Mark Zuckerberg is not beholden to anyone

The argument

The case for ranking Mark Zuckerberg as the most powerful person of all time rests less on the scale of his power than on its lack of constraint. Heads of state and holders of legal power, proponents note, are always beholden to something. Term limits put an expiry date on their authority. Popular support can be withdrawn. Lobby groups and campaign donors extract commitments in exchange for the resources that keep them in office. Legislative bodies exist precisely to implement checks and balances, which means a ruler's decisions can be blocked, revised, or reversed by people the ruler did not choose. Conventional power, on this account, is always held on loan and on terms. Zuckerberg, the argument runs, is subject to none of these. His power stems from Facebook, and the way he holds it matters as much as the fact that he holds it: he owns 18% of the stock while holding 60% of the voting rights. That gap is the whole argument in miniature. Economic ownership and control have been separated, so the ordinary corrective on a company's leadership — shareholders who can outvote its head — cannot operate. A clear majority of the financial interest in the company can disagree with him and still lose every vote. There is no term limit on that position, no electorate that can remove him, and no internal body empowered to overrule him. What follows, proponents argue, is virtually unlimited control of one of the most powerful and profitable corporations on the planet, exercised by one person who answers to no constituency. Other powerful figures have commanded more territory or more force, but each of them governed at the sufferance of somebody who could take it away. Because Mark Zuckerberg is beholden to no one, this position holds, his power is of a kind no earlier figure has enjoyed.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Zuckerberg is not popular. This limits his power in terms of human influence - he has virtually none. He cannot get others to do his bidding. He cannot convert others to his ideology and way of thinking. He cannot alter people’s mindsets or set their political beliefs. Therefore, in human terms, he is virtually powerless. Zuckerberg also has limits to his power. He must behave in accordance with the law. Should the government pass a law to break up his monopoly, he would be powerless overnight. Such a precarious source of power that depends on the approval of the legislative and legal bodies is not compatible with the notion of unlimited power.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Power can be quantified by the influence it has on the minds of others. Zuckerberg has none. [Rejecting P2] The limits to Zuckerberg's power are imposed by the law.

Framing

Power can be measured by the limits imposed on it. Heads of state have severely limited power in real terms. They are beholden to the electorate, campaign donors, large corporations, and the judiciary. Mark Zuckerberg has none of these limitations.