8 ms·
Which is exactly the type of stuff Zuck is talking about here, although in less power-hungry ways. So you're kind of proving @austenallred's point.
by cwe 11y ago
Which is exactly the type of stuff Zuck is talking about here, although in less power-hungry ways. So you're kind of proving @austenallred's point.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI think Zuck is still power hungry, he's just more veiled about it. Everyone with enough power (through money) wants to shape the world in their specific ideal.
- AndrewKemendo 11y agoI'd go one better: "Everyone ... wants to shape the world in their specific ideal." Most people give up on this idea in their mid-20s though or never really believe that they can.
- circlefavshape 11y agoThat's because most people actually can't.
- chc 11y agoIf we define "power-hungry" so broadly that it encompasses merely wanting to make the world a better place, I'm not sure what use the term is anymore.
- bigbugbag 11y agoI sincerely doubt Zucker wants to make the world a better place, else why would he be doing the opposite while making billions out of it ? Usually a billionaire giving his fortune away does it out of vanity, out of guilt, for the tax breaks, out of conviction that their success in business makes them equally expert in solving the world’s problems or last but not least as “legacy” as explained by John Caudwell: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/07/new-philanthropists-wealthy-people http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/07/new-philanthr...
- Veedrac 11y agoI sincerely doubt he thinks he has been doing the opposite.
- reddytowns 11y agoWhat is so awful about Facebook? I mean it's hardly an original idea, and if Facebook never existed, I'm sure that Myspace or Friendster or some hereto unknown company would have taken its place. It's like hating Ford because they make cars, while ignoring all other automobile companies.
- DanBC 11y agoYur analogy makes more sense if Ford make cars that contain cameras and microphones and they monitor everything you say and do and where you go and they send all that information back to the mothership. And they want to build cars for all poor people, but those cars can only travel to certain destinations on certain roads, but Ford making and providing these cars means other organisations who sell bicycles or mopeds or small cars (which provide a lot more freedom) are hampered.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThe problem is "better" is subjective, and its probably preferred that the majority of people determine what better is instead of the small minority of people with billions of dollars. I like the future Bill Gates and Elon Musk want to bring. I do not like the future the Koch Brother's envision.
- jsnathan 11y agoBut would you be in the majority with that? :)
- toomuchtodo 11y agoYes, I'm part of the 7.3 billion people who are not billionaires.
- jsnathan 11y agoSorry I was referring to the second part of your comment. Even if you happen to be in majority with your progressive views, in this instance, there is no guarantee for that generally, especially if we consider the entire global populace.. is what I was trying to point out.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI'd argue 7 billion people can find common ground on what you'd consider "quality of life" for everyone.
- jsnathan 11y agoThat seems counterfactual to me, but that's just my opinion.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoFirst you'll get the one, then the other. Elon Musk and Gates are hardcore egotists. Charles Koch was just trying to live up to his father's expectations. He's stated that his guiding principle is economic consumer surplus. I won't excuse the whole "killer instinct" thing they all have in common. It's just how humans sometimes work. Don't get me wrong - Koch et al is a weird company but there's room for that, too. W.R.T energy I hope you're right but it moves slowly.
- Chathamization 11y agoAgreed. The fact that they're having a big press release about all the awesome stuff they're going to be doing before they've done any of it, heck before they're even ready to say what they're actually going to be doing, is telling. As is naming their initiative after their daughter. It's nice when vanity projects end up helping the masses (and we'll have to wait and see how successful it is at that). However, we shouldn't act like this very public display of wealth (again, before anything is even done) has motives that are so different from, say, giant statues of oneself or giant mausoleums.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lifeformed 11y agoHow is any of that stuff bad, though? Seems like a good trade. You put $45B into improving the world, we'll sing your praises. What's the difference between it being all done in vanity and it being all done in goodwill? It's literally the same thing to the rest of the world, the only difference is some internal chemical state in his brain.
- psykovsky 11y agoExcept he still didn't do a thing besides putting out a press-release. Do you think his real intentions will not shape the way he acts in the future? How can you say it is a good trade when no trade happened yet?
- lifeformed 11y agoYou think he's going to just put a press release out and not actually do it?
- psykovsky 11y agoI still remember what Internet.org was supposed to be and what it turned out to be. The man is an egocentric liar.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoI see more and more that hubris is apparently a deprecated concept.
- AndrewKemendo 11y agoalthough in less power-hungry ways Yes, well that's 100% the distinction. The OP seems to think that the obvious choice is for money to "go to something meaningful" without specifying what "meaningful" actually is. Within this context, that would seem to mean the "meaningful" thing is "greater -good" charity. My point is that more frequently, this type of money go toward direct influence of power like setting up Super PACs, hosting power networks like Sun Valley Conference, establishing think tanks, grants to universities for certain research etc...