5 ms·

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

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?
    - jimbokun 6y ago
      Bill Gates is doing far more good for the world with his money than the US government would.
    - qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
      As I said above: "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." You say that "Every single one has exploited people left and right", what evidentiary basis could you possibly have for making that statement? There are thousands of billionaires worldwide, could you name even 100 of them off the top of your head, much less explain how each and every one "exploited people left and right"? Haters gonna hate.
      - pydry 6y ago
        >Haters gonna hate. And if they didn't, billionaires wouldn't donate.
        6y ago
typon 6y ago
> Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort Proceeds to link a literal PR propaganda piece by Gates and Co.
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
  If your giving is a cynical PR effort, you don't donate to unsexy causes like better toilets or nuclear plants. I'm willing to believe that MacKenzie Scott's giving is a cynical PR effort because she's donating to all the trendy social justice causes. That's what I would do if all I cared about was my public image and didn't care whether my money actually did good. Most coverage I've see of MacKenzie Scott's giving has been positive.
AlexandrB 6y ago
> BTW, did demonization of wall street in the wake of the 2008 crash trigger a wave of philanthropic giving from them? You steal a loaf of bread - you go to jail. You commit fraud on a scale that destabilizes the global economy - you get to say that people pointing out your misdeeds are "demonizing" you.
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
  I didn't say it was unjustified, just checking if the hypothesis that bad PR leads to philanthropy is true.

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?
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    Bill Gates is doing far more good for the world with his money than the US government would.
  - qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
    As I said above: "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." You say that "Every single one has exploited people left and right", what evidentiary basis could you possibly have for making that statement? There are thousands of billionaires worldwide, could you name even 100 of them off the top of your head, much less explain how each and every one "exploited people left and right"? Haters gonna hate.
    - pydry 6y ago
      >Haters gonna hate. And if they didn't, billionaires wouldn't donate.
      - 6y ago

typon 6y ago

> Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort Proceeds to link a literal PR propaganda piece by Gates and Co.

qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
If your giving is a cynical PR effort, you don't donate to unsexy causes like better toilets or nuclear plants. I'm willing to believe that MacKenzie Scott's giving is a cynical PR effort because she's donating to all the trendy social justice causes. That's what I would do if all I cared about was my public image and didn't care whether my money actually did good. Most coverage I've see of MacKenzie Scott's giving has been positive.

AlexandrB 6y ago

> BTW, did demonization of wall street in the wake of the 2008 crash trigger a wave of philanthropic giving from them? You steal a loaf of bread - you go to jail. You commit fraud on a scale that destabilizes the global economy - you get to say that people pointing out your misdeeds are "demonizing" you.

qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
I didn't say it was unjustified, just checking if the hypothesis that bad PR leads to philanthropy is true.