>if you are willing to spend enough time to google Big Lists as big as yours, you are bound to come across counter-evidence on your own.
That's a very good point and I'm happy you brought it up. Although, I wish you'd been a bit more polite didn't assume bad faith with me in the process.
I've been in the process of providing a more "human-readable" (so to speak) breakdown of both the positives of his business practices, charity, etc. versus the negatives. I don't know if you've ever researched something of this scale before or not, but it takes quite a bit of time to vet sources properly and break it all down into a fair manner with methodologies that others can easily understand, relate to and, indeed, find to be a fair comparison/assessment (overall).
Despite working on this with six other people (granted, all off-and-on in our spare time since, unlike Public Relations, we aren't paid to do this), it's taken well over a year so far. Ughh..
In the meantime, I've provided sources of evidence to the public that should at the very least provoke more people to question the narrative that Gates is simply a net gain for society via his philanthropy and gains for society he created via his role at Microsoft, etc. If Gates is a Robin Hood that stole from the rich to provide for the poor, I've yet to see much data that resembles that scenario.
So far, I have measured more counter-evidence that positively reflects Bill Gates' actions than the negative evidence I've gathered (for one, it's very easy to find positives on Gates & MS). Incredibly easy... However, I've found it lacking once one considers all the costs that his monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior at this huge of a scale extolled upon society en masse along with Gates' personal hoarding of assets/money to climb towards his billionaire status to boot.
Of course, it's also complicated by the fact that Gates' assets have provided both good and bad for society as well, so it's quite complex.
But, again, if you've got some evidence that shows that Gates is an overall net gain for society after I've provided all this evidence to the contrary and I'm wrong on this, I'd like you to provide it. I'd like to review it and add it to the pile if it's not there already. Who know, perhaps you have a much better perspective I or the six others haven't yet considered.
For example, I'd like to see a better comparative analysis than what we have so far of all the jobs Microsoft destroyed versus ones they enabled internally and externally. Love to compare methodologies on that as well with more people.
Anyway, otherwise, I suppose you can just assume bad faith on my part instead of forming an argument based upon your own sources of evidence, etc.
>That you are asking someone else to waste as much time as you
That's hostile. How about you put some of that energy to good use and challenge my sources of evidence instead?
>sufficient proof that you are looking to silence, not evaluate.
I'm not looking to silence anyone at all. I very much welcome more data whether it adds to the positive gain or negative drain.
But, anyway, if that's all the "proof" you need to pre-judge my intentions, then I'm afraid we don't require the same levels of evidence to support our own suppositions in the first place, perhaps.
tl;dr - I'm still working on this with others. I'd like to see a better comparative analysis than what we have so far, so if anyone can think of some data that seriously challenges the negatives, I'd enjoy gathering it. I should also note I hope to have a final, comprehensive report completed, edited and ready for heavy rotation by Spring or earlier if we have the time and/or can get more people involved in the process. But, so far, I haven't seen anywhere near a net gain for society by Bill Gate's actions and I hope in the end we can all learn that at the very least, there's a better way to garner a successful business than hurting so many others in the process.