7 ms·

Wealth tech people are giving their money away younger than the previous generation of billionaires: https://outline.com/mtGgFW https://outline.com/mtGgFW I t

Wealth tech people are giving their money away younger than the previous generation of billionaires: https://outline.com/mtGgFW https://outline.com/mtGgFW I think they understand noblesse oblige. But it's a 2-way street. Don't expect them to feel a sense of obligation if you're going to assume the worst about them just because they are rich.

pydry 6y ago
You've got cause and effect reversed. Bill Gates started giving his money away after he was attacked for his anti competitive behavior and attempts to kill open source, etc. The rich donate because they are protecting their reputation and for the sake of their own self image (everybody needs to be the hero of their own story). The only ones who can manage that and not be charitable are the utterly self deluded (e.g. Trump). Don't expect them to donate a damn thing if they are lauded as heroes. Bill Gates likely wouldn't be giving his money away at all if it he didn't feel the need to repair his image in the 2000s. Same reason all of the robber Barrons were philanthropists - do you think they would have been more charitable if they had been cheered on instead of villainized? Like hell they would.
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
  I suggest you watch the documentary Inside Bill's Brain https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771 https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771 Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort. And he himself states it was his mother who inspired him to give: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-mother-inspired-philanthropy-2015-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-mother-inspired-p... If Bill's giving was a cynical PR play, why would he be pushing other HNWs to give through the giving pledge? Wouldn't it be better to discourage them from giving so he looks better by comparison? Note also that a few years ago when Zuck pledged to donate 99% of his money, the internet erupted in incoherent anger. Similarly whenever the news covers tech philanthropy, the angle is always "well really this is something that the government should be doing, the fact that it is being handled by private philanthropy is kinda problematic". The giver's generosity is inevitably taken for granted. For the supposed PR benefits of philanthropy there is a shocking lack of good PR. Far more scorn is heaped upon wealthy philanthropists than rich people who just quietly buy yachts and stuff. Your reaction of "giving is just a cynical ploy" seems to be way more common they "hey, they are giving, that's pretty cool" in all the online discussions I have seen of billionaire giving. BTW, did demonization of wall street in the wake of the 2008 crash trigger a wave of philanthropic giving from them?
  - pydry 6y ago
    I didn't state that it was completely a cynical PR effort nor do I think it was, but it's a reaction to a guilty conscience nonetheless. I think it's partly his way of resolving his cognitive dissonance over him not being a good person in pursuit of wealth and power. For what it's worth, though, saying "my mother inspired me to do this" is precisely what a PR flack would advise him over "I was guilt tripped into this by my critics". He does routinely use PR firms for image management. Positivity sells and human interest sells and giving his critics more airtime would not be advantageous to him. Mark Zuckerberg did the same thing here - note the title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10658787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10658787 >Note also that a few years ago when Zuck pledged to donate 99% of his money, the internet erupted in incoherent anger. The comments above read more like coherent suspicion rather than incoherent anger. >For the supposed PR benefits of philanthropy there is a shocking lack of good PR. Bill Gates has successfully repaired his image since the early 2ks. The fact that Mark Zuckerberg didn't repairs his overnight after acting the way he did previously is hardly proof that it doesn't work.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jimbokun 6y ago
      > I didn't state that it was completely a cynical PR effort nor do I think it was, but it's a reaction to a guilty conscience nonetheless. And you are pulling that theory completely out of your ass. I highly doubt you have met Bill Gates or spent time with him or have the slightest idea about what his private thoughts are on anything.
      - cbslinger 6y ago
        Doesn't matter, you shouldn't trust billionaires period. Every single one has exploited people left and right to get where they did. They don't care one iota for you, why do you care so damn much about them?
        6y ago
- tester34 6y ago
  you might not like this, but 2k was over 2 decades ago, nobody gives a fuck about it now except some HNers and Linux people recent fake news about Bill Gates connections to covid/vaccines probably caused more PR damage to him than all of you combined
  - _coveredInBees 6y ago
    Seriously. Every time I read a post like the parent you are replying to, my eyes roll back a little farther in my skull. It's like they teleported from the slashdot comment sections from 2 decades ago and decided to carry on without missing a beat.
    - Jotra7 6y ago
      I can't believe the Gates sycophants who will defend him no matter what. The man is richer than he's ever been and people think he's some sort of hero. The billionaires have cucked so many people.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I was talking about events from almost two decades ago. Did you think Bill Gates became a philanthropist yesterday?
Ambolia 6y ago
Putting your money into ONGs that you control is not giving away anything. It's playing the meta-capitalist game, influencing markets at another level, markets in which you invest money while you pave the path for your investments by using your ONGs to work together with governments. This is nothing new either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation

pydry 6y ago

You've got cause and effect reversed. Bill Gates started giving his money away after he was attacked for his anti competitive behavior and attempts to kill open source, etc. The rich donate because they are protecting their reputation and for the sake of their own self image (everybody needs to be the hero of their own story). The only ones who can manage that and not be charitable are the utterly self deluded (e.g. Trump). Don't expect them to donate a damn thing if they are lauded as heroes. Bill Gates likely wouldn't be giving his money away at all if it he didn't feel the need to repair his image in the 2000s. Same reason all of the robber Barrons were philanthropists - do you think they would have been more charitable if they had been cheered on instead of villainized? Like hell they would.

qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
I suggest you watch the documentary Inside Bill's Brain https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771 https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771 Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort. And he himself states it was his mother who inspired him to give: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-mother-inspired-philanthropy-2015-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-mother-inspired-p... If Bill's giving was a cynical PR play, why would he be pushing other HNWs to give through the giving pledge? Wouldn't it be better to discourage them from giving so he looks better by comparison? Note also that a few years ago when Zuck pledged to donate 99% of his money, the internet erupted in incoherent anger. Similarly whenever the news covers tech philanthropy, the angle is always "well really this is something that the government should be doing, the fact that it is being handled by private philanthropy is kinda problematic". The giver's generosity is inevitably taken for granted. For the supposed PR benefits of philanthropy there is a shocking lack of good PR. Far more scorn is heaped upon wealthy philanthropists than rich people who just quietly buy yachts and stuff. Your reaction of "giving is just a cynical ploy" seems to be way more common they "hey, they are giving, that's pretty cool" in all the online discussions I have seen of billionaire giving. BTW, did demonization of wall street in the wake of the 2008 crash trigger a wave of philanthropic giving from them?
- pydry 6y ago
  I didn't state that it was completely a cynical PR effort nor do I think it was, but it's a reaction to a guilty conscience nonetheless. I think it's partly his way of resolving his cognitive dissonance over him not being a good person in pursuit of wealth and power. For what it's worth, though, saying "my mother inspired me to do this" is precisely what a PR flack would advise him over "I was guilt tripped into this by my critics". He does routinely use PR firms for image management. Positivity sells and human interest sells and giving his critics more airtime would not be advantageous to him. Mark Zuckerberg did the same thing here - note the title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10658787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10658787 >Note also that a few years ago when Zuck pledged to donate 99% of his money, the internet erupted in incoherent anger. The comments above read more like coherent suspicion rather than incoherent anger. >For the supposed PR benefits of philanthropy there is a shocking lack of good PR. Bill Gates has successfully repaired his image since the early 2ks. The fact that Mark Zuckerberg didn't repairs his overnight after acting the way he did previously is hardly proof that it doesn't work.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    > I didn't state that it was completely a cynical PR effort nor do I think it was, but it's a reaction to a guilty conscience nonetheless. And you are pulling that theory completely out of your ass. I highly doubt you have met Bill Gates or spent time with him or have the slightest idea about what his private thoughts are on anything.
    - cbslinger 6y ago
      Doesn't matter, you shouldn't trust billionaires period. Every single one has exploited people left and right to get where they did. They don't care one iota for you, why do you care so damn much about them?
      - 6y ago
tester34 6y ago
you might not like this, but 2k was over 2 decades ago, nobody gives a fuck about it now except some HNers and Linux people recent fake news about Bill Gates connections to covid/vaccines probably caused more PR damage to him than all of you combined
- _coveredInBees 6y ago
  Seriously. Every time I read a post like the parent you are replying to, my eyes roll back a little farther in my skull. It's like they teleported from the slashdot comment sections from 2 decades ago and decided to carry on without missing a beat.
  - Jotra7 6y ago
    I can't believe the Gates sycophants who will defend him no matter what. The man is richer than he's ever been and people think he's some sort of hero. The billionaires have cucked so many people.
  - pydry 5y ago
    I was talking about events from almost two decades ago. Did you think Bill Gates became a philanthropist yesterday?

Ambolia 6y ago

Putting your money into ONGs that you control is not giving away anything. It's playing the meta-capitalist game, influencing markets at another level, markets in which you invest money while you pave the path for your investments by using your ONGs to work together with governments. This is nothing new either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation