4 ms·

He gave away, or atleast appeared to give, 99% of his wealth away. I can think of better PR stunts for much less money. He is still a net positive person for me

He gave away, or atleast appeared to give, 99% of his wealth away. I can think of better PR stunts for much less money. He is still a net positive person for me, who inspires me more than most others.

o0-0o 10y ago
He gave his own facebook stock to his own charity. If you've ever owned a corporation, you know just how cynical, contriving, and conceitful that move is.
- type0 10y ago
  Was it a real charity or non-profit e.g. fund?
  - dikiaap 10y ago
    Should be
- stepanhruda 10y ago
  If you're giving away so many billion, you might as well oversee yourself how they are going to be spent. What sketchiness do you see here? It was already his money.
  - lossolo 10y ago
    He still could oversee it in non-profit organization. This is not an argument at all.
    - stepanhruda 10y ago
      Non-profits are regulated so it's transparent what they do with the money other people give them. In this case, it's Mark's own money. Even if he executed the sketchiest imaginable scheme, he's only wasting his own money. He is free to start a commercial company with it instead, but he decided the goal should be to do some good. The time this will become a problem is the second the company accepts money from other people. Then I will join in picking up pitchforks.
- dang 10y ago
  That's a generically cynical statement that you don't seem to have any specific basis for. In such cases, for HN purposes you should practice the Principle of Charity and err on the side of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It won't affect Zuckerberg much, but it will make this community better.
  - k__ 10y ago
    Well, some people believe in charity, some in socialism. I'm more for a democratic guided way to spend money beneficial, than one rich person deciding what needs to be done with it.
    - dang 10y ago
      "Charity" here doesn't refer to philanthropy, but to the principle of responding to the strongest plausible version of an argument: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html. We're likely going to add this principle to HN's site guidelines.
      - k__ 10y ago
        Ah, sorry. "Charity" was used as "Philanthropy" in the parent post.
        dang 10y ago
        No worries; it's a confusing name and I forgot to include the link which I usually do when I mention it.
  - khm 10y ago
    You'll find instead that it will turn any community into an echo chamber. This sort of tone policing accomplishes nothing but belittling differing viewpoints and alienating users who may (publically or privately) disagree with charitable interpretations. When the dust clears, you'll have a harmonious web forum -- in which no information is exchanged.

o0-0o 10y ago

He gave his own facebook stock to his own charity. If you've ever owned a corporation, you know just how cynical, contriving, and conceitful that move is.

type0 10y ago
Was it a real charity or non-profit e.g. fund?
- dikiaap 10y ago
  Should be
stepanhruda 10y ago
If you're giving away so many billion, you might as well oversee yourself how they are going to be spent. What sketchiness do you see here? It was already his money.
- lossolo 10y ago
  He still could oversee it in non-profit organization. This is not an argument at all.
  - stepanhruda 10y ago
    Non-profits are regulated so it's transparent what they do with the money other people give them. In this case, it's Mark's own money. Even if he executed the sketchiest imaginable scheme, he's only wasting his own money. He is free to start a commercial company with it instead, but he decided the goal should be to do some good. The time this will become a problem is the second the company accepts money from other people. Then I will join in picking up pitchforks.
dang 10y ago
That's a generically cynical statement that you don't seem to have any specific basis for. In such cases, for HN purposes you should practice the Principle of Charity and err on the side of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It won't affect Zuckerberg much, but it will make this community better.
- k__ 10y ago
  Well, some people believe in charity, some in socialism. I'm more for a democratic guided way to spend money beneficial, than one rich person deciding what needs to be done with it.
  - dang 10y ago
    "Charity" here doesn't refer to philanthropy, but to the principle of responding to the strongest plausible version of an argument: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html. We're likely going to add this principle to HN's site guidelines.
    - k__ 10y ago
      Ah, sorry. "Charity" was used as "Philanthropy" in the parent post.
      - dang 10y ago
        No worries; it's a confusing name and I forgot to include the link which I usually do when I mention it.
- khm 10y ago
  You'll find instead that it will turn any community into an echo chamber. This sort of tone policing accomplishes nothing but belittling differing viewpoints and alienating users who may (publically or privately) disagree with charitable interpretations. When the dust clears, you'll have a harmonious web forum -- in which no information is exchanged.