There are two things that I consider important to keep in mind when discussing this kind of stuff: the issues with celebrity culture, probably best captured in

There are two things that I consider important to keep in mind when discussing this kind of stuff: the issues with celebrity culture, probably best captured in "celebrity is not harmless fun – it’s the lieutenant of exploitation" by George Monbiot, and (criticisms of) Great Man theory and how that highlights the importance of distinguishing the individual from the structural[0][1]. From Monbiot's writing: > Corporation means body; capital means head. But corporate capital has neither head nor body. It is hard for people to attach themselves to a homogenised franchise, owned by a hedge fund whose corporate identity consists of a filing cabinet in Panama City. So the machine needs a mask. It must wear the face of someone we see as often as we see our next-door neighbours. It is pointless to ask what Kim Kardashian does to earn her living; her role is to exist in our minds. By playing our virtual neighbour, she induces a click of recognition on behalf of whatever grey monolith sits behind her this week. Of course, Bill Gates isn't just a nerd-celebrity, he was the actual boss of Microsoft, and as such has a big impact on its culture and vision and all of that. Nevertheless, equating Bill Gates with MS is akin to saying that I am my neocortex while ignoring every other part of my body. With giant companies like MS and Apple, neither Gates nor Jobs were the company. A lot of faceless people steer the whole thing. Which brings us to Great Man theory: > You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him. —  Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology "Bill Gates, head of evil Microsoft", did not happen in a vacuum. Microsoft and its people also enabled him. Now, I'm not saying that Bill Gates should be excused for all the shit that MS did when he was in charge there, but using a person as the personification of a giant company is really "primal", appealing to our tribal instincts. I actually do not think that this is bad! Creating complex social structures by repurposing old instincts is an efficient tactic, since it literally comes naturally to us. However, the risk is that we may not be aware of it. This can make a difference between us using our instincts to our benefits, or being exploited through them. It is important to become aware that individual and structural processes are linked and influence each other greatly, but that they not the same thing. The importance of this can be seen in modern discussions of racism or sexism: people often get defensive because they feel personally attacked when structural problems are raised, because they do not see the distinction. So on this topic: I am much more interested in the structural problems of MS, Apple and the tech industry in general. Debating whether Bill Gates is a villain or a hero is less interesting than looking at what his impact on all of this was, what to learn from that, and what can be done to address current structural issues. [0] http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-friends-2/ http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-friends-2/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory