Eyes on the Prize (pt. 1)
The US Elections are coming and things are getting messy in Silicon Valley
(estimated reading time: 9 minutes, 0 seconds)
Tech goes into politics
A few weeks ago, JD Vance was announced as Donald Trump's running mate, marking a notable shift in the political landscape. Vance, a former venture capitalist with ties to Silicon Valley heavyweights like Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Eric Schmidt, and Scott Dorsey (who have invested in his fund)1, represents the tech industry’s most ambitious effort yet to influence national policy by reaching the White House. While the success and long-term benefits of this effort are yet to be seen, it reflects a pattern of strategic moves by Peter Thiel and a band of willing allies, including iconic Silicon Valley figures, to shape political outcomes. Historically, it is logical that after achieving economic power, groups or classes, as Marxists would term them, naturally sought political influence. Silicon Valley, traditionally left-leaning, has channeled significant capital into both major political parties. However, in recent years, there appears to be a shift towards more active involvement and participation in the decision-making process, a seat at the table if you will. In this post, I want to dive deeper into previous and future attempts, as well as their implications.
Before JD, it was Blake
Before JD Vance, Blake Masters represented Peter Thiel's first significant foray into direct political involvement, entrusting a close confidant to the judgment of the American voters. This marked Thiel's initial attempt to get someone intimately connected to him elected, rather than merely exerting influence behind the scenes. Masters, a person resembling a school shooter in terms of charisma, previously served as the Chief Operating Officer of Thiel Capital and the president of the Thiel Foundation.
Despite Thiel's financial backing for his 2022 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, Masters ultimately did not succeed in securing a seat in Congress. His campaign, marked by awkward efforts, highlighted a harsh reality: voters tend to be skeptical of uncharismatic, intellectual candidates. This serves as a cautionary tale for JD Vance, who may face similar challenges in his political endeavors. However, prior to this, another endeavor was initiated—one that aims for an even loftier goal and continues to unfold.
Let’s talk about Zuck‘s rebrand)
Starting with a question. How did the person on the left, turn into the person on the right?
And yes, that’s unfair, one’s a photo of a student (2005) and the other of a multi-billionaire CEO celebrating the 4th of July (2024), but that’s also Zuck in 2023
This rebranding effort appears far from coincidental; it seems to be a meticulously orchestrated campaign, backed by substantial billionaire funding, with features in Forbes, The Verge, and numerous other publications. Such maneuvers are not unprecedented. An article from The New York Times, a publication not typically sympathetic to tech giants, dating back to the height of the metaverse hype in 2021, illustrates this trend. Amanda Hess writes:
Some things, however, have changed. When we first met Zuckerberg, he was a hoodied dorm-room hacker improbably vaulted to power. “The Social Network,” David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin’s 2010 interpretation of Facebook’s founding, pegged him as a socially frustrated nerd with girl problems. But as the company amassed global influence, he began to be seen as a kind of dark online prince, and he labored to restyle himself as a plausible civic leader. He started quoting Abraham Lincoln. His bearing may have been stiff and charmless, but now it was kindly, too, like an android programmed for a custodial role.
I’d wager that part of that rebranding effort is happening for quite some time, with the start (or a significant milestone of it) taking place even earlier, in May 2017, with Zuck’s commencement speech in Harvard. Vox wrote back then:
Zuckerberg gave the commencement address Thursday (May 25th) at Harvard College, the place where he founded Facebook before dropping out, and where he finally returned to receive an honorary degree. The speech felt, at times, very political, and Zuckerberg mentioned a number of social, fiscal and environmental issues that are important to him throughout the address.
However, the Cambridge Analytica scandal in March 2018, followed by Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before the U.S. Congress (as well as the memes), significantly stalled these efforts.
But what is the goal?
A few days ago, a series of emails and other documents were made public as part of the Tennessee vs. Meta case, a lawsuit filed by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti against Meta Platforms, Inc. in October 2023. This disclosure, a hallmark of the U.S. judicial system (take notice, EU countries), shed light on the probable incentives behind Meta's rebranding. These emails offer a glimpse into the perspectives of Mark Zuckerberg and his mentor and super-early Facebook investor Peter Thiel. They reveal their vision for the world in 2030 and outline strategies for positioning Meta and Zuckerberg as a leading and relevant global platform in this new era.
Summarizing those emails, Zuck and Thiel share their thoughts with Clegg about the following:
Core Demographic:
Zuck acknowledges a need for the Meta platforms to define their core demographic more clearly.
Given that the company’s employees and leadership, including Zuckerberg, are Millennials, there is a natural alignment with the interests and needs of this generation.
As employees age and experience different life stages, the company's products are evolving to better serve people in their 30s with children.
Personal and Company Distinction:
Zuck mentions discussions with Peter Thiel about his philanthropy and public appearances, such as his commencement speech, as part of a broader strategy to shape his and the company's public image.
The company is considering how to communicate more effectively with a focus on Millennials and Gen Z, both in terms of messaging and addressing relevant issues.
and the more interesting part, imho:
Generational Shift:
Thiel (mostly) and Zuck expect a significant power shift from Boomers to Millennials and Gen Z by the end of the decade.
They predict that Millennials will increasingly run important societal institutions and anticipate the election of a Millennial president by 2032.
The company aims to align its messaging and policies to appeal to the younger generations, positioning itself on the side of the future.
My main argument is that Zuck’s goal is to become that president and that’s what the whole rebranding effort is about.
lol wut?
Combining the huge branding efforts, with those emails, i suspect we are seeing signs of building the image of Zuck 2.0, backed by resources very rarely amassed in any point of human history. Mark Zuckerberg carefully crafts their image for the last few years and has hired people like Nick Clegg (an ex-Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2015), etc. with their goal being to run for US President.
Why the presidency? I have a few theories. First, it could be seen as the ultimate achievement for a person of Zuckerberg’s (and Thiel’s) ambition. After creating one of the most valuable and influential companies in history, what's the next challenge? Another theory is that the ultimate goal for Zuckerberg and Thiel isn't necessarily to win the election, but to gain substantial political influence, which would significantly benefit Meta's future endeavors and Silicon Valley’s establishment as a core, decision-making player. This includes bolstering SV’s lobbying efforts, stifling competitors (Zuckerberg's recent extensive lobbying against TikTok is a prime example), and advancing their overall business objectives. Even if this theory seems far-fetched, let's entertain it hypothetically. Two critical questions arise: can Zuck become president, and should he?
Can Zuck become president?
A point that Zuck makes about himself is that he is
…. the most well-known person of my generation.
I mean, that’s a bold claim, but not very far from reality, objective as one might be. Zuck was Time’s person of the year in 2010, that’s 14 years ago and he manages to remain relevant until today, despite the platforms he is commanding slowly sliding into irrelevance and the new bets not paying off in a way that could offer immediate gains. Zuck’s also one the world’s richest people, but let’s not forget that Gen Y is not very fond of megayachts (or rich people).
Indeed, going back to the emails, Clegg seems to be agreeing with this point:
In a recent YouGov survey, 70% of US Millennials said they'd vote for socialism. Big Tech – or indeed big anything – is particularly unpopular with Millennials. For Millennials, authenticity, agency, autonomy, idealism, altruism etc. all seem to be top of their list of desirable virtues – for better or worse, they are difficult to reconcile with Silicon Valley these days.
which is a really good point; despite the pervasive daily use of its products, Big Tech remains notably unpopular through younger generations. Silicon Valley's collective mindset often attributes this sentiment to unfavorable media portrayals. However, the more difficult reality to accept is that the media merely echoes the public's desires and perceptions, in line with the startup truism of creating what people want; what the public seems to want are narratives that are critical of Big Tech. This underlying public sentiment is precisely why there are ongoing rebranding effort like 'Little Tech"
So, the media is more or less hostile, but media can be bought. Millenials and Zoomers are more or less hostile, but a huge rebranding, of “the most well-known person of their generation” can go a long way and make Zuck relatable (i’d write “again” but Zuck never was relatable). All in all, I don’t think that Zuck becoming president will be easy; but I think it’s doable.
Should Zuck become president?
Assuming that this is indeed Zuckerberg's and/or Thiel’s intention, the answer to this question depends on the perspective of the one asking. From the standpoint of a global citizen, would the world actually become a better place?
Ultimately, it hinges on whether one trusts the duo. Thiel remains more enigmatic, while Zuckerberg is much more visible. Based on available information, I find it difficult to trust Zuckerberg. He has undeniably proven himself as one of the most remarkable founders-turned-CEOs of all time. His transformation from a 20-year-old creating "Smash or Pass" in a dorm room to a formidable CEO leading one of the world's most valuable companies is truly extraordinary. However, the very traits that enabled him to achieve such remarkable things also raise doubts about his suitability as a leader of the free world. Facebook's troubles are extensively documented (so much that there’s a stand-alone article on Wiki about those), and while Zuckerberg emerges as a bold leader for the platform he created, it is evident and dare I write proven at this point that he is indifferent to the repercussions for the broader world. Adding to the above, there is a deliberate effort to subvert the image of the platform and its CEO without actually addressing the concerns underlying.
An additional aspect of Zuckerberg's potential candidacy is the emerging trend of non-traditional politicians running for office, represented by candidates like Donald Trump, and part of the wider populism saga. Historically, only a handful of U.S. Presidents were not career politicians. Before Trump, there was Ronald Reagan, and before him, Dwight D. Eisenhower. But despite their background, Reagan was an actor who served as president of the Screen Actors Guild and was a war veteran while Eisenhower was a five-star general. In contrast, Zuckerberg has never held an elected position and the crux of the argument, as with Trump, is not merely the lack of political experience but the underlying incentives and motivations; if you haven’t run for office, even representing your fellow students, or tech CEOs, do you really care?
Finally, and in no connection with the above, I’ve seen this poll in another newsletter and I would like to ask you dear reader, what would you do
This is part 1; I hope to conclude with Part 2 and perhaps 3 closing in on November where the American election will take place. I think -and that’s why it takes much of my mental space- that what happens next in the US is going to be pivotal for the world as a whole, no matter where you live. Thanks for taking the time to read this; I’d love to hear your thoughts either as a reply to this email or you can catch me on social media.