3 ms·

> to screw over thousands of people who had really come depend on these programs So? Should they have been obliged to fund this indefinitely forever and ever?

by tasuki 1y ago

> to screw over thousands of people who had really come depend on these programs So? Should they have been obliged to fund this indefinitely forever and ever? Would you not say the "CZI has promised a parting gift totaling $50 million to the community" part is a little redeeming? Would you have preferred Zuck to have bought moar yachts instead of supporting education, however briefly?

southernplaces7 1y ago
It's their money and I agree that they have a right to use it however they want, or change its use for their own reasons. That said, I think you're grossly underestimating how hard it can be for some of the families that were using this school to find an alternative that doesn't cause their kids problems. With that in mind I'd say there is a sort of moral imperative to preserving a context you created when it's designed for helping vulnerable kids and families. Not a legal rule I'd agree with, but an ethical imperative that shouldn't cut things off without more sustained effort and only a modest cash payoff as compensation. Given the absolutely colossal fortune of the Zuckerbergs, they could have funded and worked to improve this program for as long as they wanted to, with nary a visible dent in their assets, but (in my opinion during one very convenient space of time) they just decide "nope, fuck it. Here's some cash kids"