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

411–420 of 555 posts

Re: A letter to our daughter

#411

Post by grp »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #143
grp wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the concrete initiative of just paying taxes in each countries where the real business is done?

If you're in the US and want to actually make the world better there are ridiculously more efficient ways to do so than handing your money to the government. Tax dollars paid in the US are probably more of a negative force in the world than a positive one when you consider the damage our military and corporate subsidies have done over the last 50 years.

I don't disagree, but it's not because his wealth is actually valued at 45B that he deserves more democratic power than me or anyone else in the US or the world.

This trend for "corporations can make the world better" is misleading. Everyone else has failed: military corp, narco, public corp (as in ancient urrs), ... If only one has succeed, we should see it.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#412

Post by fijal »

I think a bad sentiment here is mostly generated not about what Mark says on his post, but what he does otherwise. We've seen a fair share of controversy regarding facebook, privacy practices etc, we've seen a fair share of controversy regarding internet.org.

I for one find it all skeptical - I don't see how his ideas would align with facebook goals as a company

Re: A letter to our daughter

#414

Post by onewaystreet »

gnaritas wrote: post #401
andreyf wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think cynicism and criticism are the same here. This is the man that about a decade ago who called his users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their personal data [1]. The same man who used failed password logins to Facebook to access a journalist's email address [2]. Now he's giving 99% of his wealth to a charity he controls. This is an awesome step: dynastic wealth is stupid. However, it will take a few mo…

> Now he's giving 99% of his wealth to a charity he controls. Which is just a way to setup a comfy retirement where you make more from the money than you have to give away to be considered a charity and everywhere you go is now "business" as long as you give some money away on the trip. Make 30% on investments, give away 10%, avoid all kinds of taxes and appear charitable all the while still in control of the whole f…

> Make 30% on investments, give away 10%

Any profits made from investments go back into the charity's holdings. This is a good thing.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#415

Post by grp »

brbsix wrote: post #159
grp wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the concrete initiative of just paying taxes in each countries where the real business is done?

If Facebook were to pay taxes "where the real business is done" (assuming there is a legal way to avoid doing so), it would probably be considered gross negligence. I imagine the same is true of any multinational. Besides, Facebook can put that money to much better use than government. All the lowly users of Facebook on the other hand do not know how to best spend their money and had better hand it over. Zuck says so…

I don't think 'internet.org' is the best way to teach the lowly users how to best spend their money.

The responsability of teaching should be public (so like a government), not just 3 random guys.

Zuck also says "you need to work in a hangar"... Nah, I want my workplace to be better than my home.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#416

Post by mempko »

vikp wrote: post #117
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…

Mark Zuckerberg donated 100 million dollars to Newark public schools a few years ago, and they ended up no better for it (and arguably worse off). Here's a great article on the topic -- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled . The main reason for the failure of the donation to create positive change was that the community wasn't engaged at all in the reform process. The first time Newark students and p…

It is interesting that the same rich people created a political system that allows the public to be so disengaged.

We need the 99% tax because we had it before, and at that time, the public was more engaged. It will take time, but people can learn civic skills.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#417

Post by theampersand »

6stringmerc wrote: post #35

Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a variation of “a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just ‘eccentric.’” I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolu…

I understand your sentiment, but I would hesitate just a moment to judge it so quickly.

It's hard to look at this sort of statement, especially when it's posted on Facebook. The source of 'Like this posts to do XYZ' or '#KonyIsABadGuy'. But really, the ideals that they strive for seem to build on those that have formed the foundation of our very society. The equality and advancement of mankind. In many ways, this seems no different than what Jefferson or Franklin had in mind.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#419

Post by jevgeni »

bduerst wrote: post #164
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a little nihilist. Traditionally the state has been a form of wealth redistribution, because while it may not be a true democracy, citizens still vote, and could potentially vote to have the majority of the wealth redistributed equally amongst themselves. But instead we have a power struggle between those with the means to sway others and the idealists. While I'm sure the idealists will probably never attain t…

I think there's a reason, why the people who attain the means to sway others stop being idealists.

Re: A letter to our daughter

#420

Post by dagw »

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.

Is it possible in the US to take both names after marriage?

Where isn't it possible?

Post reply on HN