> Remember Google's original premise was to do something about 'ads that were destroying the internet' and to 'do no evil'. Well, during that time they did rep

> Remember Google's original premise was to do something about 'ads that were destroying the internet' and to 'do no evil'. Well, during that time they did replace the obnoxious flash/gif ads of the day with unobtrusive text ads, and iirc mostly did no evil. > We ignore the middle aged lady down the street who volunteers at the Salvation Army two days a week about it and doesn't say a peep about it, doesn't put it on her resume. The problem with silent altruism of this sort is that Angelina Jolie donating a few million to some cause will be less effective (in her particular situation) to that cause than Angelina Jolie donating a few million and also running a social media blitz to raise another few million from fans. I understand that as a side effect she might become more popular, which might lead to more lucrative movie contracts, etc. But I wouldn't even begin to be cynical about this until it was pretty conclusively demonstrated that her net benefit (from increased popularity, or whatever) actually exceeded her own interest (e.g. what some despicable televangelists do.)