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

Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#11

Post by jka »

ericmay wrote: post #5
polka_haunts_us wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth noting it's not the hospital itself actually objecting to anything, it's the San Francisco City Council. I'm not sure they actually have any power over it one way or the other.

I wonder if the hospital should release a statement supporting Zuckerberg and the donation? Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.

I think there's a bit more nuance, and that the behaviour of tech leadership figures can appear strange and hokey from the outside too.

Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.

Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached.

Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least.

People with all kinds of intentions will try to create outrage from situations like this. I think it's worthwhile to be curious and learn and discuss the details. It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#12

Post by ericmay »

jka wrote: post #11
ericmay wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the hospital should release a statement supporting Zuckerberg and the donation? Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.

I think there's a bit more nuance, and that the behaviour of tech leadership figures can appear strange and hokey from the outside too. Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached. Req…

> Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.

Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.

> Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least

Maybe. I mean if I had a hospital renamed after me I'd probably want that too, but if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement? Here in Columbus where I live we have the Wexner Medical Center which is named for Les Wexner who is the co-founder of Victoria's Secret and Limited Brands. Physicians, nurses, and staff wear a logo on their uniforms which says The Ohio State University and then under it Wexner Medical Center.

So at a minimum, it's at least not unusual to me. Although yea sure I can see how people can say they don't like it and whatnot.

> It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.

If you're speaking to me, I'd like to know who you think I'm not talking to (or talking to) and who I'm antagonizing or not antagonizing.

If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic, well, I apologize that you feel that way but I also believe that statement based on the variety of news sources I read, comments and news stories here on Hacker News, and my own opinion from having visited a few times and seen first hand how some policies have affected the city.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#13

Post by hindsightbias »

flurly wrote: post #6

PG also tweeted about this: "Is there another American city that would respond to someone making a $75 million donation to their hospital by passing a resolution condemning the naming of the hospital after him?" https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1339264603805671426

Is there any other city where techies descended upon whom also largely revile selected tech billionaires and thus represent a voting block elected leaders would pander to?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#14

Post by jonny_eh »

flurly wrote: post #6

PG also tweeted about this: "Is there another American city that would respond to someone making a $75 million donation to their hospital by passing a resolution condemning the naming of the hospital after him?" https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1339264603805671426

I could see Portland doing that.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#15

Post by nefitty »

Compare this reaction to Greenpeace’s (arguably one of the most prominent radical activist organizations) eventual cooperation with Facebook after accusing it of powering a data center with 60% coal-generated electricity. They agreed on a way forward, instead of full-stop condemning Facebook.

I’m curious, what are the City Council’s demands? Is there any way forward for Mark Zuckerberg, or is he definitively considered a supervillain by edict? I definitely don’t defend him, but it seems absurd for this condemnation to occur, especially in the context of a global pandemic.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#16

Post by joshmaker »

From the article:

> “We’re of course thankful for the gift and we’re thankful for any gift to our most important institutions during this time,” said Matt Haney, another supervisor backing it. “But that doesn’t mean that we should for forever essentially have given away advertising rights on this most essential public institution.”

Doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#18

Post by jka »

ericmay wrote: post #12
jka wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a bit more nuance, and that the behaviour of tech leadership figures can appear strange and hokey from the outside too. Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached. Req…

> Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. > Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least Maybe. I mean if I had a hospital renamed afte…

>>> e: Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.

>> j: Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.

> e: Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.

Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints different to your own.

> e: if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement?

Yep, perhaps they should have declined the offer. Hopefully there was good-faith debate about the terms and implications of it. Let's see whether we learn more over time; life goes on, either way.

> e: If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic

Not really, no; it was something about your tone, so no worries there.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#19

Post by mthoms »

niceguy1 wrote: post #17

It’s not like Zuckerberg asked to have his name on the hospital, he donated a bunch of money and they named it after him. All this politics around a donation is ridiculous

But he did. According to the article, the hospital is contractually obligated to use the name for 50 years.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

#20

Post by nopzor »

joshmaker wrote: post #16

From the article: > “We’re of course thankful for the gift and we’re thankful for any gift to our most important institutions during this time,” said Matt Haney, another supervisor backing it. “But that doesn’t mean that we should for forever essentially have given away advertising rights on this most essential public institution.” Doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance

"we are thankful for the money you gave us in exchange for agreeing to naming rights. but it's unreasonable that we should have to give you the naming rights that we agreed to as a condition of taking your money"

does that seem more or less unreasonable?

because as far as i can tell, that's what happened.

Post reply on HN