9 ms·

> In 2010, Turner joined Warren Buffett's and Bill Gates's The Giving Pledge, vowing to donate the majority of his fortune to charity upon his death. Does The

> In 2010, Turner joined Warren Buffett's and Bill Gates's The Giving Pledge, vowing to donate the majority of his fortune to charity upon his death. Does The Giving Pledge still exist? Will this happen?

georgemcbay 5mo ago
The Giving Pledge still exists, but like most philanthropy it has always been more about PR and reputation washing rather than real public good. The majority of people who have died since making the pledge did not meet the terms they agreed to and the vast majority of people still alive who made the pledge are on track to fail to meet the terms as their wealth is growing significantly faster than their charitable donations. This is not to say everyone who has made the Giving Pledge is bad, there are some people on the list who have legitimately done a lot of good, but being on the list has overall been a meaningless indicator of actual outcomes.
- john_strinlai 5mo ago
  >more about PR and reputation washing rather than real public good. there is a parable i cant quite remember, but something along the lines of "the starving kid does not care where the food comes from". that doesn't quite capture it... but in this context: the people receiving the money/help do not care if they got it because of "reputation washing" or "real public good". they get the help in both scenarios, and that's what matters. as long as the money is going to actual, real charities/non-profits/good causes... who cares whether the billionaire did it because they are truly generous or because they thought "this will look good in the news"?
  - tyg13 5mo ago
    I'd even argue that we should encourage _more_ of this behavior, if it leads to more charity. The idea that you have to do good deeds without expecting any kind of reward or recognition seems distinctly Christian to me. For Christians, the intent of this requirement is to ensure people remain humble (pride is a sin, of course) but this clearly contradicts the (imo much more relevant) principle of self interest. You can't really expect people to do something for other people without some kind of reward -- be it the promise of eternal salvation, some kind of social credit, or simply an internal sense of satisfaction. As long as people aren't merely simulating charity to receive it, I don't see any downside to allowing people a bit of social reward for their giving.
    - svnt 5mo ago
      Altruism predates humans, but we are the best at it, and this behavior long predates Christianity. That you associate altruism distinctly with Christianity just discloses massive gaps in your experience and/or education.
      - tyg13 5mo ago
        Not only have you misinterpreted my comment to attack claims I never made, you've also used this misinterpretation as license to insult me. Lovely.
        svnt 5mo ago
        It isn’t an insult to say you’re speaking about something you’re clearly not educated in when you clearly aren’t educated in it. A lot of people might take offense I guess, but an insult would be directed at you personally, not something you could easily rectify. The rest of your comments confirm what I said. I am really unclear how you think I have misinterpreted your comment.
        tyg13 5mo ago
        If you were interested in demonstrating my lack of education, I'm not sure you have done so. But I'm happy to conclude this exchange with your feeling satisfied on that point. I don't imagine you're interested in an actual debate on substance, given that your only argument is essentially that I'm ignorant, and I don't know what I'm talking about. Thank you for lending your expertise in this matter.
        svnt 5mo ago
        My argument seemed pretty clear to me. Altruism, which is generally defined as helping others without expectation of benefit, is not at all specific to Christianity, despite that being your impression. I would be happy to discuss the topic in more detail but your responses have so far consisted of telling me I don’t understand what you’re saying, but without clarifying your position further.
  - harimau777 5mo ago
    I think that the problem would be if the reputation washing prevents their victims from getting justice or if they leverage their reputation to victimize more people.
  - janalsncm 5mo ago
    The corollary is also true: the starving kid does not care that you are seen as generous. They are hungry. We can argue all day about motives, but what really matters is action.
  - svnt 5mo ago
    Who cares whether the people who control the majority of the planet’s capital actually care about other people or just the preservation of their image? I do. I will accept the donation either way, but in terms of so much else, I fucking do.
    - john_strinlai 5mo ago
      the point of my comment is very specifically about not caring about motivation behind charitable actions, because regardless of motivation, the charitable action still occurs. if you want to be mad about other things, like how wasteful super yachts are or whatever, by all means go for it. but that is outside the scope of my comment.
      - svnt 5mo ago
        I understand, and as I said I would take the money for the cause, but I still don’t agree. This kind of passive acceptance of shallow behavior is disappointing to me. We should expect more from humanity.
  - georgemcbay 5mo ago
    > there is a parable i cant quite remember, but something along the lines of "the starving kid does not care where the food comes from". A lot of the money never goes to the starving kid, it goes into foundations that act more as tax shelters than they do actual charitable organizations. > who cares whether the billionaire did it because they are truly generous or because they thought "this will look good in the news"? It matters when the scope of their giving doesn't match the PR-generating pledges they make, which is the real point of my post. If someone gives their money away to a good cause, I don't care what their real motivation is, but if they say they are going to give >50% of their wealth to charity to generate PR and then they never do that (true for the majority of Giving Pledge pledgers) that is behavior I think it contemptable and worthy of being called out.
    - john_strinlai 5mo ago
      >A lot of the money never goes to the starving kid, it goes into foundations that act more as tax shelters than they do actual charitable organizations. this is covered by the "actual, real charities/non-profits/good causes" caveat in my comment.
snide 5mo ago
The NYTimes did a nice write-up about how The Giving Pledge is dropping out of vogue. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/business/the-billionaire-backlash-against-a-philanthropic-dream.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/business/the-billionaire-...
DANmode 5mo ago
Will they still transfer all of their money to a (perhaps charitable) trust that their people control? Yes.
MyHonestOpinon 5mo ago
I suppose that only works if most of them join the pledge. Otherwise, you will be "disarming" unilaterally.
- cogman10 5mo ago
  Nah, there's no legal force behind the pledge. It was always just a pinky swear. It stopped giving the wealthy so much positive PR so a lot of them have simply stopped talking about it. Whether or not they still go through with it, who knows. I somewhat doubt they will. The other problem people are quickly becoming aware of is that charities are ineffective ways to solve social problems. And, particularly for very wealthy and well connected people, the charities seem to be much more of a tax dodge with a glossy pamphlet rather than anything real.

georgemcbay 5mo ago

The Giving Pledge still exists, but like most philanthropy it has always been more about PR and reputation washing rather than real public good. The majority of people who have died since making the pledge did not meet the terms they agreed to and the vast majority of people still alive who made the pledge are on track to fail to meet the terms as their wealth is growing significantly faster than their charitable donations. This is not to say everyone who has made the Giving Pledge is bad, there are some people on the list who have legitimately done a lot of good, but being on the list has overall been a meaningless indicator of actual outcomes.

john_strinlai 5mo ago
>more about PR and reputation washing rather than real public good. there is a parable i cant quite remember, but something along the lines of "the starving kid does not care where the food comes from". that doesn't quite capture it... but in this context: the people receiving the money/help do not care if they got it because of "reputation washing" or "real public good". they get the help in both scenarios, and that's what matters. as long as the money is going to actual, real charities/non-profits/good causes... who cares whether the billionaire did it because they are truly generous or because they thought "this will look good in the news"?
- tyg13 5mo ago
  I'd even argue that we should encourage _more_ of this behavior, if it leads to more charity. The idea that you have to do good deeds without expecting any kind of reward or recognition seems distinctly Christian to me. For Christians, the intent of this requirement is to ensure people remain humble (pride is a sin, of course) but this clearly contradicts the (imo much more relevant) principle of self interest. You can't really expect people to do something for other people without some kind of reward -- be it the promise of eternal salvation, some kind of social credit, or simply an internal sense of satisfaction. As long as people aren't merely simulating charity to receive it, I don't see any downside to allowing people a bit of social reward for their giving.
  - svnt 5mo ago
    Altruism predates humans, but we are the best at it, and this behavior long predates Christianity. That you associate altruism distinctly with Christianity just discloses massive gaps in your experience and/or education.
    - tyg13 5mo ago
      Not only have you misinterpreted my comment to attack claims I never made, you've also used this misinterpretation as license to insult me. Lovely.
      - svnt 5mo ago
        It isn’t an insult to say you’re speaking about something you’re clearly not educated in when you clearly aren’t educated in it. A lot of people might take offense I guess, but an insult would be directed at you personally, not something you could easily rectify. The rest of your comments confirm what I said. I am really unclear how you think I have misinterpreted your comment.
        tyg13 5mo ago
        If you were interested in demonstrating my lack of education, I'm not sure you have done so. But I'm happy to conclude this exchange with your feeling satisfied on that point. I don't imagine you're interested in an actual debate on substance, given that your only argument is essentially that I'm ignorant, and I don't know what I'm talking about. Thank you for lending your expertise in this matter.
        svnt 5mo ago
        My argument seemed pretty clear to me. Altruism, which is generally defined as helping others without expectation of benefit, is not at all specific to Christianity, despite that being your impression. I would be happy to discuss the topic in more detail but your responses have so far consisted of telling me I don’t understand what you’re saying, but without clarifying your position further.
- harimau777 5mo ago
  I think that the problem would be if the reputation washing prevents their victims from getting justice or if they leverage their reputation to victimize more people.
- janalsncm 5mo ago
  The corollary is also true: the starving kid does not care that you are seen as generous. They are hungry. We can argue all day about motives, but what really matters is action.
- svnt 5mo ago
  Who cares whether the people who control the majority of the planet’s capital actually care about other people or just the preservation of their image? I do. I will accept the donation either way, but in terms of so much else, I fucking do.
  - john_strinlai 5mo ago
    the point of my comment is very specifically about not caring about motivation behind charitable actions, because regardless of motivation, the charitable action still occurs. if you want to be mad about other things, like how wasteful super yachts are or whatever, by all means go for it. but that is outside the scope of my comment.
    - svnt 5mo ago
      I understand, and as I said I would take the money for the cause, but I still don’t agree. This kind of passive acceptance of shallow behavior is disappointing to me. We should expect more from humanity.
- georgemcbay 5mo ago
  > there is a parable i cant quite remember, but something along the lines of "the starving kid does not care where the food comes from". A lot of the money never goes to the starving kid, it goes into foundations that act more as tax shelters than they do actual charitable organizations. > who cares whether the billionaire did it because they are truly generous or because they thought "this will look good in the news"? It matters when the scope of their giving doesn't match the PR-generating pledges they make, which is the real point of my post. If someone gives their money away to a good cause, I don't care what their real motivation is, but if they say they are going to give >50% of their wealth to charity to generate PR and then they never do that (true for the majority of Giving Pledge pledgers) that is behavior I think it contemptable and worthy of being called out.
  - john_strinlai 5mo ago
    >A lot of the money never goes to the starving kid, it goes into foundations that act more as tax shelters than they do actual charitable organizations. this is covered by the "actual, real charities/non-profits/good causes" caveat in my comment.

snide 5mo ago

The NYTimes did a nice write-up about how The Giving Pledge is dropping out of vogue. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/business/the-billionaire-backlash-against-a-philanthropic-dream.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/business/the-billionaire-...

DANmode 5mo ago

Will they still transfer all of their money to a (perhaps charitable) trust that their people control? Yes.

MyHonestOpinon 5mo ago

I suppose that only works if most of them join the pledge. Otherwise, you will be "disarming" unilaterally.

cogman10 5mo ago
Nah, there's no legal force behind the pledge. It was always just a pinky swear. It stopped giving the wealthy so much positive PR so a lot of them have simply stopped talking about it. Whether or not they still go through with it, who knows. I somewhat doubt they will. The other problem people are quickly becoming aware of is that charities are ineffective ways to solve social problems. And, particularly for very wealthy and well connected people, the charities seem to be much more of a tax dodge with a glossy pamphlet rather than anything real.