The President of the US indisputably has more destructive power than the CEO of Facebook, but the ability to kill people is not the only measure of power. And, how would the President shut down Facebook in an instant? The US President's powers are highly constrained, as many of them have complained about.
I'd like a better understanding of your viewpoint.
What actions do you think Zuck could take which would demonstrate that he has more power than Trump?
And, why do you raise the hypothetical of Trump shutting down Facebook? In particular, it's my understanding that many of Trump's foes are blaming FB for his win.
I only raise the point about "Trump shutting down Facebook" in response to the comment "Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant." It simply isn't true. The President of the United States often can't even get the legislative platform that they ran on through Congress. I don't see any way they can shut down a major US corporation in an instant, unless with the cooperation of dozens of different parties within the government. The power of the US presidency is staggering and fairly unconstrained when it comes to killing millions of people with nuclear and conventional weapons. It's pretty constrained in every other arena.
As to actions that Zuck could take to show that he has more power than the POTUS? As I mentioned, constructive power and destructive power are of different natures, so that the power of an artist building a great sculpture is not really comparable to the power to smash that sculpture with a hammer.
Power depends on a great many things. The form in which it's expressed, the interactions through which it's transmitted, the cost and refraction period before it can be re-used, all matter.
Nukes are indeed powerful, but media organs have started wars before.
History is your guide, the tactics have not fundamentally changed. The process isn't certain, and, as in many cases, the principle ingredient is disinhibition, recklessness, or ignorance.
And if not Zuckerberg, the next new-media mogul to hold the attention of a few billion eyeballs. More, I might add, than any media empire in history.
I'm not sure that's relevant here. The only way that flies is if the armed forces are deployed against the companies in question, something that is expressly forbidden in federal law. (And if that ever becomes an issue, the USA as we know it has already ceased to exist)
What? No. I was saying that bringing the armed forces into the discussion is, at best, a non sequitur since their use is A. illegal, and B. implies the rest of the system is trashed enough for it to not matter anymore should they be used.
Opinion manipulation is a powerful thing. Something that, in this country, won't be fought with guns.
