Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A letter to our daughter

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 555 posts

Re: A letter to our daughter

#421

Post by grp »

sjg007 wrote: post #155
jay_kyburz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you have some downvotes but I came here to say the same thing. Zuck is using the birth of his daughter to advertise a new venture. You want to be generous? Great, do it! Telling us in a letter to your daughter as a hook to attract eyeballs is kind of weird and exploitative. Update: I also thought I should say that this is no big deal, he has some different ideas about what's ok and what's not and I see that eve…

Facebook is his thing, and he wants people to be public and share by default. So he is leading by example.

I hope he doesn't make a baby as a tool.

"Dear Max, we use you to make some PR. We won't give you the money we don't have. Love, Mom and Dad."

Re: A letter to our daughter

#422

Post by [deleted] »

Chathamization wrote: post #259
toomuchtodo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Zuck is still power hungry, he's just more veiled about it. Everyone with enough power (through money) wants to shape the world in their specific ideal.

Agreed. The fact that they're having a big press release about all the awesome stuff they're going to be doing before they've done any of it, heck before they're even ready to say what they're actually going to be doing, is telling. As is naming their initiative after their daughter. It's nice when vanity projects end up helping the masses (and we'll have to wait and see how successful it is at that). However, we sho…

[deleted]

Re: A letter to our daughter

#423

Post by visakanv »

vinceguidry wrote: post #41
austenallred wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, what else are you going to do with $45 Billion? Build a really big house? I've had the opportunity to rub shoulders with a few billionaires over the past few weeks, and it's remarkable how differently they think about money than the people who don't have it. Sure, they may buy a nice car (or jet), but after a certain level the only thing you can do with that kind of money is plug it back into something meanin…

Spending money meaningfully is hard work. John D. Rockefeller had such a hard time with it that after awhile he just left it up to his son, who devoted his life to philanthropy. At the Cleveland church he went to, significant portions of his time spent there was to write checks to parishioners. I'd say it takes roughly the same amount of effort to spend money as it does to make it. You still need an organization, you…

Relevant bit from Playboy's interview with Steve Jobs:

> Playboy: What does the money actually mean to you?

> Jobs: I still don’t understand it. It’s a large responsibility to have more than you can spend in your lifetime—and I feel I have to spend it. If you die, you certainly don’t want to leave a large amount to your children. It will just ruin their lives. And if you die without kids, it will all go to the Government. Almost everyone would think that he could invest the money back into humanity in a much more astute way than the Government could. The challenges are to figure out how to live with it and to reinvest it back into the world, which means either giving it away or using it to express your concerns or values.

> Playboy: So what do you do?

> Jobs: That’s a part of my life that I like to keep private. When I have some time, I’m going to start a public foundation. I do some things privately now.

> Playboy: You could spend all of your time disbursing your money.

> Jobs: Oh, you have to. I’m convinced that to give away a dollar effectively is harder than to make a dollar.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#424

Post by laughinghan »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #86
ryandrake wrote: post #63

Something's always bugged me about relying on philanthropy as a source of funding the public good, as opposed to the public funding the public good through taxation and the democratic process: In the former case, the public doesn't really have much of a say about where the help goes. We must rely on the judgment (and personal values) of a few rich people and hope they pick charities that maximize the benefit. Would t…

You're becoming too clouded in fuzzy ideals and missing the ugly reality that there is no virtuous public and democratic society, but the state. You say we must rely on the judgment and values of a few wealthy, but then completely ignore the whole landmine of public choice. Not that "having to rely on a few rich people" is even true.

I don't think OP is clouded, missing the ugly reality, or ignoring the landmine of public choice. That's why most of it was phrased as a question, and even mentioned:

    Or would we just get more corporate welfare, bombers and aircraft carriers?
OP is wondering, not unreasonably, if that reality might be less ugly than what we have today.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#425

Post by visakanv »

k__ wrote: post #91
arasmussen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's why they created a non-profit organization, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Non-profits are taxed differently and I'm sure they'll figure out how to get the money where it needs to be and pay as little tax as possible.

Is it possible in the US to take both names after marriage? If so, I'm disappointed that Mark didn't choose to be Zuckerberg-Chan.

Everybody's disappointed with Mark one way or another, it seems.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#426

Post by robert_tweed »

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this seems about as philanthropic as Ron Hubbard starting a religion.

Firstly, the donation is stock not cash, so the value of this foundation will be directly linked to the value of Facebook shares.

Secondly, it has been stated that one of the things this foundation will do is "participate in policy debates". If the headline was "Mark Zuckerberg to put $45 billion is stock behind lobbying effort to establish Internet.org as a monopoly in developing countries", that wouldn't sound quite so positive, would it?

Re: A letter to our daughter

#427

Post by dennisnedry »

chegra wrote: post #281

Sometimes, I think people on HN probably think they get points for being the most cynical critic. Can't we just say, "Dude we are happy for you, and thanks for the money." And what happened to the rule about not saying stuff you wouldn't say to a person's face. Would you be calling Mark a narcissist to his face? Keep it civil people.

Where are you seeing "narcissist" reflected in the comments here? I'm seeing, "ulterior motive". And yes, I think most HN'ers wouldn't hesitate to call Zuck out on that. I know I would.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#428

Post by Veedrac »

robert_tweed wrote: post #426

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this seems about as philanthropic as Ron Hubbard starting a religion. Firstly, the donation is stock not cash, so the value of this foundation will be directly linked to the value of Facebook shares. Secondly, it has been stated that one of the things this foundation will do is "participate in policy debates". If the headline was "Mark Zuckerberg to put $45 billion is stock behind lob…

I think you're being too cynical.

So what if the donation is stock?

Since when does

> We must participate in policy and advocacy to shape debates. Many institutions are unwilling to do this, but progress must be supported by movements to be sustainable.

mean "lobbying effort to establish Internet.org as a monopoly in developing countries"?

Re: A letter to our daughter

#429

Post by yarou »

cpursley wrote: post #187

Why are the techno-barons so focused on human health? Not that there's anything wrong with these efforts, but human disease is much less of a threat to our species and planet than an ever-increasing human population. What I'm saying is that humans have little difficulty reproducing; it's a solved problem. What's not a solved problem is our disappearing fisheries[1], rhinos going extinct all over the place[2], farmlan…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model

Re: A letter to our daughter

#430

Post by Veedrac »

bigbugbag wrote: post #286
chc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we define "power-hungry" so broadly that it encompasses merely wanting to make the world a better place, I'm not sure what use the term is anymore.

I sincerely doubt Zucker wants to make the world a better place, else why would he be doing the opposite while making billions out of it ? Usually a billionaire giving his fortune away does it out of vanity, out of guilt, for the tax breaks, out of conviction that their success in business makes them equally expert in solving the world’s problems or last but not least as “legacy” as explained by John Caudwell: http:/…

I sincerely doubt he thinks he has been doing the opposite.
Post reply on HN