Why Zuckerberg’s Critics Are Wrong

The harsh criticism feels unwarranted to me as well.

It honestly feels to me like a little bit of misplaced self insecurity.

I kind of get it, but considering that there is no evidence of ill will, I get the sense that people are reacting to something other than what's actually happening here (like their dislike for Zuckerberg's fortunes, how he got it, Facebook privacy issues, etc.)

To put this into context, if a young mother dedicates 99% of her life (but not billions because she doesn't have it) into charity and she does so in the name of her children and their future, I doubt she would be receiving the sort of harsh criticism that Zuckerberg is receiving for the same thing.

It reminds of people's hatred for SUV's (seems to have died down more recently). It was always under the guise of the environment, but really other types of environmental waste were not really villified to the same extent. For example, it's far worse to own a non-SUV and decide to live out in the suburbs and drive to work than to live nearby work and have an SUV.

I'm not a Zuckerberg fan-club member, but what he did would be something I wish I could do someday and it doesn't seem weird at all to me to do this in dedication of my child. I also feel, from a pragmatic point of view, that we need to be encouraging people to donate.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "philanthrocapitalism" is a term used to obfuscate the issue of billionaires setting up tax havens in the guise of philanthropy. The term implies that philanthropy can be or is a mode of capitalism, whereas in reality it's the opposite because philanthropy deals with altruistic allocation of resources rather than profit-seeking allocation of resources. Let's not use this term, because it's deceptive and doesn't make sense internally.

Instead, let's do some white hat thinking (purely facts, as little spin as possible) about Zuck's new venture. Fact: Zuck has laid down a large chunk of change for a new project, and marketed this project to the public as large scale philanthropy. Fact: Zuck will get a large amount of leeway on taxes and oversight by moving his money in this way. Fact: some billionaires before Zuck have made similar moves that actually turned into fantastic philanthropic organizations that have made tangible positive impact in the world (Gates Foundation)-- but others have used the construct as purely a means to protect their money and get good PR.

These are some of the facts. I do not believe that there is any way to get around or reinterpret any of them without adding opinion, which probably snuck in anyway despite my efforts. At this point, I think that the reactions of those who question Zuck's motives are justified because we haven't had the time to see the program in action disbursing money as it claims that it will. A promise, a wad of cash, and a lot of PR do not make an effective philanthropic organization. Effective philanthropy requires that real, living people and real institutions are altered in an objectively positive way. The proper stance is skepticism and a request for more evidence of good will.

EDIT: I will add that the rabid detractors of Zuck have counterparts with the rabid pro-Zuck crowd... I doubt Zuck is looking out for anyone other than himself, but there is more to life than celebrity-watching, and it seems petty no matter how you slice it.

The reason that Zuckerberg is singled out is simply because of the scale ($45 billion). The same reason that McDonalds is criticized for unhealthy food instead of Burger King/Wendy's/Carls Jr., or Apple criticized for labor conditions instead of HTC/LG/Samsung.

>if a young mother dedicates 99% of her life (but not billions because she doesn't have it) into charity

That is the point. He is not dedicating 99% of his life, he is moving money around. If an average person gives 5% of his income to charity he is losing power and losing opportunities. He is sacrificing his well being and that of his immediate family for charity. If someone with as much money as Zuckerberg or Gates does it he is increasing his power and his opportunities. They still get influence, they earn karma points, they get a legacy, they still decide.

The average guy giving is a hero, Zuckerberg is not.