5 ms·

What is being rewritten exactly? I don't see where they are claiming Microsoft didn't happen.

by Reedx 7y ago

tempsy 7y ago
I’m commenting on OP’s respect for someone using his money and influence to release a documentary where he writes off that one time he broke the law to crush his competitors as “secondary” to his charitable work. It’s especially interesting since we’re becoming acutely aware of how the rich regularly wash their reputations through charitable work e.g. Epstein and the Sacklers. Only the wealthy get to influence the public perception of their legacy. I don’t understand what is so admirable about that.
- CriticalCathed 7y ago
  Most people don't have a public perception to need to influence at all, so I don't think it's a fair comparison or criticism. I'm sure if you were a public figure you'd spend a minimum of effort to make sure you were perceived as you thought you should be.
  - tempsy 7y ago
    I’m not critiquing Bill Gates’s decision to influence the public’s perception of his legacy. I’m commenting on how absurd it is to consume what can be considered propaganda and seem to come out the other side with more “respect” for the subject without the awareness that the whole point of the “documentary” was to do exactly that.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Many of the things that he is doing also have huge political implications. From the U.S. that isn't obvious. Some wealthy guy can dole out cash but the system is stable, so that is fine. Outside of the U.S. the opposite is true. Wealthy guy comes in and starts handing out cash, and that occurs within a political context (which is often the issue: these places often don't lack money or tech, what they lack is stable politics). Even something as simple as building hospital or a library is huge politically (i.e. what contractors and suppliers you choose). Given Gates' record for disregarding law, there should definitely be far greater oversight from home governments. One cautionary tale is Soros in Russia: he believed, even after he worked out that Yeltsin was horribly corrupt, that he could keep donating to "neutral" causes...this turned out to be quite wrong (as Soros has admitted). And Soros is many times smarter than Gates about these issues, and at that time was choosing donations personally (I have not heard great things about the "disciples" that Gates has on the ground). Again, this is really something that Gates should not be in a position to do. You can't just outsource foreign policy to wealthy people.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    There are big implications inside the US too. Gates favors large-scale privatization of American public schools and de-professionalization of schoolteachers, and his “philanthropy” is actively harmful to US students. Public policy should be decided by the public, not by the whims of unaccountable billionaires, however pure their intentions might be.
    - hogFeast 7y ago
      But the point is that if you do that within the U.S. that occurs within a stable policy context. I accept the idea that this spending feels uncontrolled. Education policy is one area where you see this kind of activity because power is often local and fragmented which makes it easier to control. But there is still a relatively stable context with good oversight. Imagine that occurring but there is no oversight: no teacher unions, no state govts, no opposition govt, no media, no oversight or reporting of meetings with NGOs, no reporting of donations, and (potentially) some level of govt that is captive. And it doesn't need to be about Gates aiming to influence public policy directly. But actions that seem neutral, building a school or providing vaccinations, often occur in a political context (Mugabe was notorious for controlling the provision of aid around elections).
  - cromwellian 7y ago
    Rather than make abstract accusations that are theoretical, perhaps you could be specific. Gates has donated a lot to basic health, vaccination, malaria, clean water. Saying that some of it might be siphoned away by corrupt locals doesn’t remove any good done. The same is true of internationally run NGOs, the WHO, UN, USAID, etc the locals get some power and capital siphoned from the system. But there is no system that can be free of fraud or corruption, so unless you can point out how Gates donations have been MORE corrupt than others, this just seems like a needlessly harsh attempt to nitpick someone who has given up more of his wealth than most people in history. Do we really want people to believe no personal good deed goes unpunished? If Gates were a Koch Bros like figure, it be one thing, but he is mostly following in the footsteps of people like Jimmy Carter at this point.

What is being rewritten exactly? I don't see where they are claiming Microsoft didn't happen.

by Reedx 7y ago

What is being rewritten exactly? I don't see where they are claiming Microsoft didn't happen.

I’m commenting on OP’s respect for someone using his money and influence to release a documentary where he writes off that one time he broke the law to crush his competitors as “secondary” to his charitable work. It’s especially interesting since we’re becoming acutely aware of how the rich regularly wash their reputations through charitable work e.g. Epstein and the Sacklers. Only the wealthy get to influence the public perception of their legacy. I don’t understand what is so admirable about that.

CriticalCathed 7y ago
Most people don't have a public perception to need to influence at all, so I don't think it's a fair comparison or criticism. I'm sure if you were a public figure you'd spend a minimum of effort to make sure you were perceived as you thought you should be.
- tempsy 7y ago
  I’m not critiquing Bill Gates’s decision to influence the public’s perception of his legacy. I’m commenting on how absurd it is to consume what can be considered propaganda and seem to come out the other side with more “respect” for the subject without the awareness that the whole point of the “documentary” was to do exactly that.
hogFeast 7y ago
Many of the things that he is doing also have huge political implications. From the U.S. that isn't obvious. Some wealthy guy can dole out cash but the system is stable, so that is fine. Outside of the U.S. the opposite is true. Wealthy guy comes in and starts handing out cash, and that occurs within a political context (which is often the issue: these places often don't lack money or tech, what they lack is stable politics). Even something as simple as building hospital or a library is huge politically (i.e. what contractors and suppliers you choose). Given Gates' record for disregarding law, there should definitely be far greater oversight from home governments. One cautionary tale is Soros in Russia: he believed, even after he worked out that Yeltsin was horribly corrupt, that he could keep donating to "neutral" causes...this turned out to be quite wrong (as Soros has admitted). And Soros is many times smarter than Gates about these issues, and at that time was choosing donations personally (I have not heard great things about the "disciples" that Gates has on the ground). Again, this is really something that Gates should not be in a position to do. You can't just outsource foreign policy to wealthy people.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  There are big implications inside the US too. Gates favors large-scale privatization of American public schools and de-professionalization of schoolteachers, and his “philanthropy” is actively harmful to US students. Public policy should be decided by the public, not by the whims of unaccountable billionaires, however pure their intentions might be.
  - hogFeast 7y ago
    But the point is that if you do that within the U.S. that occurs within a stable policy context. I accept the idea that this spending feels uncontrolled. Education policy is one area where you see this kind of activity because power is often local and fragmented which makes it easier to control. But there is still a relatively stable context with good oversight. Imagine that occurring but there is no oversight: no teacher unions, no state govts, no opposition govt, no media, no oversight or reporting of meetings with NGOs, no reporting of donations, and (potentially) some level of govt that is captive. And it doesn't need to be about Gates aiming to influence public policy directly. But actions that seem neutral, building a school or providing vaccinations, often occur in a political context (Mugabe was notorious for controlling the provision of aid around elections).
- cromwellian 7y ago
  Rather than make abstract accusations that are theoretical, perhaps you could be specific. Gates has donated a lot to basic health, vaccination, malaria, clean water. Saying that some of it might be siphoned away by corrupt locals doesn’t remove any good done. The same is true of internationally run NGOs, the WHO, UN, USAID, etc the locals get some power and capital siphoned from the system. But there is no system that can be free of fraud or corruption, so unless you can point out how Gates donations have been MORE corrupt than others, this just seems like a needlessly harsh attempt to nitpick someone who has given up more of his wealth than most people in history. Do we really want people to believe no personal good deed goes unpunished? If Gates were a Koch Bros like figure, it be one thing, but he is mostly following in the footsteps of people like Jimmy Carter at this point.