Mark Zuckerberg helped society a lot more by building Facebook (and making these billions) than he ever would by giving away his wealth to charitable causes.
Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million
141–147 of 147 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would it matter if they're altruistic or not? It's a move, it's going to help. Who the fuck cares why? You have to look at both acts of commission and omission when you're considering someone's impact on the world. Zuckerberg is donating an eye-watering amount of money to charity. That's cool, but what about the rest of his wealth? His net worth is something like $14bn last time I checked. That makes this a don…
"Consider a parallel universe in which Facebook never existed, and the $14bn that accrued to Zuck through his stake in the business was scattered amongst the many investors from whence it came" You're making a mistake. There wasn't $14bn in investors pocket that was simply moved to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg created wealth. It wasn't simply moving existing wealth. In your parellel universe, there was less money…
> You're making a mistake. There wasn't $14bn in investors pocket that was simply moved to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg created wealth. It wasn't simply moving existing wealth.
There was literally $14bn in investors' pockets that moved to Zuckerberg. That's how it works. They liked the cut of his jib, so they gave him money in exchange for a slice of his business.
If it hadn't gone to Zuckerberg, it could have gone to someone else, perhaps someone more charitable.
> In your parellel universe, there was less money to donate.
Zuckerberg may have created wealth, but he didn't create money. The money supply is controlled.
> No, that's wrong. When considering someone's impact on the world, you only need to consider their impact.
A person's impact on the world is determined by both the things they do, and the things they fail to do. We could argue at length about whether acts of omission ought to carry moral or legal punishments, but they are undeniably part of the overall impact that you have on the world.
> And it also, now, includes giving 500 million dollars to charity, which will probably save at least some lives (doubtful it will have no impact or a negative impact, imo).
My point is that, sure, Zuckerberg is cycling money into charitable causes, but in his absence the very same money may have been cycled in greater quantities, at a greater rate.
That's the bar at which you measure Zuckerberg's character.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million
#143I'm getting a bit miffed at the comments talking about this being a "PR move" or helpful for a "tax break". Did I read this wrong or did it not say 500. MILLION. dollars? The cynicism must be pretty darn strong to try and explain that away by anything other than Zuck wanting to do some good with his shares and money. We should be applauding it, not over-analyzing it for how it benefits him.
You view charity in terms of the benefit to the recipient. I think that's the exact wrong way to view it. I think charity should be measured by how much it hurts to give. $500 million is about 1/20 of Mark Zuckerberg's estimated wealth. He could donate $8.4 billion and still be a billionaire. He could donate $9 billion and still be set for the rest of his life. $500 million is almost inconsequential to him. Compare t…
On the one hand I can see where you're coming from - charity can very often be done as a self-serving way to justify other evils. Kind of like the dad who out of guilt for never being home buys his kids a nice computer.
On the other hand, 500 million dollars hurts for anybody - even viewing it relatively, 1/20th of your wealth is a pretty sizable chunk of change to be giving away. Having his name on it is right in line with the Gates/Buffett thing of trying to provoke other billionaires to action.
As a side note...I may be wrong, but as I read your note, I think I hear echoes of Jesus talking about the impoverished widow's donation in Luke 21 - if so, I'd say this is a misunderstanding of what Jesus is getting at here - he's not saying the large donations were bad or wrong, but rather that the woman's giving both(!) of her two small coins caused her donation to be most valuable to God. He was focussing on the positive rather than being cynical about the others' gifts - he simply said her gift was more valuable.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million
#144I'm getting a bit miffed at the comments talking about this being a "PR move" or helpful for a "tax break". Did I read this wrong or did it not say 500. MILLION. dollars? The cynicism must be pretty darn strong to try and explain that away by anything other than Zuck wanting to do some good with his shares and money. We should be applauding it, not over-analyzing it for how it benefits him.
You view charity in terms of the benefit to the recipient. I think that's the exact wrong way to view it. I think charity should be measured by how much it hurts to give. $500 million is about 1/20 of Mark Zuckerberg's estimated wealth. He could donate $8.4 billion and still be a billionaire. He could donate $9 billion and still be set for the rest of his life. $500 million is almost inconsequential to him. Compare t…
I'm really, really trying to restrain myself from vigorously flaming you here in the way that I'd be tempted to if I'd seen this post in a forum where the cultural norms tend toward less civility than HN. Suffice to say that I find your views utterly abhorrent and unconscionable.
Charity is about helping people who need help, creating more happiness in the world than previously existed. Measuring its virtue in terms of how much pain it creates - for anyone - is a shameful, Manichean inversion of morality.
Maybe "the wealthy" are "trying to buy their way out of hell". They're also buying other people's way out of hell. Good on all counts; who wants to see anybody living in hell, other than someone who thinks that pain is good?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not celebrate both? Beyond that, even if we accept the premise that it's easier for Zucker to give away $500MM than someone with little to donate a fraction of that amount, the money will absolutely have a great net impact on society as a whole. Isn't that contribution to the betterment of all worth a major celebration? I think part of the problem is that it's hard to conceptualize what sort of impact donations a…
If you think the aid is effective, you can celebrate that. But (for example purposes - not targeting Zuck) why would you celebrate a person who is using a donation as a tax write-off?
Who cares if it's a tax write-off? What is at all negative about a tax-write off that in any way detracts from the manifest positive impact that the charitable donation itself creates?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did I read this wrong or did it not say 500. MILLION. dollars? This isn't directed at Zuck or Facebook, or anything. Because I really don't know him. But regarding your shock about the dollar amount... Keep in mind that it's incredibly easy to be generous when you are at the top. It's actually so easy, that it's almost effortless . There really is a difference between a man that writes a check that makes no differe…
First, "throws money away", really? It's going toward something good, helping real people's lives. Second it's fine if you want to measure someone's charitableness by their personal sacrifice, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with measuring it by the impact of their actions. In your scenario I would say the money being thrown away would have much more of an impact.
> Second it's fine if you want to measure someone's charitableness by their personal sacrifice
Why do you think that's fine? Do you regard the notion that one person's happiness must be "paid for" by another person's suffering as a virtuous one?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
You view charity in terms of the benefit to the recipient. I think that's the exact wrong way to view it. I think charity should be measured by how much it hurts to give. $500 million is about 1/20 of Mark Zuckerberg's estimated wealth. He could donate $8.4 billion and still be a billionaire. He could donate $9 billion and still be set for the rest of his life. $500 million is almost inconsequential to him. Compare t…
I'm really, really trying to restrain myself from vigorously flaming you here in the way that I'd be tempted to if I'd seen this post in a forum where the cultural norms tend toward less civility than HN. Suffice to say that I find your views utterly abhorrent and unconscionable. Charity is about helping people who need help, creating more happiness in the world than previously existed. Measuring its virtue in terms…
[deleted]