from the FTC won’t do the job, so under my bill he’d face jail time for lying to the government.”

    The FTC was heavily criticised when it fined Facebook $5bn for repeatedly ignoring privacy protections earlier this year. Even though it was the largest ever fine imposed by the FTC, it represented just a month’s sales for the data broker. Senator Wyden said at the time that the FTC had “failed miserably”.

  18. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Laurence Whelk

    Both parties running against FB is going to be confusing for the lower-info’d voters. Is the brand damaged? The reason people resent FB is all day it shows them distant acquaintances, pulled from email send queues, flaunting superior wealth, sex appeal, and vacations in the losers’ “feed.” They want FB censored moralistically and puritanically (certified diverse, feminist, intersectional, etc.). Political speech, the rabble couldn’t give a rat’s about. Government transparency? No-info NPCs don’t even understand what that means… They think Hillary belching out email server jokes is the essence of slay kweenness. Anyway, Google, Amazon, and Comcast are funding this “irresponsible speech” meme

  19. El Dato says:
    @Laurence Whelk

    Nobody knows!

    Elections in the USA are decided by 1000 USD of advertisement seen on bulletin boards by people checking whether someone “liked” their latest post while grotesque old women trying their best to impersonate Baronesse Harkonnen of Coughing on prime time TV are completely filtered out by the unwashed masses.

    Crazy!

    2019-09-05: Big Tech & Big Brother meet at Facebook HQ to discuss how to ‘secure’ US elections

    2019-08-14: Big election business: Democratic candidates, even critical of Facebook, pour millions into platform

    2019-03-25: Google flipped seats, shifted millions of votes to Dems in 2018 midterms, researcher tells RT

    2018-12-23: Facebook suspends ‘researcher’ who faked Russian interference in Alabama election

  20. anonymous[244] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    What?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  21. Cortes says:

    Lionel Ritchie’s song put it well… is it me you’re looking for?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_Candy_Mountain

  22. Lagertha says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    naaah. He has been white privileged his entire life…and the socialists scare him. He decided he needs to exude magnanimity, especially because an uber white woman, who actually spent years in the White House, from Wyoming, is interviewing him.

    Mark learns in nanoseconds…he knows he is so over if he goes along and censors 50% of the people in the world, just to please the Democrat party -( in fact, I hope this scares them to vote Trump or at least, question the new Nazi party).

    Now, of course, after fatherhood, he needs (he actually, feels it) to be a symbol of integrity and a white man who can have it all! :D. I like him, and many tech guys; they just didn’t realize that the so-called Progressive party has become a giant seine net; a megalodon; a Leviathan that will devour them and chew their children to bits because even they, even…. are not PC enough. And, the fact that they marry young Asian, South American or European chicks, is so not cool ;D! It all comes down to envy and, ultimately, what I have been harping about for years, here: Money.

    • Replies: @SFG
  23. Corvinus says:
    @anonymous

    “What?”

    Fake News is a convenient way for both those on the Left and the Right, particularly the radicals, to not think critically about their own positions.

    So I suggest when confronted with information that challenges your world view, simply say “Fake News”. Then, find information that conforms with your preexisting notions. Life is so much better that way. It doesn’t require a modicum of self-examination and self-criticism. [sarcarsm]

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
  24. SFG says:
    @Lagertha

    I’m with Reg Caesar. Zuckerberg is, in fact, the lesser of two evils.

    I’m with Steve in that he’s probably fairly conservative at heart–he seems to have a genuine appreciation for the Classics, and stayed with his college sweetheart instead of banging supermodels left and right now that he’s super-rich. Heck, they were actually enforcing rules against groups that showed prejudice against white people (along with black and brown and yellow) until the media made them stop. But, ya know, he’s still a greedy businessman who wants to sell your data for profit.

    As for the Asian thing–they are quite willing to wife up nerdy guys. Zuck’s not supercharismatic.

  25. Lagertha says:
    @SFG

    I agree with you and Reg! – read my comment again. All entrepreneurs are Right leaning…this is just a fact and math. I applaud Mark for being steadfast and honest in that interview. I am always on the side of entrepreneurs. And, I deplore seine nets.

  26. Dan Smith says:

    And then they came for Mark Zuckerberg

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  27. @ScarletNumber

    It’s a pretty neat trick. Simply define ‘racism’ as the absolute worst thing a person can be, think, or do, and then equate ‘free speech’ with ‘racism’. Well now, before you know it free speech is anathema.

  28. Dan Hayes says:

    SFG:

    The wives of both Zuck and Gates appear to be pretentious, power-hungry and over-powering bitches. They make perfect matrimonial couples.

    And the very thought of Zuck calling for any, never mind more, free speech is truly ridiculous!

  29. Dan Hayes says:
    @SFG

    SFG:

    The wives of both Zuck and Gates appear to be pretentious, power-hungry and over-powering bitches. They make perfect matrimonial couples.

    And the very thought of Zuck calling for any, never mind more, free speech is truly ridiculous!

  30. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Zuck was all too happy to police and censor. It’s only when wokism started to threaten FB’s bottom line (and possibly even future) he became an ardent proponent of free speech. Oh well, let this be a lesson to others like him.

  31. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:

    Who is even on FaceBorg now besides Boomer grannys and older GenX? College kids use Snap, Insta, etc.

  32. @Corvinus

    So I suggest when confronted with information that challenges your world view, simply say “Fake News”. Then, find information that conforms with your preexisting notions. Life is so much better that way.

    This, but unironically.

    If you’re a reader of this site, odds are good that your pre-existing notions are correct. Do not waste time or mental/emotional energy arguing with people who hate you.

  33. @Cortes

    “Zardoz”

    Is Zuckerberg Arthur Frayn? Is Zuckerberg even human? He radiates amphibian vibes.

    • Replies: @anon
  34. MEH 0910 says:

  35. Except “hate speech”. And Antifa violence counts as speech.

  36. anon[242] • Disclaimer says:
    @SunBakedSuburb

    He radiates amphibian reptilian vibes.

    Fixed it.

  37. @MEH 0910

    I love, love, love Tulsi on the war issue. Too bad she’s a progressive wacko on everything else.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  38. People still use Facebook?

  39. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEH 0910

    … powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

    It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

    — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

    Nothing like watching a good cat fight for some people, I guess.

  40. @Chris Renner

    The REAL reason our political types are after him.

  41. What are the odds that Big Liz War Chief actually typed out that tweet, or even knows it exists? Does she even know she has a twitter account or what twitter is?

  42. Big Liz War Chief is also an anti-Semite now, correct?

  43. Wilkey says:

    Who knows what his motives are? One possibility is simply that, as Zuckerberg has watched the debates unfold and the economy remain strong, he realizes there’s a solid chance Republicans will in 2020. But what Zuckerberg says to us and what he says to powerful people in private, and whether any of it is even true, only Zuck knows.

    Facebook is boring, pretentious, and enlightening (though not in a good way). It shows you just how many people are obsessed with trying to impress people. For so many people – younger people, especially – their Facebook page is nothing more than a personal advertisement: “Here’s how popular I am, here’s how beautiful I am, here’s how compassionate and right-thinking I am.” If you are not in the business of maintaining a constant, running advertisement of your life then maintaining a Facebook page feels more like work than like play.

    You can’t indulge an honest political thought or else you’ll get ratted out by backstabbing peers. It’s astonishing how nasty so many people – even supposed friends – can be when engaged in political conversations, which is why so many of us have far fewer Facebook friends on the other side of the political spectrum today than we did when Facebook was still new.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  44. nebulafox says:
    @Wilkey

    Zuckerberg unironically sees himself as a neo-Augustus figure and probably has long-term ambitions for the Presidency. He turns 40 in 2024: he’ll be the youngest POTUS in history, but he’s over the age limit now. Like Ross Perot and Donald Trump before him, he doesn’t need to kowtow to donors because he himself is one, so he’ll be free to create whatever campaign platform he likes.

    (Note the shift in religious identification from atheist to Jewish on his Facebook profile a few years back. This is not something he’s just thinking of right now.)

    To say that I do not trust him with the fate of the United States is an understatement. He lacks the mental rigidity to be an authentic SJW, but I doubt he’d be one by inclination anyway: as SFG commented, his genuine hobbyist interest in classical antiquity indicates otherwise. What he unquestionably is, however, is a representative of the people who’d love to turn the United States into a neo-feudal society, and such people are more than happy to use the PC gentry class crowd as enforcers in exchange for letting them occupy a small, precarious share in the elite’s wonders. In keeping with that, he’s also an unrepentant globalist, and we all know that the great divide is really between globalists and nationalists, not liberals and conservatives.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    , @kaganovitch
  45. nebulafox says:
    @SFG

    The SJWs can cause damage if they are allowed to run wild. But they really do not have the capacity, intellectual or otherwise, to take power and steer the ship autonomously. Unless they are fed by the powers that be, they will eventually flame out. Already you are seeing push-back from all sectors of society, and it is taking a concerted effort by just about everything mainstream in the United States to obscure that. It’s a lot like the Religious Right: they had a lot of influence, but it was always at the sufferance of other major political forces on the American Right, particularly big business and the military. Once Bush II and his trainwreck of a Presidency put the GOP in the emergency room, the first limb to be amputated over the coming years was them when need be.

    Now, Zuckerberg and guys like him: they *do* have the ability to do that. And they’d be more than happy to continue the marriage between Economic Right and Cultural Left that is toxic for American society but immensely profitable-both economically and from a perspective of power-for them. They are intelligent enough to realize current limits and keep the dogs chained in the short-term, but don’t think they won’t be working also to expand those limits in the long-term. It’s in their natural interest to do so. I can easily envision a future where Zuckerberg and Company privately roll their eyes at the writings of his sister… but they wouldn’t protect the rights of the hoi polloi to do the same thing.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @SFG
    , @dfordoom
  46. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    The SJWs can cause damage if they are allowed to run wild. But they really do not have the capacity, intellectual or otherwise, to take power and steer the ship autonomously.

    Probably can find people who wrote something similar about the Bolsheviks back in 1916 or the Khmer Rouge in 1974.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  47. SFG says:
    @nebulafox

    I wouldn’t be surprised, but I doubt Zuckerberg’s skill at developing software and data mining extends to running political movements. (Remember when he tried to make Astroturf open-borders websites for left and right with matching layouts with red subbed in for blue? That’s exactly the kind of thing a programmer would think of –oh, let’s create two members of the class ‘Political.Movement’, one with attribute=’left’ and one with attribute=’right’ –that’s politically disastrous.)

    His SJW allies, on the other hand, do have the propaganda and organizational chops to remake America in their image. That it would be a total disaster, with all the various groups at each others’ throats, is another story. After all, the Great Leap Forward did successfully remake China. That it set them back 50 years and resulted in more deaths than any other political movement in history–well, they only figured that out after the fact.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  48. @Dan Smith

    And then they came for Mark Zuckerberg…

    … and I said nothing, having never heard about it, as I don’t “follow” him.

  49. @MEH 0910

    She was all to happy to parrot this Russian nonsense when it was pointed at Trump. Its a little late to just now realize the vileness of Hillary Clinton.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @MEH 0910
  50. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @William Badwhite

    Its a little late to just now realize the vileness of Hillary Clinton.

    Vince Foster would agree.

    • Replies: @Roger Thornton
  51. Anon[170] • Disclaimer says:

    Look what’s on the NYT, and who circulates it. Cass Sunstein. That Cass Sunstein.

  52. Wilkey says:
    @nebulafox

    What he unquestionably is, however, is a representative of the people who’d love to turn the United States into a neo-feudal society, and such people are more than happy to use the PC gentry class crowd as enforcers in exchange for letting them occupy a small, precarious share in the elite’s wonders.

    Well said. “Neofeudalism” is a term I’ve been using for a long time. It’s really the best term to describe so many of those in power.

  53. nebulafox says:
    @anon

    Not really. Both of those nations were undergoing something akin to civilizational collapse in many important respects long before the Commies took power. I find it very hard to believe that your average American bien-pensant would survive long under similar conditions that the Bolsheviks or the Khmer Rouge faced.

    Cambodia in particular is really comparing apples to oranges: it was and still is a true third world backwater in a way that few in the US can really imagine. Explaining why the Khmer Rouge took power is a long story, but one salient point that has to be made is that the general ideology of the Khmer Rouge never really took off among the rural peasants. They supported the Khmer Rouge, but for different reasons than the intelligentsia cadres (restoring Sihanouk, anger at bombing, utter hatred of city people, racial xenophobia) who picked up their ideology in 1950s Paris. As far as the latter goes, they really didn’t have any opposition by 1973 due to conditions that were pretty Cambodia-centric. They already occupied a lot of the country, the only reason they didn’t take Phnom Penh then and there was Operation FREEDOM DEAL, which had mixed effects: killed a lot of Khmer Rouge and gave Phnom Penh a couple of years, but caused a lot of Old People to join them. I suspect that most people would have bet on them taking power by 1973. A few years earlier in the aftermath of Lon Nol’s coup, most people would have been betting on some sort of North Vietnamese protectorate a la Laos, so I’m guessing an eventual Communist victory wouldn’t have shocked many people.

    Russia offers a somewhat more recognizable comparison as not only a European civilization, but that nobody ever expected the Bolsheviks to take power. But the Bolsheviks… I mean, say what you will about them, they were not only far more intellectually formidable than the leftists we see today, they were willing to risk exile and execution for their political beliefs. By contrast, our ultra-leftists pretty much *rely* on having the tacit support of much of the powerful in the United States. In that sense, they are far more akin to aspiring Red Guards than the Russian Bolsheviks before the revolution. I suppose if you want to go for a comparison, that’s the one. Not for nothing are many Chinese netizens grimly joking about a new Cultural Revolution in the United States.

    (What’s more, the Bolsheviks were imploding thanks to the Ohkrana by 1913. It took the civilizational collapse of Europe to get them even close to power. As Durnovo presciently pointed out, the Tsarist government-presiding over economic modernization, but politically fragile-was unlikely to survive a war with Germany in any case, and by 1917, average Russians were increasingly suspecting that they were being used as cannon fodder for the interests of bankers in London and New York.

    Had it not been for German intelligence, Lenin would have remained in Switzerland, isolated and impotent. And even then, they repeatedly failed to take power throughout 1917, both at the ballot box and via coups. The bottom line is that had the Western powers not demanded that the hapless Provisional Government not negotiate with the Central Powers under any circumstances, the October Revolution would have never had the momentum it did.

    TLDR: American progressives have been screwing up countries long before the 21st Century for the same reasons: they refuse to understand them as they are in reality.)

    • Replies: @anon
  54. nebulafox says:
    @SFG

    Our reigning political elites are so utterly, completely incompetent, talentless, and unappealing (and unsympathetic after the last few decades) that a former reality TV star whose conversational style is best summed up as “word salad” slew not just one, but two reigning political dynasties. This in spite of the opposition of just about everything “mainstream” in American politics, to say nothing of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the media, etc, etc, and the fact that he might not have even seriously wanted the job starting out. Zuckerberg does not have to be politically gifted to beat them. Sure, he’s ham-handed and condescending, but his opponents are realistically going to be too.

    >His SJW allies, on the other hand, do have the propaganda and organizational chops to remake America in their image. That it would be a total disaster, with all the various groups at each others’ throats, is another story. After all, the Great Leap Forward did successfully remake China. That it set them back 50 years and resulted in more deaths than any other political movement in history–well, they only figured that out after the fact.

    As I’ve mentioned in the long post above, China under Mao is probably a better realistic historical comparison than Russia or Cambodia, because the GoodThinkers enjoy a lot of official patronage, in contrast to being an underground movement being attacked by the standing government. What they lack is a charismatic psychopath who has absolute power and who shares their ideological world view.

    Zuckerberg is not charismatic (and I don’t truly believe he’s a psychopath either), nor does he convincingly share their ideological world-view. But I don’t think Hillary Clinton did either, or at least large parts of it. That’s not the danger voters sensed. The fact that Clinton would not pull a Sistah Souljah at any point in 2016 was the danger. The danger is that she’d never reign them in, or show any kind of willingness to question elite orthodoxy.

    Zuckerberg faces the same issues. He’s got a lot more ability than Hillary to address them, but does he have the willingness or need to?

    • Replies: @SFG
  55. SFG says:
    @nebulafox

    Good point about Mao–the Cultural Revolution thing does kind of scare me.

    As for Zuck: yeah, but he has zero charisma. Aspergery guys don’t get to be POTUS, and Zuck will have to content himself with being the sixth-richest man in the world or whatever he is right now. White guys don’t get to be the Democratic nominee anymore, and Jewish guys don’t get to be the Republican nominee. (Someone please tell Ben Shapiro.) There is no appetite for socially-liberal, economically-conservative globalism anymore.

    There may be a lot of unpleasant presidencies ahead, but we will be spared a Zuckerberg Administration.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  56. nebulafox says:
    @SFG

    The interesting thing is that I don’t think ASD is necessarily an obstacle to someone becoming an extremely successful, charismatic politician. It would take an above-average verbal IQ, the right obsessions, a willingness to learn how to lie and read people effectively (like a foreign language), and an *extremely* accommodating greater context, but I suspect it has happened before, and with extraordinarily ugly consequences.

    I do agree that Zuckerberg is not that guy, though. He’s more of an example of how just about anybody who is self-funded and has half a brain could run rings around the professional actors given lines by the donors in debates.

    >There is no appetite for socially-liberal, economically-conservative globalism anymore.

    1) But there might be an appetite for “sane apolitical centrism” that Zuckerberg could exploit. The smooth manager image was toxic for Hillary in 2016, but Trump has not really given populism a good image. (Not bad enough to ever, ever give Bush-style conservatives a chance at a comeback, but enough to put people off for an election cycle or two.) He’d have to exploit that to win, because the populists will be gunning for him and he’s going to be an easy meme target.

    2) I don’t think our elites have figured that out yet, because they’ve learned nothing and have forgotten nothing. But reality is going to assert itself with insurgents reliably winning every Republican nomination from here on out. The Democrats have the superdelegate system to guard them, but one wonders how much that can hold.

  57. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    Not really.

    Yeah, really, I could probably find written words to the effect of ‘Those Bolsheviks can’t really take over a huge country like Russia! Surely they could never control it!r” and “The Khmer Rouge can’t possibly run a country”. Really. People write stupid stuff all the time. For sure I have.

    “Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal” – Robert Heinlein

    By the way, there is this thing called a “more” tag.

    [MORE]

    You might find it useful sometime. Mao would probably approve.

  58. @Anonymous

    I wonder what it will be called? “Ministry of Truth” seems a little too on the nose.

    Nah, Ministry is a Britishism , in the god old USA it would Department of Truth or Deeptru

  59. @nebulafox

    To say that I do not trust him with the fate of the United States is an understatement.

    Hell , you can’t trust him with your email address!

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  60. OK, Mark. Now pull my other finger.

  61. Mark says he wants more free speech.

    Yeah, right.

    This is like the days when Romney talked about immigration enforcement. Tell ’em what they want to hear.

  62. @anon

    The sad part is, Vince almost certainly went to his grave believing that Hillary was the love of his life. Yet she’s likely the one culpable for ordering the hit on him when he seemed to be losing it and might blab. To this day, the Washington PD has issued no plausible reason for the forensics – they are all wrong as to the trajectory of the bullet. I feel bad for Vince, he was in torment and distraught about something, and if you watch Hillary’s creepy-smiley-i’m concerned interview done a couple nights later with Larry King, it’s clear they were both doing damage control.

  63. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Yeah, he was probably dumb enough to believe that. And likely she made the decision to have him whacked. What amazes me is how they’ve kept the lid on the huge string of Arkancides all these years. You’d think some unforeseen loose end would come out and some shemp would pull hard enough on it for the whole thing to break bad for them.

  64. @Forbes

    MZ would do well in a contest for the Least Trusted Person in the USA.

  65. @Harry Baldwin

    Tulsi could eat crackers in my bed.

  66. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    The SJWs can cause damage if they are allowed to run wild. But they really do not have the capacity, intellectual or otherwise, to take power and steer the ship autonomously. Unless they are fed by the powers that be, they will eventually flame out.

    The SJWs are just foot-soldiers for globalism. They think they’re on the Left but they’re tools of the neoliberal Economic Right. And they’re just too dumb to realise any of this. That’s why they’re such useful foot-soldiers. But that’s all they are.

  67. MEH 0910 says:
    @William Badwhite

  68. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

    • Replies: @Tusk
  69. Tusk says:
    @MEH 0910

    God Bless Donald J. Trump. His tweets, no matter how bizarre, managed to always make me laugh and cheer me up.

  70. Ian M. says:

    Zuckerberg looks like a dagger-faced lesbian in that photo.

  71. MEH 0910 says:

  72. MEH 0910 says:

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS