11 ms·

I don't really get the canonisation. I'm very happy the the Gates' foundation is doing good work. You'd be a fool to say that it wasn't. However, I don't belie

I don't really get the canonisation. I'm very happy the the Gates' foundation is doing good work. You'd be a fool to say that it wasn't. However, I don't believe that the tech industry should be proud as a result, nor do I think that there is a particular difference between the foundation and some other charities, nor do I understand the obvious astroturfing. I especially don't think that the act of charity somehow excuses the dodgy business practices or Microsoft or the long-term damage done to the tech industry. So we should be grateful that the Gates' money is being used to positive ends. But that certainly doesn't make Bill a saint, and I suspect that this hyperbole and short-term memory-ism can fuel the backlash.

ArtDev 13y ago
The Gates Foundation is unlike any other charity or foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  That's a link to the Wikipedia article about the foundation, which I'm pretty familiar with. You haven't really provided any evidence that the Foundation is significantly different. It's large, but in what manner is that qualitatively different and better?
- rbanffy 13y ago
  Which is not entirely bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
Houshalter 13y ago
>I especially don't think that the act of charity somehow excuses the dodgy business practices or Microsoft or the long-term damage done to the tech industry. How much damage do you think that is? You don't think all the lives saved have "made up" for that? You don't think the world is better off than it would otherwise be without Bill Gates?
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  No, because I don't think that positive or good acts can somehow "cancel out" (or as you say, "make up for") bad or negative ones. Karma is not a concrete concept, and the question "is the world better off" is objectively unanswerable.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Then your comment upthread is especially pointless, isn't it? Why am I meant to pay special attention to Bill Gates the man, rather than the 40 billion dollars that has been put to using entrepreneurial strategies to end global disease and poverty?
    - matthewmacleod 13y ago
      Yeah, fair. I should really have replied to one of the top-level commented describing Gates as a saint, or waxing lyrical about his greatness; my objection was not to the article itself, and that wasn't clear.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        That was a way more reasonable response than the tone of my comment merited. Thanks! :)
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Hate the man's business practices. Love the man for his philanthropical work. They don't need to cancel out, and you don't need to forgive one to appreciate the other. Michael Vick was put in prison for dog fighting. I absolutely hate him for that. At the same time, I appreciate his talent on the field as a football player. Orson Scott Card is a rampant homophobe. I absolutely hate him for that. Doesn't affect my opinion of his novels though, not in the least. There's no logic in idolizing or demonizing anyone. Life's a lot better when you get out of casting a pall over everything a person does by some other things that they've done. People like making villains and heroes of people, whether or not they deserve it. We see someone we don't like from afar, and it's easy to assume that they're bad at everything, that they're horrible people, that they're bad parents, that they're likely running around kicking puppies all day long. That's very rarely the truth. With people we're nearer too, it's easier to accept that they have strengths and weaknesses, and I don't know why it's hard to imagine the same thing of famous people, but it is. There's very little to love about Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft. Similarly, there's very little to hate about Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Roll with it.
throwawaykf03 13y ago
>... the long-term damage done to the tech industry. I know everyone takes this for granted, but there is no empirical evidence Microsoft harmed the tech industry in the years leading up to the antitrust suit: "Did Microsoft Deter Software Innovation?", Josh Lerner, May 2001 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498 Fairly easy read, laying out the data, methodologies and controls used, as well as limitations and potential flaws thereof. It uses metrics like VC financing, employment growth, patenting, etc. as proxies to measure innovation, and finds absolutely no evidence that Microsoft harmed the tech sectors it was alleged to in the antitrust suit. Of course, this was before Microsoft let IE languish at v6 for the next 5 years :-)

ArtDev 13y ago

The Gates Foundation is unlike any other charity or foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...

matthewmacleod 13y ago
That's a link to the Wikipedia article about the foundation, which I'm pretty familiar with. You haven't really provided any evidence that the Foundation is significantly different. It's large, but in what manner is that qualitatively different and better?
rbanffy 13y ago
Which is not entirely bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...

Houshalter 13y ago

>I especially don't think that the act of charity somehow excuses the dodgy business practices or Microsoft or the long-term damage done to the tech industry. How much damage do you think that is? You don't think all the lives saved have "made up" for that? You don't think the world is better off than it would otherwise be without Bill Gates?

matthewmacleod 13y ago
No, because I don't think that positive or good acts can somehow "cancel out" (or as you say, "make up for") bad or negative ones. Karma is not a concrete concept, and the question "is the world better off" is objectively unanswerable.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Then your comment upthread is especially pointless, isn't it? Why am I meant to pay special attention to Bill Gates the man, rather than the 40 billion dollars that has been put to using entrepreneurial strategies to end global disease and poverty?
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    Yeah, fair. I should really have replied to one of the top-level commented describing Gates as a saint, or waxing lyrical about his greatness; my objection was not to the article itself, and that wasn't clear.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      That was a way more reasonable response than the tone of my comment merited. Thanks! :)
- bmelton 13y ago
  Hate the man's business practices. Love the man for his philanthropical work. They don't need to cancel out, and you don't need to forgive one to appreciate the other. Michael Vick was put in prison for dog fighting. I absolutely hate him for that. At the same time, I appreciate his talent on the field as a football player. Orson Scott Card is a rampant homophobe. I absolutely hate him for that. Doesn't affect my opinion of his novels though, not in the least. There's no logic in idolizing or demonizing anyone. Life's a lot better when you get out of casting a pall over everything a person does by some other things that they've done. People like making villains and heroes of people, whether or not they deserve it. We see someone we don't like from afar, and it's easy to assume that they're bad at everything, that they're horrible people, that they're bad parents, that they're likely running around kicking puppies all day long. That's very rarely the truth. With people we're nearer too, it's easier to accept that they have strengths and weaknesses, and I don't know why it's hard to imagine the same thing of famous people, but it is. There's very little to love about Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft. Similarly, there's very little to hate about Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Roll with it.

throwawaykf03 13y ago

>... the long-term damage done to the tech industry. I know everyone takes this for granted, but there is no empirical evidence Microsoft harmed the tech industry in the years leading up to the antitrust suit: "Did Microsoft Deter Software Innovation?", Josh Lerner, May 2001 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498 Fairly easy read, laying out the data, methodologies and controls used, as well as limitations and potential flaws thereof. It uses metrics like VC financing, employment growth, patenting, etc. as proxies to measure innovation, and finds absolutely no evidence that Microsoft harmed the tech sectors it was alleged to in the antitrust suit. Of course, this was before Microsoft let IE languish at v6 for the next 5 years :-)