3 ms·
> Take Bill Gates. 20 years ago he was evil incarnate, his company caught in lying, cheating, corrupting. You have to know this level of hyperbole is baiting G
by dsacco 9y ago
> Take Bill Gates. 20 years ago he was evil incarnate, his company caught in lying, cheating, corrupting.
You have to know this level of hyperbole is baiting Godwin’s Law...
I’ll come right out and say it: I never thought Microsoft’s activity was that bad, and I never really understood the ire that Bill Gates received. I agree it was worth antitrust action, but the way people talked about him and the company has always struck me as self-righteous and hollow. There were just so many worse people and things that it seemed silly in my opinion, and sort of lacking in awareness about the broader context of the country or even the world. In fact I would go so far as to say people carrying on about him like this made it more difficult to take Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior seriously because it stifled honest conversation. If Gates is anything remotely close to “evil incarnate”, then what adjective would you use to describe, I don’t know, Kim Jong Un? Do you see why it’s hard to take your point seriously when your proclamation is that over the top? How can we communicate in good faith if that’s where you’re starting from?
People diminutize the fact that Gates has spent billions of dollars of his own wealth both leading initiatives and helping others along for inarguable good in the world by calling it “PR” - if that’s PR, what isn’t? How can we reasonably and rationally discuss the legitimately impressive humanitarian achievements of the Gates Foundation or Microsoft without you just dismissing it as the machinations of someone hellbent on a quest for power? What satisfies your bar for altruism?! Listening to descriptions of the man, you’d think he was literally burning puppies and kittens alive in the early days of Microsoft while blasting The Imperial March, like some kind of macabre cartoon villain.
Have some perspective. It was an internet browser.
- hutzlibu 9y ago"Have some perspective. It was an internet browser" ... a bit more than that. But also not "literally burning puppies and kittens alive in the early days of Microsoft while blasting The Imperial March" ...
- dsacco 9y agoI agree, it was more than just Internet Explorer. But it was far closer to being just Internet Explorer than it was to Bill Gates being "evil incarnate", for any reasonable definition of that term. The latter isn't even a visible destination from a perspective grounded in reality. More to the point, when people talk about Gates like this, it's both dismissive of his very legitimate philanthropic accomplishments and stifling to any well-reasoned, neutral conversation we could have about Microsoft's legitimate failings. Let's put aside the silliness of dismissing actual philanthropy by complaining that it puts people in a positive light. If I take the parent commenter's thesis at face value, then Bill Gates' philanthropy is a public relations conspiracy designed to get people to forget "how bad he was" in his Microsoft years. Frankly, I can only hope more CEOs become so publicly vilified for anti-competitive practices that they decide they need to start foundations to spend billions of dollars reducing various life threatening diseases by double digit percentages. So yes, you could say I'm willing to look the other way, or at least more fondly, when it comes to Bill's Microsoft years. If his public relations strategy is to make himself look good by doing good, then I don't have anything to complain about. What are we supposed to do, nod to each other and say, "Yes, but let's not forget about how evil his company was in the 80s and 90s..." in a somber tone every time his philanthropic works comes up? It's ridiculous. And most of the vocal proponents of this idea are intellectually insulting, with passive aggressive remarks that accuse people of being shills in a web of lies.