Do we really want Mark Zuckerberg to rule the world?

The question has been asked for a year. But let's try again: can Mark Zuckerberg race for president of the United States? Facebook founder and director started in 2017 announcing his latest challenge: the promise to visit 30 US states that had never had the chance to visit earlier. He has fulfilled the promise. Along that journey, he has also met Trump voters, testing the mood in the post-industrial swamp and looking closely at the consequences of the crisis. He is already talking about the importance the community has, and the need for his generation to find a collective sense of purpose.

Some of you have asked if this challenge means that I will compete for a public office,” he wrote in May. Last month, he dined with a family supporting Trump from Ohio, which does not seem to have caught much of what he brought his food and reportedly said: “If any news reporter calls you, just make sure you don't tell him I'm competing for president.” Again, we know that his relatives have talked to him about “government service” and how this would play a role in his Facebook shares; that his charity has hired Obama's campaign manager in 2008; and he has taken a strange step publicly announcing his atheism.

However, Zuckerberg's political ambitions are not the only problem. Far more important is what we already know: that his power is already titanium, and that Facebook is shaping the understanding of millions of people, of what they are and of the country they occupy in the world.

To be more specific, the promotion Facebook made to false news remains a huge problem. His Manipulation by geopolitical forces like Russia, which sees this tool as very effective in shaping the world's thinking, has already begun to be exposed.

In the meantime, nothing seems to shake the dream of a communication platform for Zuckerberg and his friends who will gather a large volume of personal information which will become a major global-enlarged brain and extension and, as an additional bonus, the only sustainable means to trade things in people.

Let's start with the facial expression that somehow seems to combine a heavy face with an unquenchable optimism, which has traces on the fact that Zuckerberg is already richer than his dreams. I was always curious to know if he understood all that was happening?

His company is for the future, but Zuckerberg is a return to the political past. It is often said that fame freezes the development of young people. When Facebook was released in 2004, the global crisis was four years away, and successful, wealthy liberals still had faith in the creed that defined Tony Blair and Bill Clinton's leadership.

In this vision, driven by digital utopism, globalisation was good, liberal capitalism could solve any problem, from financial problems, deindustrisation to global warming of racism. However, the circumstances that produced September 11th and started the war in Iraq also produced the 19-year-old who would make great wealth and change the world. Thirteen years later, this continues to happen. [To understand Facebook links with the failed liberal policies of the 1990s, remember that the chief of the operating office is Cheryl Sandberg, who had been to Bill Clinton's administration, and is still a friend of Hillary's. ]

This year we learned he wants to stop climate change. And try to become part of a generation that “would end poverty, and disease”. It speaks of a level of inequality in income that kills each” further adds that “wants a society that wants to measure progress not only from economic metrics like GDP, but also how many of us have a role that we take as meaningful”. It speaks of being on the side of “liary, opening and a global community” and against “authorism, isolationism and nationalism”. But each word points to the same flaw. The goal looks good. But what are the tools?

In Zuckerberg's case, the liberal's sense has become brighter than the contradictions around him. Drawing on his nebulous utopia, he says: “People like me have to pay for that thing.” But he does not mention the controversial record of his company in taxes, and instead highlights his trust in charity. As he worries about social and political polarisation, his algorithms encourage and deepen them. He is superficially against global forces, and they exploit his servers.

And although the ongoing Facebook pains seem to have shaken him up, he seems to have no sense that ethics and his operations require little restraint. Quite the opposite, actually. Judging by his recent proposals in response to the way society and politics had become more divided and fraught, Zuckerberg wants Facebook of “develops a social infrastructure to give people the power that will build a global community that will function for all of us at”.

He thinks he's got a subgroup of 2 billion Facebook users who would make him a “meaningful community”, and that through a re-excussion of Facebook groups, many of us would say their example. And that's just as vague as everything else, but that gave the newspaper a good headline: “Mark Zuckerberg's response to a world separate from Facebook, is more Facebook”.

If his rhetoric is just a cynical profit attempt, Zuckerberg and his friends will find out sooner or later that it's absurd and will be withdrawn. But it's much worse than that, because of the reasons they got pretty good at Chaos Monkeys, a recently published memor by Antonio Garcia Martinez. “Facebook is full of believers who really, really, really, don't do what for money,” he writes, “and that really, really, won't stop until every man, every woman and every kid on the planet are watching the blue window with the Facebook logo... A greedy person can be bought at some price, and his behavior is predictable. What about real fanatics? They can't give for no price, and it's not predictable what his crazy visions will do. ”

Two men came from this thing. First of all, why would Zuckerberg care about a limited concern as the presidency when it has all the power needed to make his dream growl reality. Second, because liberal emissions of the past are a large part of the reason why the world is finding itself in such a slide, has it become a development that would lower it, and would remind us that the path to hell is paved with good intentions?

Subtitles by Leapin Periscope. com