17 ms·

Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must

Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a variation of “a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just ‘eccentric.’” I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolutionary programming to craft a utopia. What sane person would sit down and say "You know, when I die, I want to leave the world a chaotic fireball of pain and suffering" in all seriousness? Maybe I'm significantly jaded, but I hope I'm not the only one who finds such a letter a little bit narcissitic, brought to you by the originator of one of the most narcissitic platforms of the modern era, and hosted on that very platform, naturally. >Our generation grew up in classrooms where we all learned the same things at the same pace regardless of our interests or needs. This isn't true at all. "Our" generation grew up with having to work to acquire knowledge. To spend time in the library. To sit down and read. To think. It took time, effort, opportunity, and personal investment - so much of which is no longer a priority now. >The internet is so important that for every 10 people who gain internet access, about one person is lifted out of poverty and about one new job is created. Citation needed. Like, really.

rfrank 11y ago
I personally can't stand this sort of thing because it conflates something personal/intimate with a press release, and that's just kinda gross to me.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Oh for sure, there's a level of intimacy involved that, in a way, acts as a buffer against criticism. To criticise the lovely sentiment would be like pointing out a child making a half-dozen spelling errors in their letter to Santa Claus.
  - rimantas 11y ago
    Except in child case you don't doubt their sincerity. In this case I have doubts was this written by parents or by PR department.
- sevensor 11y ago
  Contrast this with Ta-Nahesi Coates' public, yet deeply personal, Letter to My Son.
- throwaway999888 11y ago
  You're saying that her daughter won't get the warm fuzzies in 20 years time over a PR release veiled as a "future note to our daughter"? Me neither.
  - olewhalehunter 11y ago
    Either way, if Zuckerburg doesn't live up to his promise, his daughter is going to be as schizophrenic as the world her father helped create.
    - overgryphon 11y ago
      Parenting style doesn't cause schizophrenia.
      - olewhalehunter 11y ago
        If your parental style happens to include sexual abuse, yes it does. Whether a parental style consisting of a hyperreal social platform and being the child of the man who created it causes a serious rift in your sense of reality remains to be decided.
      - goldenkey 11y ago
        It causes latent anxiety issues which can cause drug use which can then then increase chance of mental and physical diseases.
      - triangleman 11y ago
        Have you heard of the "double-bind hypothesis"?
ciconia 11y ago
Whether or not the letter is narcissistic, one has to admire their initiative. It is not, unfortunately, the obvious thing to do, and they deserve to be applauded for that. Whatever personal faults the man has, I'd argue this kind of philanthropy more than makes up for it.
- bigbugbag 11y ago
  Well, if you consider the double irish with a dutch sandwich designed to take that money from states (who would use that money to finance stuff such as public services, medical insurance, social welfare,etc.), the market manipulation during the IPO, the spammer methods and a transnational corp whose business is the collection of personal and private data from users while trying to replace the web/internet among other wrongdoings, all to put that money in zucker's hands (and a few others) then it becomes obvious that this has nothing to do with philantropy or altruism, to the contrary it's narcissicism, ego and maybe guilt.
  - olewhalehunter 11y ago
    >to the contrary it's narcissicism, ego and maybe guilt. Lets not kid ourselves here, Zuckerburg probably likes to think he is God, and with his investments into VR also probably sees his daughter as one of last to be born in anything resembling the natural world. To begin to even try to assign any sort of psychological pathology or diagnostics would be futile. We'll have to hope the universe has a way to keep tech monsters like him in check or that he realizes playing neuromancer with the parents of his child's friends destroyed any sense of authenticity in his daughter's life.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  That's fair, but if you notice a great deal of the letter is simply telling the child about the great achievements and dreams of the parents - if there's one thing I've learned the hard way, it's that dreams are easy to put into words and fuckin' hell on wheels to make reality. Philanthropy is a good social construct, for sure. I guess maybe I just have some inherent bias against preaching from atop the mountain of wealth inequality, a position that was obtained through a combination of luck and timing as much as any pure personal willpower and genius.
eellpp 11y ago
> Maybe I'm significantly jaded, but I hope I'm not the only one who finds such a letter a little bit narcissitic, brought to you by the originator of one of the most narcissitic platforms of the modern era, and hosted on that very platform, naturally. This is the problem in expressing your thoughts and feelings with words. The readers would extrapolate the words over all sort of things, rather than the essence to which those words were spoken. Its as if the speaker and his rational is subordinate to the various interpretations of those words. The essence here is that a family here feels obligated to provide a better world for their newborn child. They are using all the means at their disposal for this. And the best part is that instead of keeping it to themselves, they proclaim it the world so that others can even judge on their promises. That is an admiring, inspiring and a courageous thing to do.
vasilipupkin 11y ago
I think many people, me included, get reflexively annoyed by pathos and sanctimony, because so much of it is used to justify just about the most ridiculous actions and theories and ideas. I do, however, think, that in this case, it is possible to be utterly annoyed at the sanctimonious tone, while simultaneously celebrating the fact that so much money will be put to good use
chejazi 11y ago
You're right in that a lot of this is common sense. But I think the strength of the message is in making the implicit, explicit. It's the same reason people suggest "writing things down" rather than letting thoughts/plans live in your head. When times get tough, or things go sideways, you have a manifesto to fall back upon to keep your vision clear and to hold yourself accountable to your original intents.
grp 11y ago
I would like to see the citation too. Joke: in the late 80s, Stasi employed nearly 1 person for 50 people in East Germany. They just say they can do that 5 times better with internet, not impressive in 30 years of technical progress. Give us more!
droopybuns 11y ago
His Charity is so great- that He simultaneously saves the world's poor while providing fodder for season 3 of Silicon Valley.
- amalag 11y ago
  If only he had put something in the letter about how the opening of car doors has improved so much in the last 100 years.
  - askafriend 11y ago
    We've got cars where the doors go ~~like this~~!
Mikeb85 11y ago
The internet does democratize access to information, but part of me thinks that for every job the internet created, Facebook destroys by wasting peoples collective time...
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  "I'm just going to quit my job / school so I can go on Facebook all day!", said no one ever. Ten years ago, few people could boast that they could reach out to hundreds of people all at once; I'd not call that a waste of time.
nathanvanfleet 11y ago
I sounded like a useless thing until he actually pledged the resources to do something. But it does indeed sound crazy, even if it is I hope that it does something positive for the world. In some ways "how can any two people actually have the power to fix so many problems" is somewhat defeated by the fact that these two people have 45 billion dollars and not to mention plenty of influence. There are plenty of people/companies that seem to be working very hard to do make inequality worse so it's nice to hear a powerful figure say that are somewhere from neutral to positive.
- ant6n 11y ago
  It seems kind of strange that those people with this unfathomable multiple of normal people's power and wealth talk about wanting to work towards equality.
bababouy33 11y ago
>Our generation grew up in classrooms where we all learned the same things at the same pace regardless of our interests or needs. What are honors classes? What are remedial classes?
- brbsix 11y ago
  The variety and pace of public schooling is still very consistent when compared to the past practices or current alternatives (e.g. homeschooling, self-study, peer learning, tutelage).
imglorp 11y ago
Does it matter whether or not he's a narcissist or whatever reason why he does it? Or Gates or Buffet do? I say bravo, and am looking forward to the benefits of giga-scale philanthropy.
- Kluny 11y ago
  I dunno - careless philanthropy can cause more damage than the orginal problem.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Are you familiar with the history of the robber barons and their business practices and labor's working conditions in addition to their philanthropy?
ucha 11y ago
Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter. Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  > Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. > If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back. I'm not so sure that's true. The ultra-rich actually donate a huge amount of money. Just last July a Saudi Prince announced he was donating over $30 billion to "philanthropic causes". And back in 2012 a bunch of them pledged to give away "half their wealth." And those are just a couple of the bigger examples I found in 2 minutes of web search. Also, I've never heard of anybody volunteering to pay more taxes. Everybody tries to pay less, so it's silly to fault the rich for doing it just because they're saving more in absolute terms. Link 1: http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation/ http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation... Link 2: http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-billionaires-are-giving-half-of-their-wealth-away-123640/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-bi...
  - knughit 11y ago
    Unfortunately, alQaeda/Daesh is a philanthropic program in House of Saud's point of view.
- fabrice_d 11y ago
  While Facebook is not doing everything it can to evade taxation in many countries, right? And let them choose what to do with the money. Why isn't Zuckerberg pledging to drive his company as a good citizen?
danielrm26 11y ago
Man tries to help the world with his money and he's greeted with criticism.
- bigbugbag 11y ago
  You should not accept such a blatant PR stunt at face value. Why the Rich Give to Charity[1] Some give out of vanity. Some out of guilt. Some for the tax breaks. Some give out of conviction that their success in business makes them equally expert in solving the world’s problems. Yet perhaps the most powerful and common reason why the rich give is the idea most commonly referred to as “legacy.” would you rather be remembered as that guy who build the biggest and meanest personal data collection machine, tracking people, extending global surveillance, pushing to destroy the foundation of the internet and made a fortune out of it (and a little stock trickery), or as the guy who gave most of his billions of money to charity ? [1]:http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/08/why-the-rich-give-to-charity-2/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/08/why-the-rich-give-to-...
  - markyc 11y ago
    so what? if he's really giving 99% of his wealth to charity, and on top of that puts effort into where the money goes and that it's put to good use, why do you care that he's doing that for legacy?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > if he's really giving 99% of his wealth to charity By "charity" he means himself, his own charity foundation. He's basically putting the money in another pocket and calling it charity. It's a tax avoidance scam. Cheaper to give away 10% a year in the guise of charity than actually pay the taxes you'd owe.
- arasmussen 11y ago
  Welcome to Hacker News.
- kuschku 11y ago
GregBuchholz 11y ago
Did someone say narcissist? May I introduce you to: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/ http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/
- dombili 11y ago
  I miss him.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dump100 11y ago
Too me it looks a reasonable. >brought to you by the originator of one of the most narcissitic platforms of the modern era, and hosted on that very platform, naturally. Facebook is only as narcissistic as its user, it is as much about taking part in other peoples activities, by commenting/sharing as it is about personal propaganda. >"Our" generation grew up with having to work to acquire knowledge. To spend time in the library. To sit down and read. You are ignoring difference in quality of library, value of teachers and external stimuli in learning.
imgabe 11y ago
Yeah, he wants to give away tens of billions of dollars to help reduce poverty and fight diseases. What a narcissistic jerk.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  With Mark, saying and doing are two completely different things. Example: "Helping poor people in third world countries get online" turned out to be: "Deceiving poor people in third world countries into using something called 'Internet' that's actually 'Facebook with apps', and depriving them of real online access." That whole thing ended up being an attack on the free and open web. "Share with friends only" is short for "Share with friends and FB employees and PRISM-subscribers while we decide who gets to see what you shared." I could go on for quite some time. Somehow all the "help" he tries to provide ends up increasing his control over other people's lives while disempowering them.
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    Looking forward to your multi-billion dollar donation to combat the evil genius of Mark Zuckerberg
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - meric 11y ago
      The key to refraining from interfering with other's lives is to refrain from interfering with other's lives even that other is trying to interfere with us. Or we would end up just like them. "The means is the end."
  - imgabe 11y ago
    The last time I checked, using Facebook was entirely voluntary. The existence of it takes away nothing. You have everything you had before, and also the option to use Facebook or not. There's nothing disempowering about that.
threeseed 11y ago
> To spend time in the library. To sit down and read. Maybe you need to think more broadly. Not every school had a library. Not every child had the ability to spend substantial amounts of time in the library. And there definitely wasn't the breadth and depth of content we have today especially if you were more advanced in your learning. I grew up in the 1980's and was very interested in learning more about computing. Guess what. 1-2 books. And I was in an pretty affluent, middle class school. It wasn't until I got access to Compuserve that my knowledge grew. > Citation needed. Like, really. Zuckberg was quoting a study from Deloitte: http://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/value-of-connectivity.html http://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/technology-media-and-te...
bertil 11y ago
> for every 10 people who gain internet access, about one person is lifted out of poverty That particular number is… shall we say “often” used by Facebook’s PR? (Another way of expressing that comes to mind, but I'm not sure how to spell 'jackhammer'). The source is presumably the numbers in there: http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-uk-global-economic-impact-of-facebook.pdf http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/t... matched with the corresponding internet adoption in those countries at the same time. The parallel is discutable, expressly so. Full disclosure: I tried and wasn’t able to match those numbers myself (with internal ressources, when I was working for Fb); I would strongly encourage anyone curious to go through the methodology notes: there are many things that deserves to be discussed around equality, literacy, institutional change. Basically, things that are looked at independently by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and the Society for Institutional & Organizational Economics (SIOE, formerly ISNIE). Neither institution have been involved in that estimation as far as I can tell — and they would have tremendous impact on the nuanced understanding of those forces once they do. I believe that Facebook can have a dramatic impact on emerging markets, especially with their advertising platform; I know personally who works on measuring that, and I know it is too early to have a proper macroeconomic estimation — but the impact should be very encouraging: there are many places where you cannot grow your business easily. In the meantime, I would take that argument as: Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook, Internet.org and internet access in general to lift people out of poverty and into jobs. That means that arguments that argue against his efforts that involve negative effects less than a tenth of “being about to feed their family” will seem quaint to him. Measuring all impacts into orders of magnitude like that can seem a heartless exercice to many, but should not feel foreign to a regular reader of HackerNews. On the other hand, this also means that efforts that connect internet technology with finding or creating jobs should have MZ’s undying support (modulo a possible ad fee). What I believe is more interesting are things like: Does Internet favour local commerce or international transactions? (Unclear) Are devices and platform used for business similar to those used for personal transaction? (Apparently, yes.) Will West Africa still be ruled by Mama Benz's, even with widespread adoption the smartphone? (Three forces cannot be stopped in this universe: Death, taxes and Mama Benz's dressing up on Sunday. Samsung better adapt.)
Joof 11y ago
>Citation needed. Like, really. I'm of two minds about this. This is an excellent piece of writing and is extremely persuasive and accomplishes all of it's intended goals. This is very effective writing and may change someone's opinion from emotional calls. It's very human, easy to understand and people flock to it. However; we have seen the constant and repeated abuse of using this style of writing. Advertisements are the most prominent and politics the most dystopian. It's also very easy to convince people that certain things are facts when that may be disputed or outright wrong. So there's a weird question to come out of this: how accurate and cited do we really need our emotional appeals to be? Given the effectiveness of the writing, citations seem completely unnecessary. Given the context (letter to child; although I'm fairly certain it was orignially intended for a broader audience this is what they claim) you would assume it has no need to be entirely factual, but that context is changed now that it's become a public letter. A public piece of writing should ethically cite or have some backing for any statistics they claim (in my opinion). Although overall hacker news' culture would probably say that if you make a decision, it should probably be based on real data. Personally, I think it's a piece of writing meant for a wide audience which in my opinion means they should cite any claims they make in this case. It's easy to mistake it for something else entirely because of how it's written, which is why it appears to get a pass.
orionblastar 11y ago
The same thinking that led to building Facebook or Microsoft or any other technology company won't work for solving socioeconomic issues. Bill Gates tried 5 or so years ago to solve the problem with education with his tax shelter non-profit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/09/how-much-bill-gatess-disappointing-small-schools-effort-really-cost/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/... Test scores showed that everything he did had no effect on the scores or grades of the student. Each school he built had Internet access the latest in technology, special trained teachers, smaller classes, personalized learning, etc. If you ask me the technology can be distracting, I only say so because my son is failing chemistry because he doesn't study enough because he is distracted by Youtube videos and video games. When I was his age I was using a calculator and my father said it was a crutch that I wouldn't be able to do math in my head, and he was correct on that. I could only do math on paper because that was the way they taught us. I have to use a calculator to do math, and the technology distracted me from learning how to do math in my head.
samuelgrittner 11y ago
I found it off putting how he used his daughter's birth as a PR opportunity for his philanthropy. Those events are totally unrelated but he used one to supercharge PR for the other. My opinion on philanthropy is that if you're not doing it anonymously then you're doing it more for yourself than for the cause. It becomes just another status symbol (I'm more good than you because look at that news headline of how much I donated).
- knughit 11y ago
  Non-anonymous philanthropy is important because it establishes a culture that encourages others to donate as well.
joeguilmette 11y ago
I can't say I'm surprised to see the mental gymnastics that 'the internet' is willing to engage in to cynically criticize such a massive donation and doe-eyed optimism. To paraphrase some guy on Twitter, Zuckerberg's letter is like a control in the way it measures the baseline meanness of the internet. That would be you, 6stringmerc.
teekert 11y ago
Well, regardless of its accuracy it perfectly matches the sentiments I felt at the birth of my son. The emotions I felt were be deep, vitalizing, positive and made me want to fight to make the perfect world for him. If anything it shows Mark and his wife to be normal human beings. They just happen to be rich, famous and successful and so their message carries a bit farther. I hope they keep their motivation and enjoy their new feelings for as long as possible. The world can very well use these emotions, at any time.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
It wouldn't be HN without this being the top response to one of the richest people in the world announcing an intent to dedicate 99 percent of their wealth to the betterment of humanity. If you can't respond positively to this announcement, you really should step back and do some serious self-examination.
lukevdp 11y ago
So if giving away $45billion for the betterment of the human race isn't enough, what does someone have to do to impress you?
theampersand 11y ago
I understand your sentiment, but I would hesitate just a moment to judge it so quickly. It's hard to look at this sort of statement, especially when it's posted on Facebook. The source of 'Like this posts to do XYZ' or '#KonyIsABadGuy'. But really, the ideals that they strive for seem to build on those that have formed the foundation of our very society. The equality and advancement of mankind. In many ways, this seems no different than what Jefferson or Franklin had in mind.

rfrank 11y ago

I personally can't stand this sort of thing because it conflates something personal/intimate with a press release, and that's just kinda gross to me.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Oh for sure, there's a level of intimacy involved that, in a way, acts as a buffer against criticism. To criticise the lovely sentiment would be like pointing out a child making a half-dozen spelling errors in their letter to Santa Claus.
- rimantas 11y ago
  Except in child case you don't doubt their sincerity. In this case I have doubts was this written by parents or by PR department.
sevensor 11y ago
Contrast this with Ta-Nahesi Coates' public, yet deeply personal, Letter to My Son.
throwaway999888 11y ago
You're saying that her daughter won't get the warm fuzzies in 20 years time over a PR release veiled as a "future note to our daughter"? Me neither.
- olewhalehunter 11y ago
  Either way, if Zuckerburg doesn't live up to his promise, his daughter is going to be as schizophrenic as the world her father helped create.
  - overgryphon 11y ago
    Parenting style doesn't cause schizophrenia.
    - olewhalehunter 11y ago
      If your parental style happens to include sexual abuse, yes it does. Whether a parental style consisting of a hyperreal social platform and being the child of the man who created it causes a serious rift in your sense of reality remains to be decided.
    - goldenkey 11y ago
      It causes latent anxiety issues which can cause drug use which can then then increase chance of mental and physical diseases.
    - triangleman 11y ago
      Have you heard of the "double-bind hypothesis"?

ciconia 11y ago

Whether or not the letter is narcissistic, one has to admire their initiative. It is not, unfortunately, the obvious thing to do, and they deserve to be applauded for that. Whatever personal faults the man has, I'd argue this kind of philanthropy more than makes up for it.

bigbugbag 11y ago
Well, if you consider the double irish with a dutch sandwich designed to take that money from states (who would use that money to finance stuff such as public services, medical insurance, social welfare,etc.), the market manipulation during the IPO, the spammer methods and a transnational corp whose business is the collection of personal and private data from users while trying to replace the web/internet among other wrongdoings, all to put that money in zucker's hands (and a few others) then it becomes obvious that this has nothing to do with philantropy or altruism, to the contrary it's narcissicism, ego and maybe guilt.
- olewhalehunter 11y ago
  >to the contrary it's narcissicism, ego and maybe guilt. Lets not kid ourselves here, Zuckerburg probably likes to think he is God, and with his investments into VR also probably sees his daughter as one of last to be born in anything resembling the natural world. To begin to even try to assign any sort of psychological pathology or diagnostics would be futile. We'll have to hope the universe has a way to keep tech monsters like him in check or that he realizes playing neuromancer with the parents of his child's friends destroyed any sense of authenticity in his daughter's life.
6stringmerc 11y ago
That's fair, but if you notice a great deal of the letter is simply telling the child about the great achievements and dreams of the parents - if there's one thing I've learned the hard way, it's that dreams are easy to put into words and fuckin' hell on wheels to make reality. Philanthropy is a good social construct, for sure. I guess maybe I just have some inherent bias against preaching from atop the mountain of wealth inequality, a position that was obtained through a combination of luck and timing as much as any pure personal willpower and genius.

eellpp 11y ago

> Maybe I'm significantly jaded, but I hope I'm not the only one who finds such a letter a little bit narcissitic, brought to you by the originator of one of the most narcissitic platforms of the modern era, and hosted on that very platform, naturally. This is the problem in expressing your thoughts and feelings with words. The readers would extrapolate the words over all sort of things, rather than the essence to which those words were spoken. Its as if the speaker and his rational is subordinate to the various interpretations of those words. The essence here is that a family here feels obligated to provide a better world for their newborn child. They are using all the means at their disposal for this. And the best part is that instead of keeping it to themselves, they proclaim it the world so that others can even judge on their promises. That is an admiring, inspiring and a courageous thing to do.

vasilipupkin 11y ago

I think many people, me included, get reflexively annoyed by pathos and sanctimony, because so much of it is used to justify just about the most ridiculous actions and theories and ideas. I do, however, think, that in this case, it is possible to be utterly annoyed at the sanctimonious tone, while simultaneously celebrating the fact that so much money will be put to good use

chejazi 11y ago

You're right in that a lot of this is common sense. But I think the strength of the message is in making the implicit, explicit. It's the same reason people suggest "writing things down" rather than letting thoughts/plans live in your head. When times get tough, or things go sideways, you have a manifesto to fall back upon to keep your vision clear and to hold yourself accountable to your original intents.

grp 11y ago

I would like to see the citation too. Joke: in the late 80s, Stasi employed nearly 1 person for 50 people in East Germany. They just say they can do that 5 times better with internet, not impressive in 30 years of technical progress. Give us more!

droopybuns 11y ago

His Charity is so great- that He simultaneously saves the world's poor while providing fodder for season 3 of Silicon Valley.

amalag 11y ago
If only he had put something in the letter about how the opening of car doors has improved so much in the last 100 years.
- askafriend 11y ago
  We've got cars where the doors go ~~like this~~!

Mikeb85 11y ago

The internet does democratize access to information, but part of me thinks that for every job the internet created, Facebook destroys by wasting peoples collective time...

Cthulhu_ 11y ago
"I'm just going to quit my job / school so I can go on Facebook all day!", said no one ever. Ten years ago, few people could boast that they could reach out to hundreds of people all at once; I'd not call that a waste of time.

nathanvanfleet 11y ago

I sounded like a useless thing until he actually pledged the resources to do something. But it does indeed sound crazy, even if it is I hope that it does something positive for the world. In some ways "how can any two people actually have the power to fix so many problems" is somewhat defeated by the fact that these two people have 45 billion dollars and not to mention plenty of influence. There are plenty of people/companies that seem to be working very hard to do make inequality worse so it's nice to hear a powerful figure say that are somewhere from neutral to positive.

ant6n 11y ago
It seems kind of strange that those people with this unfathomable multiple of normal people's power and wealth talk about wanting to work towards equality.

bababouy33 11y ago

>Our generation grew up in classrooms where we all learned the same things at the same pace regardless of our interests or needs. What are honors classes? What are remedial classes?

brbsix 11y ago
The variety and pace of public schooling is still very consistent when compared to the past practices or current alternatives (e.g. homeschooling, self-study, peer learning, tutelage).

imglorp 11y ago

Does it matter whether or not he's a narcissist or whatever reason why he does it? Or Gates or Buffet do? I say bravo, and am looking forward to the benefits of giga-scale philanthropy.

Kluny 11y ago
I dunno - careless philanthropy can cause more damage than the orginal problem.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Are you familiar with the history of the robber barons and their business practices and labor's working conditions in addition to their philanthropy?

ucha 11y ago

Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter. Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back.

jlarocco 11y ago
> Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. > If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back. I'm not so sure that's true. The ultra-rich actually donate a huge amount of money. Just last July a Saudi Prince announced he was donating over $30 billion to "philanthropic causes". And back in 2012 a bunch of them pledged to give away "half their wealth." And those are just a couple of the bigger examples I found in 2 minutes of web search. Also, I've never heard of anybody volunteering to pay more taxes. Everybody tries to pay less, so it's silly to fault the rich for doing it just because they're saving more in absolute terms. Link 1: http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation/ http://fortune.com/2015/07/01/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donation... Link 2: http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-billionaires-are-giving-half-of-their-wealth-away-123640/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-125-philanthropist-bi...
- knughit 11y ago
  Unfortunately, alQaeda/Daesh is a philanthropic program in House of Saud's point of view.
fabrice_d 11y ago
While Facebook is not doing everything it can to evade taxation in many countries, right? And let them choose what to do with the money. Why isn't Zuckerberg pledging to drive his company as a good citizen?

danielrm26 11y ago

Man tries to help the world with his money and he's greeted with criticism.

bigbugbag 11y ago
You should not accept such a blatant PR stunt at face value. Why the Rich Give to Charity[1] Some give out of vanity. Some out of guilt. Some for the tax breaks. Some give out of conviction that their success in business makes them equally expert in solving the world’s problems. Yet perhaps the most powerful and common reason why the rich give is the idea most commonly referred to as “legacy.” would you rather be remembered as that guy who build the biggest and meanest personal data collection machine, tracking people, extending global surveillance, pushing to destroy the foundation of the internet and made a fortune out of it (and a little stock trickery), or as the guy who gave most of his billions of money to charity ? [1]:http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/08/why-the-rich-give-to-charity-2/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/08/why-the-rich-give-to-...
- markyc 11y ago
  so what? if he's really giving 99% of his wealth to charity, and on top of that puts effort into where the money goes and that it's put to good use, why do you care that he's doing that for legacy?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > if he's really giving 99% of his wealth to charity By "charity" he means himself, his own charity foundation. He's basically putting the money in another pocket and calling it charity. It's a tax avoidance scam. Cheaper to give away 10% a year in the guise of charity than actually pay the taxes you'd owe.
arasmussen 11y ago
Welcome to Hacker News.
kuschku 11y ago

GregBuchholz 11y ago

Did someone say narcissist? May I introduce you to: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/ http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

dombili 11y ago
I miss him.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dump100 11y ago

Too me it looks a reasonable. >brought to you by the originator of one of the most narcissitic platforms of the modern era, and hosted on that very platform, naturally. Facebook is only as narcissistic as its user, it is as much about taking part in other peoples activities, by commenting/sharing as it is about personal propaganda. >"Our" generation grew up with having to work to acquire knowledge. To spend time in the library. To sit down and read. You are ignoring difference in quality of library, value of teachers and external stimuli in learning.

imgabe 11y ago

Yeah, he wants to give away tens of billions of dollars to help reduce poverty and fight diseases. What a narcissistic jerk.

itistoday2 11y ago
With Mark, saying and doing are two completely different things. Example: "Helping poor people in third world countries get online" turned out to be: "Deceiving poor people in third world countries into using something called 'Internet' that's actually 'Facebook with apps', and depriving them of real online access." That whole thing ended up being an attack on the free and open web. "Share with friends only" is short for "Share with friends and FB employees and PRISM-subscribers while we decide who gets to see what you shared." I could go on for quite some time. Somehow all the "help" he tries to provide ends up increasing his control over other people's lives while disempowering them.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  Looking forward to your multi-billion dollar donation to combat the evil genius of Mark Zuckerberg
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - meric 11y ago
    The key to refraining from interfering with other's lives is to refrain from interfering with other's lives even that other is trying to interfere with us. Or we would end up just like them. "The means is the end."
- imgabe 11y ago
  The last time I checked, using Facebook was entirely voluntary. The existence of it takes away nothing. You have everything you had before, and also the option to use Facebook or not. There's nothing disempowering about that.

threeseed 11y ago

> To spend time in the library. To sit down and read. Maybe you need to think more broadly. Not every school had a library. Not every child had the ability to spend substantial amounts of time in the library. And there definitely wasn't the breadth and depth of content we have today especially if you were more advanced in your learning. I grew up in the 1980's and was very interested in learning more about computing. Guess what. 1-2 books. And I was in an pretty affluent, middle class school. It wasn't until I got access to Compuserve that my knowledge grew. > Citation needed. Like, really. Zuckberg was quoting a study from Deloitte: http://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/value-of-connectivity.html http://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/technology-media-and-te...

bertil 11y ago

> for every 10 people who gain internet access, about one person is lifted out of poverty That particular number is… shall we say “often” used by Facebook’s PR? (Another way of expressing that comes to mind, but I'm not sure how to spell 'jackhammer'). The source is presumably the numbers in there: http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-uk-global-economic-impact-of-facebook.pdf http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/t... matched with the corresponding internet adoption in those countries at the same time. The parallel is discutable, expressly so. Full disclosure: I tried and wasn’t able to match those numbers myself (with internal ressources, when I was working for Fb); I would strongly encourage anyone curious to go through the methodology notes: there are many things that deserves to be discussed around equality, literacy, institutional change. Basically, things that are looked at independently by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and the Society for Institutional & Organizational Economics (SIOE, formerly ISNIE). Neither institution have been involved in that estimation as far as I can tell — and they would have tremendous impact on the nuanced understanding of those forces once they do. I believe that Facebook can have a dramatic impact on emerging markets, especially with their advertising platform; I know personally who works on measuring that, and I know it is too early to have a proper macroeconomic estimation — but the impact should be very encouraging: there are many places where you cannot grow your business easily. In the meantime, I would take that argument as: Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook, Internet.org and internet access in general to lift people out of poverty and into jobs. That means that arguments that argue against his efforts that involve negative effects less than a tenth of “being about to feed their family” will seem quaint to him. Measuring all impacts into orders of magnitude like that can seem a heartless exercice to many, but should not feel foreign to a regular reader of HackerNews. On the other hand, this also means that efforts that connect internet technology with finding or creating jobs should have MZ’s undying support (modulo a possible ad fee). What I believe is more interesting are things like: Does Internet favour local commerce or international transactions? (Unclear) Are devices and platform used for business similar to those used for personal transaction? (Apparently, yes.) Will West Africa still be ruled by Mama Benz's, even with widespread adoption the smartphone? (Three forces cannot be stopped in this universe: Death, taxes and Mama Benz's dressing up on Sunday. Samsung better adapt.)

Joof 11y ago

>Citation needed. Like, really. I'm of two minds about this. This is an excellent piece of writing and is extremely persuasive and accomplishes all of it's intended goals. This is very effective writing and may change someone's opinion from emotional calls. It's very human, easy to understand and people flock to it. However; we have seen the constant and repeated abuse of using this style of writing. Advertisements are the most prominent and politics the most dystopian. It's also very easy to convince people that certain things are facts when that may be disputed or outright wrong. So there's a weird question to come out of this: how accurate and cited do we really need our emotional appeals to be? Given the effectiveness of the writing, citations seem completely unnecessary. Given the context (letter to child; although I'm fairly certain it was orignially intended for a broader audience this is what they claim) you would assume it has no need to be entirely factual, but that context is changed now that it's become a public letter. A public piece of writing should ethically cite or have some backing for any statistics they claim (in my opinion). Although overall hacker news' culture would probably say that if you make a decision, it should probably be based on real data. Personally, I think it's a piece of writing meant for a wide audience which in my opinion means they should cite any claims they make in this case. It's easy to mistake it for something else entirely because of how it's written, which is why it appears to get a pass.

orionblastar 11y ago

The same thinking that led to building Facebook or Microsoft or any other technology company won't work for solving socioeconomic issues. Bill Gates tried 5 or so years ago to solve the problem with education with his tax shelter non-profit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/09/how-much-bill-gatess-disappointing-small-schools-effort-really-cost/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/... Test scores showed that everything he did had no effect on the scores or grades of the student. Each school he built had Internet access the latest in technology, special trained teachers, smaller classes, personalized learning, etc. If you ask me the technology can be distracting, I only say so because my son is failing chemistry because he doesn't study enough because he is distracted by Youtube videos and video games. When I was his age I was using a calculator and my father said it was a crutch that I wouldn't be able to do math in my head, and he was correct on that. I could only do math on paper because that was the way they taught us. I have to use a calculator to do math, and the technology distracted me from learning how to do math in my head.

samuelgrittner 11y ago

I found it off putting how he used his daughter's birth as a PR opportunity for his philanthropy. Those events are totally unrelated but he used one to supercharge PR for the other. My opinion on philanthropy is that if you're not doing it anonymously then you're doing it more for yourself than for the cause. It becomes just another status symbol (I'm more good than you because look at that news headline of how much I donated).

knughit 11y ago
Non-anonymous philanthropy is important because it establishes a culture that encourages others to donate as well.

joeguilmette 11y ago

I can't say I'm surprised to see the mental gymnastics that 'the internet' is willing to engage in to cynically criticize such a massive donation and doe-eyed optimism. To paraphrase some guy on Twitter, Zuckerberg's letter is like a control in the way it measures the baseline meanness of the internet. That would be you, 6stringmerc.

teekert 11y ago

Well, regardless of its accuracy it perfectly matches the sentiments I felt at the birth of my son. The emotions I felt were be deep, vitalizing, positive and made me want to fight to make the perfect world for him. If anything it shows Mark and his wife to be normal human beings. They just happen to be rich, famous and successful and so their message carries a bit farther. I hope they keep their motivation and enjoy their new feelings for as long as possible. The world can very well use these emotions, at any time.

waterlesscloud 11y ago

It wouldn't be HN without this being the top response to one of the richest people in the world announcing an intent to dedicate 99 percent of their wealth to the betterment of humanity. If you can't respond positively to this announcement, you really should step back and do some serious self-examination.

lukevdp 11y ago

So if giving away $45billion for the betterment of the human race isn't enough, what does someone have to do to impress you?

theampersand 11y ago

I understand your sentiment, but I would hesitate just a moment to judge it so quickly. It's hard to look at this sort of statement, especially when it's posted on Facebook. The source of 'Like this posts to do XYZ' or '#KonyIsABadGuy'. But really, the ideals that they strive for seem to build on those that have formed the foundation of our very society. The equality and advancement of mankind. In many ways, this seems no different than what Jefferson or Franklin had in mind.