6 ms·

> Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism. Assuming someone who donates

> Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism. Assuming someone who donates billions is not evil is also lazy thinking... To me the article doesn't say Gates is "evil". They say Gates uses his immense influence to make the world how he sees fit. Do you have any evidence against Gate's being in strong favor of IP over open access? And let's roll with it... Do you think Gates should have the power to influence the lives of billions like that? I don't mean "access to vaccines" and other superficial no-brainers, I mean setting up the world way beyond the good bits. It's not like the "patents: good, corporate power: good" weltanschauung is general consensus, especially in research where he plays his cards[+]. [+] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg

Tenoke 6y ago
>And let's roll with it... Do you think Gates should have the power to influence the lives of billions like that? Yes, I think the world will be worse-off if he couldn't. I definitely wouldn't put all my hope in governments and is overall good that there are other actors, too. I can recommend this Scott Alexander piece on the topic[0]. 0. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  I had never read the supposed rationalist bastion that is Slate Star Codex. But this is total first-order thinking rubbish. Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. This reasoning is the equivalent of "well, the sharecropper better keep on paying the man, because no field means starvation which is worse".
  - Tenoke 6y ago
    >Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. I think you are exaggerating the effect of it. Do you really those who do shady deals think about 'laundering their reputation' when they are older - especially with the majority of their assets - as a big reason to do what they do, to the point where they wouldn't do those deals if they cant do philanthropy later? Perhaps to a small extent but I seriously doubt it's a big part of the picture. Definitely not enough to overshadow all the good done through philanthropy.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      Was Carnegie or Rockefeller a roll model for Bill Gates? Would they have been without philanthropy to launder their reputations? Don't assume society is ergodic in what has been a period of rapid technological change. > Definitely not enough to overshadow all the good done through philanthropy. What are the greatest hits beyond mosquito nets? At least in the current era, the "undeveloped" country is a bit of a rarity, and the main malaise is rampant Anocracy where institutions are weak, and social coordination of any sort is weak outside that which stems from the private fortunes of the elite. How could private fortunes in developed countries tackle a problem like that? And frankly, even before that, the absolute material standard of living is not necessary the best utility function. Hierarchy of needs means yes got to do the basics first, but it also means that people don't know what they aren't missing and relative distribution and other less obvious things may be more important for happiness and societal function. If I were billionaire, I would throw all my money into improving democracy (and creatively, if it's easier to allow people to emigrate from US to better democracy than fix US, work on the former.) That the US government is exceptionally shitty makes for a too-easy straw-man when defending philanthropy against democracy.
  - tzs 6y ago
    You are assuming Gates had a bad reputation to launder. He certainly had a bad reputation in some parts of the tech world, but I don't recall the average person feeling that way. Heck, he has probably got many more people who dislike him now because of the global health work, due to the antivax people and the conspiracy theorists. See this petition last year at whitehouse.gov that wants the Gates Foundation investigated for crimes against humanity, and got almost 700k signatures. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20201223180912/https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-call-investigations-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-medical-malpractice-crimes-against-humanity https://web.archive.org/web/20201223180912/https://petitions...
- monopoledance 6y ago
  So, you are fine with another billionaire exerting that power to another end? Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be subject to democratic oversight? Did people vote with their wallets and agreed to this, when they bought a PC in the 90s?
  - Tenoke 6y ago
    >Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be subject to democratic oversight? There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. At any rate, from looking at the performance of those with democratic oversight (governments), I think having both is overall better than just one. Sometimes governments are much too slow and waste hundreds of times more to achieve less, while in practice being plagued by similar concerns (what if the wrong government official uses the money in a bad way?).
    - monopoledance 6y ago
      > There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. He can. Just not directly. That's why I linked the million vs billion illustration. He has such a huge amount of life changing money, he simply can buy his influence and manifest his will. Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. If you align with his worldview, you may like the result, but I really can't understand how you can be willingly ignorant about the dynamics at hand and how much power these billionaires have over everyone's life. Much more, Gates didn't become rich for making the better product, but for clever business strategies and ruthless monopolizing a market for the longest time. His success is exactly failure of the free market naiveté. Nobody should be that rich. (And yes, no single government official should be trusted with deciding how to spend tax money either. Everything needs to be transparent and actionable to the voted policies.)
      - tzs 6y ago
        > Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. I doubt that Oxford would have changed their position if Larry Ellison had called to suggest it. Gates suggesting it gets taken seriously not because he has a lot of money, but because he's spent the last couple of decades heavily involved in global health, much of that concentrating on less developed countries and on vaccination (which fits right in with what Oxford wants for their vaccine), and has developed a good reputation for knowing the field.
tzs 6y ago
The Gates Foundation requires research they fund to be open access [1]. [1] https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Information/Open-Access-Policy https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Informat...
- monopoledance 6y ago
  Non-native speaker. I meant "open-access" in terms of "against IP and patents". Thanks, tho. Kinda ironic.

Tenoke 6y ago

>And let's roll with it... Do you think Gates should have the power to influence the lives of billions like that? Yes, I think the world will be worse-off if he couldn't. I definitely wouldn't put all my hope in governments and is overall good that there are other actors, too. I can recommend this Scott Alexander piece on the topic[0]. 0. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

Ericson2314 6y ago
I had never read the supposed rationalist bastion that is Slate Star Codex. But this is total first-order thinking rubbish. Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. This reasoning is the equivalent of "well, the sharecropper better keep on paying the man, because no field means starvation which is worse".
- Tenoke 6y ago
  >Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. I think you are exaggerating the effect of it. Do you really those who do shady deals think about 'laundering their reputation' when they are older - especially with the majority of their assets - as a big reason to do what they do, to the point where they wouldn't do those deals if they cant do philanthropy later? Perhaps to a small extent but I seriously doubt it's a big part of the picture. Definitely not enough to overshadow all the good done through philanthropy.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Was Carnegie or Rockefeller a roll model for Bill Gates? Would they have been without philanthropy to launder their reputations? Don't assume society is ergodic in what has been a period of rapid technological change. > Definitely not enough to overshadow all the good done through philanthropy. What are the greatest hits beyond mosquito nets? At least in the current era, the "undeveloped" country is a bit of a rarity, and the main malaise is rampant Anocracy where institutions are weak, and social coordination of any sort is weak outside that which stems from the private fortunes of the elite. How could private fortunes in developed countries tackle a problem like that? And frankly, even before that, the absolute material standard of living is not necessary the best utility function. Hierarchy of needs means yes got to do the basics first, but it also means that people don't know what they aren't missing and relative distribution and other less obvious things may be more important for happiness and societal function. If I were billionaire, I would throw all my money into improving democracy (and creatively, if it's easier to allow people to emigrate from US to better democracy than fix US, work on the former.) That the US government is exceptionally shitty makes for a too-easy straw-man when defending philanthropy against democracy.
- tzs 6y ago
  You are assuming Gates had a bad reputation to launder. He certainly had a bad reputation in some parts of the tech world, but I don't recall the average person feeling that way. Heck, he has probably got many more people who dislike him now because of the global health work, due to the antivax people and the conspiracy theorists. See this petition last year at whitehouse.gov that wants the Gates Foundation investigated for crimes against humanity, and got almost 700k signatures. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20201223180912/https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-call-investigations-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-medical-malpractice-crimes-against-humanity https://web.archive.org/web/20201223180912/https://petitions...
monopoledance 6y ago
So, you are fine with another billionaire exerting that power to another end? Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be subject to democratic oversight? Did people vote with their wallets and agreed to this, when they bought a PC in the 90s?
- Tenoke 6y ago
  >Don't you think these changes to the structure of society and culture should be subject to democratic oversight? There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. At any rate, from looking at the performance of those with democratic oversight (governments), I think having both is overall better than just one. Sometimes governments are much too slow and waste hundreds of times more to achieve less, while in practice being plagued by similar concerns (what if the wrong government official uses the money in a bad way?).
  - monopoledance 6y ago
    > There's still some oversight, he can't literally do quite anything he wishes. He can. Just not directly. That's why I linked the million vs billion illustration. He has such a huge amount of life changing money, he simply can buy his influence and manifest his will. Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. If you align with his worldview, you may like the result, but I really can't understand how you can be willingly ignorant about the dynamics at hand and how much power these billionaires have over everyone's life. Much more, Gates didn't become rich for making the better product, but for clever business strategies and ruthless monopolizing a market for the longest time. His success is exactly failure of the free market naiveté. Nobody should be that rich. (And yes, no single government official should be trusted with deciding how to spend tax money either. Everything needs to be transparent and actionable to the voted policies.)
    - tzs 6y ago
      > Here an American billionaire influences a British research institution to make a decision according to his worldview, a decision in existential crisis to humanity. I doubt that Oxford would have changed their position if Larry Ellison had called to suggest it. Gates suggesting it gets taken seriously not because he has a lot of money, but because he's spent the last couple of decades heavily involved in global health, much of that concentrating on less developed countries and on vaccination (which fits right in with what Oxford wants for their vaccine), and has developed a good reputation for knowing the field.

tzs 6y ago

The Gates Foundation requires research they fund to be open access [1]. [1] https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Information/Open-Access-Policy https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Informat...

monopoledance 6y ago
Non-native speaker. I meant "open-access" in terms of "against IP and patents". Thanks, tho. Kinda ironic.