There will always be a tint of 'image bias' I guess. I think upping the numbers to where it's clearly a loss for whoever is donating would tip the scale more t

There will always be a tint of 'image bias' I guess. I think upping the numbers to where it's clearly a loss for whoever is donating would tip the scale more towards the 'good citizen' mark than these token amounts. We'll never know if that works since no one has done it, and probably never will. I'm not trying to call out google in particular, in fact that they even give this amount makes them better than many. These corporate statements about doing things "for the good of humanity" fall kind of flat when they do so little towards it though and I'm not sure why we buy into their marketing. If your mission statement is to advance the species, or even give universal access to information for everyone; why would you sit on $84bn of yearly profit instead of using it to achieve that goal? I know, life isn't as easy as that and I understand the reality of capitalism. It's pie in the sky stuff, and before I'm flamed to death I'm not saying it's feasable and I'm not calling on it to happen, but just for the sake of discussion: am I the only one who thinks the change that apple, google and facebook could make to our species if they just gave 1/2 of their bank accounts would be significant and beneficial to everyone? Would it really make much difference to them if they have 400bn instead of 900bn in the bank? shrug -- I don't have the answers.