4 ms·

Guys don't go so hard on him. This is a passionate person about getting rid of this disease. I've had malaria 7 or so times. The problem is when you don't get

by Tarang 13y ago

Guys don't go so hard on him. This is a passionate person about getting rid of this disease. I've had malaria 7 or so times. The problem is when you don't get access to medication which is the problem. If you don't it can kill you very slowly. Malaria is caused by this organism transmitted by mosquitoes. If you get rid of it, mosquitoes still live, but malaria can disappear. Also its not zero sum. Dedicating resources to getting rid of malaria isn't going to stop people getting access to the internet. The problem lies more with the cost and quality of the internet. Most people in Africa have access to the internet via some form of wireless means (mostly 3G/Edge). The problem is this is very costly. All the solutions that keep coming forth are just variations of wireless (Loon for example). People to have the phones, its not rare to see people go hungry to save up to by phones. It gets access to a lot of people but then you have issues like latency, connection dropping, susceptibility to bad weather & bad signal. People love the internet but hate the cost. Android is partly solving it, but infrastructure is the other hard problem. Everyone would love to hate him but I find it very hard to do that. His actions are clearly louder than his words (even when out of context).

mtgx 13y ago
So why does he have to trash everyone else's priorities then? What if I worked on making a fusion reactor technology that could give "free energy to everyone". Would I get to shit on Bill Gate's "anti-malaria" campaign, too, because I'd think my priority is more "important"? Phone and Internet communications are very important to people. Much more important than it might seem at first glance. I come from a relatively poor country where people would spend "whole salaries" to buy a smartphone. Clearly people themselves have different priorities, and it's not just about the corporation's or government's priorities. So I guess my point is, I'm sure Bill Gates could go about funding his anti-malaria campaign without trashing other priorities. If he wants to attack other people's priorities, how about attacking something like oil subsidies, that take important amounts of money from the tax payers, and give it to very profitable companies. That money could be used for fighting malaria instead - if you will. But again, not for Bill Gates to decide.
- Tarang 13y ago
  The thing is providing internet access is obscenely profitable in Africa. Looking at Vodafone's margins in countries such as Kenya (via Safaricom) they're amongst the highest for a telco in the world. This was even true before MPESA came along. These companies can afford to pay outrageously high license fees, taxes, interest expenses amongst other things and still invest in networks all around the country & still turn a heavy profit. Safaricom, MTN, Vodacom whatever so long as its a wireless communications company are the largest or in the top 5 in the countries they operate in. The problem comes about is there are two information platforms. One on an expensive 3G/Edge based network (the internet) and the other an information platform based on a cheaper SIM App/SMS. This isn't a problem you can solve by throwing money at it. Bill Gates can't fix this that easily. You see services pop up that use SMS to get information over a web experience because of these costs. It would be better if everyone had access to first grade information instead of falling back to SMS. Back to the central point these telecoms firms have more power to solve the issue than Bill Gates does. Whether he tackles malaria or not you'll still see them spend heavily in infrastructure. They just charge too much and people are incentivized fall back to these SMS like alternatives (which MPESA is also built on btw). But these SMS-like services are not the internet. So its not at the loss of this if he invests in an anti malaria campaign. I think its not he's trashing other people's priorities. The world was fine before the internet came long, it did help. But diseases have caused harm for as far as the dawn of recorded time.
  - gaius 13y ago
    You see services pop up that use SMS to get information over a web experience because of these cost Google discontinued their one: http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/google-kills-sms-search/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/google-kills-sms-search/
- Amadou 13y ago
  So why does he have to trash everyone else's priorities then? Given that his charity is the 800lb gorilla in the world of charities I think his attitude is pretty damaging. That's more of a problem with the concentration of so much power in his foundation than with his opinions. The only "charity" larger than his is the IKEA holding company and it doesn't do anywhere near as much actual charitable work. When you dominate the market for charitable works the way the Gates Foundation does, you can easily smother alternative approaches -- even if that is not your intention. In a system with one dominant "buyer" of charitable work, it is easy to consume all of the non-money resources (people, equipment, governmental coordination, etc) available to all charities.

by Tarang 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago

So why does he have to trash everyone else's priorities then? What if I worked on making a fusion reactor technology that could give "free energy to everyone". Would I get to shit on Bill Gate's "anti-malaria" campaign, too, because I'd think my priority is more "important"? Phone and Internet communications are very important to people. Much more important than it might seem at first glance. I come from a relatively poor country where people would spend "whole salaries" to buy a smartphone. Clearly people themselves have different priorities, and it's not just about the corporation's or government's priorities. So I guess my point is, I'm sure Bill Gates could go about funding his anti-malaria campaign without trashing other priorities. If he wants to attack other people's priorities, how about attacking something like oil subsidies, that take important amounts of money from the tax payers, and give it to very profitable companies. That money could be used for fighting malaria instead - if you will. But again, not for Bill Gates to decide.

Tarang 13y ago
The thing is providing internet access is obscenely profitable in Africa. Looking at Vodafone's margins in countries such as Kenya (via Safaricom) they're amongst the highest for a telco in the world. This was even true before MPESA came along. These companies can afford to pay outrageously high license fees, taxes, interest expenses amongst other things and still invest in networks all around the country & still turn a heavy profit. Safaricom, MTN, Vodacom whatever so long as its a wireless communications company are the largest or in the top 5 in the countries they operate in. The problem comes about is there are two information platforms. One on an expensive 3G/Edge based network (the internet) and the other an information platform based on a cheaper SIM App/SMS. This isn't a problem you can solve by throwing money at it. Bill Gates can't fix this that easily. You see services pop up that use SMS to get information over a web experience because of these costs. It would be better if everyone had access to first grade information instead of falling back to SMS. Back to the central point these telecoms firms have more power to solve the issue than Bill Gates does. Whether he tackles malaria or not you'll still see them spend heavily in infrastructure. They just charge too much and people are incentivized fall back to these SMS like alternatives (which MPESA is also built on btw). But these SMS-like services are not the internet. So its not at the loss of this if he invests in an anti malaria campaign. I think its not he's trashing other people's priorities. The world was fine before the internet came long, it did help. But diseases have caused harm for as far as the dawn of recorded time.
- gaius 13y ago
  You see services pop up that use SMS to get information over a web experience because of these cost Google discontinued their one: http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/google-kills-sms-search/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/google-kills-sms-search/
Amadou 13y ago
So why does he have to trash everyone else's priorities then? Given that his charity is the 800lb gorilla in the world of charities I think his attitude is pretty damaging. That's more of a problem with the concentration of so much power in his foundation than with his opinions. The only "charity" larger than his is the IKEA holding company and it doesn't do anywhere near as much actual charitable work. When you dominate the market for charitable works the way the Gates Foundation does, you can easily smother alternative approaches -- even if that is not your intention. In a system with one dominant "buyer" of charitable work, it is easy to consume all of the non-money resources (people, equipment, governmental coordination, etc) available to all charities.