Unlike past eras, tech leaders are constantly on stage or social media. Swisher argues this isn't just ego; it's a strategic necessity born from tech's deep entanglement with politics since the Trump administration, forcing them to constantly perform and grasp for power and influence.
Related Insights
The dynamic between tech and government is not a simple decline but a cycle of alignment (post-WWII), hostility (2000s-2010s), and a recent return to collaboration. This "back to the future" trend is driven by geopolitical needs and cultural shifts, suggesting the current alignment is a return to a historical norm.
Powerful figures like Trump and Musk strategically deploy headline-grabbing announcements as 'weapons of mass distraction.' This is not random behavior but a calculated tactic to divert public and media attention away from core weaknesses, whether it's a political scandal (Epstein) or a flawed business model (Tesla as just a car company).
The fastest path to generating immense wealth is shifting from pure innovation to achieving regulatory capture via proximity to the president. This strategy is designed to influence policy, secure government contracts, or even acquire state-seized assets like TikTok at a steep discount, representing a new form of crony capitalism.
Pressuring individuals or brands to speak on every current event is counterproductive. This external demand often leads to 'performative activism'—watered-down, disingenuous statements made out of obligation, not conviction. True impact comes from speaking on issues one genuinely cares about and understands.
Critical media narratives targeting experienced tech leaders in government aim to intimidate future experts from public service. By framing deep industry experience as an inherent conflict of interest, these stories create a vacuum filled by less-qualified academics and career politicians, ultimately harming the quality of policymaking.
Mark Zuckerberg's evolution from a highly media-trained, scripted persona to an authentic public figure shows that the old playbook of message control is dead. The market now rewards leaders who are transparent and genuine ("this is me, deal with it"), even if they are less polished. Synthetically generated authenticity is easily spotted and rejected.
The line between irony and sincerity online has dissolved, creating a culture of "kayfabe"—maintaining a fictional persona. It's difficult to tell if polarizing figures are genuine or playing a character, and their audience often engages without caring about the distinction, prioritizing the meta-narrative over reality.
Meta and Google recently announced massive, separate commitments to US infrastructure and jobs on the same day. This coordinated effort appears to be a clear PR strategy to proactively counter the rising public backlash against AI's perceived threats to employment and the environment.
The nature of marketing has shifted from promoting a faceless corporation to showcasing an authentic founder personality. Companies without an interesting character at the helm are at a disadvantage. This requires leaders to be public figures, as their personal brand, story, and voice are now integral to the company's identity and success.
The worship of founders like Mark Zuckerberg leads to a lack of internal pushback on massive, ill-conceived bets. Swisher points to the billions spent on the metaverse as a mistake made on an "awesome scale" because no one around the founder was empowered to challenge the idea.