29 ms·

Man, is anyone else seriously bummed out by how cynically everyone is viewing this announcement? There's a rich guy who founded an organization, ostensibly wit

• jrcii 11y ago
  Better a 5% chance it does good than a 100% chance it's squandered on bureaucracy and inefficient solutions to problems other tax dollars went to creating.
  • jMyles 11y ago
    I'm surprised this isn't a more popular opinion. Whatever ethical questions may lie in forming a "charity" with an unknown level of veracity, there are also ethical questions in giving the money to an organization that will, without a doubt, surveil, imprison, torture, and murder.
  • username223 11y ago
    > a 100% chance it's squandered on bureaucracy and inefficient solutions to problems other tax dollars went to creating. After all, there's absolutely no chance that you are able to choose people to do thankless tasks upon which your life depends (disposing of sewage, supplying potable water, maintaining roads, ...).
    • thatswrong0 11y ago
      Um those expenditures are absolutely tiny compared to the total of government spending.
      • username223 11y ago
        How many votes do you get toward Zuckerberg's spending?
      • robotresearcher 11y ago
        Which is mostly social security, pensions and the military.
  • learc83 11y ago
    You don't think the American people get at least 5% back in value from every tax dollar collected? Total revenue for the federal government was about $3 trillion in 2014. You don't think that the American people got at least $150 billion in value out of that?
  • Sideloader 11y ago
    Fallacious nonsense like this: "[Tax revenue is]squandered on bureaucracy and inefficient solutions to problems other tax dollars went to creating" ...is today's version of "down with the capitalist dogs; long live the proletariat and glorious socialism!" of eras past. Global capitalism taken to its extreme is an ideology that promotes a massive transfer of power to private individuals and the dismantling of the state. Libertarianism, in other words. Unfortunately, utopian ideologies have a nasty habit of becoming tyrannical dystopias when put into real-world practice. Extreme capitalist ideology paints government as cartoonishly hopeless and inefficient, maybe even evil, run by inept bunglers that steal our money and waste it on paperclips and perks for bureaucrats. The solution, they say, is let private for-profit business take over and watch efficiency skyrocket and costs plummet. Sounds wonderful...except it's a hopelessly naive utopian fantasy (or, depending on your outlook, a scam to transfer even more power and wealth to the world's billionaires). My own view is that unfettered capitalism taken to its logical conclusion will result in a feudal society...or violent revolution.
    • vixen99 11y ago
      As against unfettered socialism which actually did in the USSR.
• yankoff 11y ago
  I think whatever good deed a person do, people like author, will be able to turn it upside down and make it look like a crime. That's just the way they like to see the world.
  • stonogo 11y ago
    That's kind of the point, though: there haven't been any 'good deeds'. Two things have happened so far. One is that an entrepreneur has formed an LLC. The other is he has invited charities to begin sucking up. Both of these things happen all the time. If anything, the fact that anyone has paid him any attention is a sign of optimism, because he certainly hasn't actually done anything with this plan yet.
    • yankoff 11y ago
      Of course, it's been just a couple of days, what did you expect him to achieve?
      • fucking_tragedy 11y ago
        Nothing, but it sure didn't achieve "good deed" status either like your post implied.
• panarky 11y ago
  > Why not wait and see? In other headlines[1], Chick-fil-A switches to antibiotic-free chicken!! Yay, good feelings for Chick-fil-A!! (Fine print - still serving chicken chock full of antibiotics through 2019.) Instead of honoring people and corporations today for ostensibly, possibly, maybe doing something good in the distant future, let's hold the adoration until the time that they actually do it. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/health/chick-fil-a-chicken-antibiotics/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/health/chick-fil-a-chicken-ant...
  • muzakthings 11y ago
    There's nothing wrong with Chick-fil-A selling chicken with antibiotics, and there's nothing wrong with Mark Zuckerburg being clever about how he spends his money. If you don't like Chick-fil-A, don't eat there. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. If you don't like the tax code, lobby Congress or do something about it. But don't blame Zuck for being smart within the confines of the law.
    • banku_brougham 11y ago
      > There's nothing wrong with Chick-fil-A selling chicken with antibiotics... But there is: antibiotic agriculture is breeding bacterial resistance, and imposing huge costs on society in the form of impending epidemics of diseases that we once thought were conquered. "I'm sorry your child is dead from staph."
    • banku_brougham 11y ago
      > There's nothing wrong with Chick-fil-A selling chicken with antibiotics... But there is: antibiotic agriculture is breeding bacterial resistance, and imposing huge costs on society in the form of impending epidemics of diseases that we once thought were conquered. "I'm sorry your child is dead from staph."
    • ricksplat 11y ago
      > If you don't like the tax code, lobby Congress Yeah good luck with that.
• outside1234 11y ago
  The thing is, I think people are starting to see through Mark to his real motivations. The "baby announcement" was clearly written by a PR firm. It just doesn't feel genuine. I want to believe but this does really look like a PR move / "power fund". Here is what genuine sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wug9n5Atk8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wug9n5Atk8c Seriously, after watching that (jump to 3:30 to skip the Stanford rah rah stuff). It is hard to believe that Gates is not all-in on making the world better with this foundation.
  • marcoperaza 11y ago
    Given all of the hostility that's constantly directed at him and Facebook, I don't blame him one bit for running everything through a PR firm. Navigating irrational mobs is part of what PR firms do.
    • kylec 11y ago
      He must have hired a bargain-basement PR firm, too. The best PR firms put out stuff that doesn't seem like it came from a PR firm.
      • CyberDildonics 11y ago
        Pretty much although don't say that here, half the links are basically advertisements wrapped in articles.
    • stephenr 11y ago
      He chose to make a public statement, no one forced him to. Also, the hostility directed at Zuckerberg and Facebook is not "irrational". His company uses the banner of "providing internet access to all" to try to create a stranglehold on how the worlds poorest people get access to information. That's basically Elliot Carver from 007:Tomorrow Never Dies. In case you haven't seen it and the general concept of a single company having such a massive amount of control over access to information doesn't tip you off: Carver is the bad guy in the movie.
    • 11y ago
• peteretep 11y ago
  No more bummed out than by the negativity from the peanut gallery about internet.org.
• mhurron 11y ago
  > Man, is anyone else seriously bummed out by how cynically everyone is viewing this announcement? He's making a big deal to get a lot of publicity out of it. With that alone it's not being done just out of the goodness of his heart.
  • lifeformed 11y ago
    So what? What if Bill Gates revealed on his deathbed that he did all his charity work only for egotistical reasons? So what? Good for him, he gets the ego boost he wants, we get a better world. If Mark Zuckerberg puts his wealth towards the greater good, then that's good, no matter what his reasons are. Why does he get more flack for doing this than for the Walton family giving nothing to charity? If Mark just wanted to avoid taxes, he would've done so quietly. If he's doing it for his own ego, then that's good: it means he is incentivized to be effective in his charity.
    • mhurron 11y ago
      > So what? So I don't trust them.
    • Chathamization 11y ago
      Pablo Escobar donated a ton of money to the community. Should people have just praised him for that, and said that his reasons don't matter, and so what if he was donating largely to ingratiate himself into the community in order to protect himself from authorities? We can't simply ignore a person's motives.
      • umanwizard 11y ago
        You don't need motives to explain why Pablo Escobar was a bad person even if Bill Gates isn't. Pablo Escobar killed loads of people.
• fjfjcjsnd 11y ago
  Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks
  • mattzito 11y ago
    How old was he when he said that? 18? I look back on some of the stuff I said when I was 18 and it was a lot worse than this, and I think I'm a pretty decent guy overall. Big difference between a kid right out of high school and a 30-year old.
    • fjfjcjsnd 11y ago
      While that may be true, he's directly calling people stupid for trusting him. That should give people at least some pause in being optimistic about his intentions.
    • ekianjo 11y ago
      Some people change, and some others don't. Please don't assume bad people all change for the best, because it's rather the exception than the rule.
    • AVTizzle 11y ago
      Exactly. Even to this day, depending on who I'm talking to, I say silly things in private - things that aren't representative of who I am or my intentions in the real world. It's not fair to look at someones private communications and judge them on it. Especially at 18. It's no way to measure a person.
      • pnt12 11y ago
        I get your point, but I can't help but think: we're talking about the importance of privacy regarding the founder and CEO of one of the most privacy invading websites ever. There's some irony there. Not that this means anything - I completely agree with you - but there's something 'funny' about it.
• orionblastar 11y ago
  Lots of rich people have hidden their wealth in non-profits or corporations as foundations to avoid paying taxes on them. It is called a Jackie O Trust because Jackie O was famous for making such an organization and left the money to her children as tax free income after she passed away. Almost every rich family has such a trust in their name. It is a good PR move because it looks like they are giving back the money, when in secret they only give away a small amount of money and keep the rest in investments to hand down to their children at a future date, etc. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-12/how-wal-mart-s-waltons-maintain-their-billionaire-fortune-taxes http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-12/how-wal-ma... http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-09-12/how-to-preserve-a-family-fortune-through-tax-tricks.html http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-09-12/how-to-pres... It is actually using tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes to use such an organization to hide your money in it. He did not found a charity he founded a LLC: http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/not-all-of-mark-zuckerbergs-donation-to-go-to-charity#.cc0JbNRGO http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/not-all-of-mark-zucke... The news media sort of reported it would be a charity but it is not. It is a Jackie O trust. Bill Gates has his own and tried to invest $2B USD in schools: 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/... It failed miserably, test scores did not improve, despite trying to build better and high tech schools with smaller classes and personalized learning for each student. The same thinking that went to build Microsoft can't be used to solve socioeconomic problems because that requires a different type of thinking. Students have problems learning due to poverty, family issues, emotional and psychological issues, and other stuff. Spending the money on better schools does not address any of those problems.
  • Chathamization 11y ago
    Zuckerberg also failed in his $100 million effort to fix Newark's schools. It's funny, because people like Gates and Zuckerberg are pushing the idea of "accountability" - if teachers can't get scores to improve, we need to fire them. Yet when they fail completely to improve things, the notion of accountability suddenly disappears, end the long list of excuses comes out.
• mikeash 11y ago
  Yep, I don't get it. I don't have a particularly good opinion of Facebook, but I can't understand criticizing this charity scheme. Even if it is merely for tax avoidance, so what? That merely places him on the same level as everybody else. (Anybody here intentionally pay more taxes than required?)
  • fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    If the latter is true, are the praise, good feels and reputation points really called for this early on?
    • mikeash 11y ago
      I haven't seen any, but hypothetically speaking, those wouldn't be called for either.
• yarou 11y ago
  If somebody has a pattern of behavior that is unsavory, regardless of their social standing or wealth, we tend to scrutinize that person. The same goes true of Zuck. Remember, this is the guy who not so long ago called his users "dumb fucks". I don't think that criticizing somebody is the same as cynically writing them off. It's not like this guy is a god or something.
• fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Why feel good about this until you see real results? Also, Occam's razor. People have a tendency to be selfish.
  • oldmanjay 11y ago
    Why care at all until the results are in? All speculation is entirely baseless, and all moralizing is basically useless.
  • aninhumer 11y ago
    >Also, Occam's razor. People have a tendency to be selfish. That's not Occam's razor. People being selfish isn't a less complicated hypothesis than their being altruistic, regardless of how likely it is.
  • pgwhalen 11y ago
    Your definition of Occam's razor here seems to be "my opinion makes the most sense to me therefore it is correct."
    • fucking_tragedy 11y ago
      Given the favorable tax system written by people who want to hoard their wealth and when many trusts/charities are just vehicles for securing wealth for founders' families, it is hard to believe anyone acts completely altruistically.
• rdl 11y ago
  It's convinced me that any public interest work like this should be done, if not covertly, at least out of the spotlight. The shitty thing about this is that when Bill Gates (or presumably in the future, Mark Zuckerberg) donates money and interest to a cause, it has value beyond the cash itself.
  • umaguma 11y ago
    Otherwise known as PR. Some clients need it more than others.
• bobbles 11y ago
  Don't forget about all the people that have apparently not ever done their taxes before and think that 'tax deductible' means 'discount' in some weird way.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• dclowd9901 11y ago
  Because that would be a tacit approval of the severe imbalance of power between the haves and have nots. Shit's not right and you can't throw money (especially fake tax evading money) at it to make it go away.
• ryanSrich 11y ago
  Anyone with 45bn to spare should be scrutinized and examined.
• makeitsuckless 11y ago
  Because the lack of credibility of someone who gets his fortune from creating a severely ethically challenged corporation? The benefit of the doubt only applies if there is no evidence either way. We're past that. Sure, we can hope, but there is absolutely zero reason for such naivety to be the default.
• thedevil 11y ago
  I'm seriously bummed. I don't trust Facebook and by extension, Zuckerberg. But what do we lose by supporting this move? He's made charitable efforts at improving the world before, and making an announcement puts pressure to follow through. And so what if it's vain? A person who does a good deed in vain... still did a good deed. It should be encouraged, including through appeals to vanity.
• ACow_Adonis 11y ago
  Because that alternative, that we should simply "hope", or the idea that such should be valued at all irrespective of purely judging such on outcomes, is itself a symptom of a fundamentally sick system overwhelmed with feel good press releases and cynical marketing PR bullshit. I don't generally go around saying: well at least I can "hope" that when I eat this burger it will give me sustenance rather than poisoning and killing me, because the later has a miniscule chance of happening relative to our everyday experience. Indeed, what a sad and desperate situation we would have to be in to say: "eat the burger, and just hope it doesn't kill you". So indeed, needing to "hope" , or pointing out that we should "hope" wouldn't be a good thing. It is itself a symptom of a system whereby the necessity of suggesting that we should hope about a bullshit PR release in fact reveals that what we're talking about is prima facie a bullshit PR release, or at least must be assumed to be given our common experience. Perhaps it is only right that we should not expect or place value on people "hoping", but suggest that we give praise to people, Mr Z or otherwise, when they actually do something, not when they put out a sappy marketing piece about "we're totally gonna do something 'cause luv". Facebook already puts out motherhood statements regarding say, internet access to poor people, that myself and others pretty much deem thinly veiled self-serving bullshit. So if anything, we should be grateful that not everyone is taken in by PR, and just say that if there is any basis to Mr. Z's philanthropic claims, then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when it is forthcoming, he will be given credit.
• aaron695 11y ago
  People are weak. They bring down others to prop themselves up. And simplify the world because it's easier. What would be good is if some sort of forum could filter these simplistic cliches out and push people towards a more productive point of view.
• LBarret 11y ago
  Maybe because his company (like google, etc) has a history of tax avoidance ? And paying tax is the first thing we do as good citizen. Why believe a company like this ? Or the man at his head ? ( He has absolute control over FB so any decision made is under his control/responsibility. )
• Involute 11y ago
  If HE hadn't already been so cynical with his charitable donations, maybe I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, as you suggest. Donating $100 million to the Newark public school system the same week "The Social Network" was released, with nothing to show for it educationally, compels me to suspect this LLC is more about Zuck and his family than the downtrodden or whatever.