4 ms·

I object to the editorialized title. No one condemned him for giving the hospital a bunch of money. They condemned him for being Mark Zuckerberg (a human being

I object to the editorialized title. No one condemned him for giving the hospital a bunch of money. They condemned him for being Mark Zuckerberg (a human being who shouldn't have hospitals named after him on account of his being Mark Zuckerberg, so they say).

ericmay 6y ago
They're free to give the money back. I mean I wouldn't take money from a murderer, or some other bad person.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  It's also worth noting it's not the hospital itself actually objecting to anything, it's the San Francisco City Council. I'm not sure they actually have any power over it one way or the other.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    I wonder if the hospital should release a statement supporting Zuckerberg and the donation? Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.
    - jka 6y ago
      I think there's a bit more nuance, and that the behaviour of tech leadership figures can appear strange and hokey from the outside too. Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached. Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least. People with all kinds of intentions will try to create outrage from situations like this. I think it's worthwhile to be curious and learn and discuss the details. It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.
      - ericmay 6y ago
        > Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. > Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least Maybe. I mean if I had a hospital renamed after me I'd probably want that too, but if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement? Here in Columbus where I live we have the Wexner Medical Center which is named for Les Wexner who is the co-founder of Victoria's Secret and Limited Brands. Physicians, nurses, and staff wear a logo on their uniforms which says The Ohio State University and then under it Wexner Medical Center. So at a minimum, it's at least not unusual to me. Although yea sure I can see how people can say they don't like it and whatnot. > It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them. If you're speaking to me, I'd like to know who you think I'm not talking to (or talking to) and who I'm antagonizing or not antagonizing. If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic, well, I apologize that you feel that way but I also believe that statement based on the variety of news sources I read, comments and news stories here on Hacker News, and my own opinion from having visited a few times and seen first hand how some policies have affected the city.
        jka 6y ago
        >>> e: Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics. >> j: Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. > e: Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints different to your own. > e: if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement? Yep, perhaps they should have declined the offer. Hopefully there was good-faith debate about the terms and implications of it. Let's see whether we learn more over time; life goes on, either way. > e: If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic Not really, no; it was something about your tone, so no worries there.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kalium 6y ago
    The hospital is owned and governed by the City and County of San Francisco. They definitely have plenty of power over it. If what I've read is accurate, his name is on the hospital at the insistence of hospital administrators. They were hoping it would encourage other, similar donations. It seems he made the mistake of letting hospital administrators have something they wanted on top of the mistake of donating a large amount of money towards public health care.
- southeastern 6y ago
  You can take donations from people you consider unethical, and still lament that that's what you have to do to keep a hospital open. In fact I think it's better than just taking money shamelessly, even if it is a necessary evil in our current economy. Hospitals are going broke with elective surgeries all cancelled-- now's not the time for principals. Principals can't treat covid-19.

ericmay 6y ago

They're free to give the money back. I mean I wouldn't take money from a murderer, or some other bad person.

polka_haunts_us 6y ago
It's also worth noting it's not the hospital itself actually objecting to anything, it's the San Francisco City Council. I'm not sure they actually have any power over it one way or the other.
- ericmay 6y ago
  I wonder if the hospital should release a statement supporting Zuckerberg and the donation? Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.
  - jka 6y ago
    I think there's a bit more nuance, and that the behaviour of tech leadership figures can appear strange and hokey from the outside too. Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached. Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least. People with all kinds of intentions will try to create outrage from situations like this. I think it's worthwhile to be curious and learn and discuss the details. It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      > Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. > Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least Maybe. I mean if I had a hospital renamed after me I'd probably want that too, but if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement? Here in Columbus where I live we have the Wexner Medical Center which is named for Les Wexner who is the co-founder of Victoria's Secret and Limited Brands. Physicians, nurses, and staff wear a logo on their uniforms which says The Ohio State University and then under it Wexner Medical Center. So at a minimum, it's at least not unusual to me. Although yea sure I can see how people can say they don't like it and whatnot. > It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them. If you're speaking to me, I'd like to know who you think I'm not talking to (or talking to) and who I'm antagonizing or not antagonizing. If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic, well, I apologize that you feel that way but I also believe that statement based on the variety of news sources I read, comments and news stories here on Hacker News, and my own opinion from having visited a few times and seen first hand how some policies have affected the city.
      - jka 6y ago
        >>> e: Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics. >> j: Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. > e: Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints different to your own. > e: if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement? Yep, perhaps they should have declined the offer. Hopefully there was good-faith debate about the terms and implications of it. Let's see whether we learn more over time; life goes on, either way. > e: If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic Not really, no; it was something about your tone, so no worries there.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 6y ago
  The hospital is owned and governed by the City and County of San Francisco. They definitely have plenty of power over it. If what I've read is accurate, his name is on the hospital at the insistence of hospital administrators. They were hoping it would encourage other, similar donations. It seems he made the mistake of letting hospital administrators have something they wanted on top of the mistake of donating a large amount of money towards public health care.
southeastern 6y ago
You can take donations from people you consider unethical, and still lament that that's what you have to do to keep a hospital open. In fact I think it's better than just taking money shamelessly, even if it is a necessary evil in our current economy. Hospitals are going broke with elective surgeries all cancelled-- now's not the time for principals. Principals can't treat covid-19.