[thesunny]

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.

[iamcurious]

>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.

[TeMPOraL]

So what?

This sounds like a twisted, reversed version of Widow's Mite[0], in which the rich guy is being hated for giving a lot of money for good purposes. Yes, the average person (or the poor person) is giving up much more personally. But even the Bible story doesn't deny that the rich guy giving lots of money is doing much more for the cause. If you care about actual effect, as opposed to judging someone's moral state (to which Jesus is entitled, you're not), you should be happy that a rich person can single-handedly give more good than most other donors taken together, and you should encourage more rich people to drop their money, instead of scaring them off.

It's results that matters.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite

[iamcurious]

>you should be happy that a rich person can single-handedly give more good than most other donors taken together

How is that supposed to make me happy?

>It's results that matters.

What results beyond Zuckerberg having even more power and influence than before?

[TeMPOraL]

> How is that supposed to make me happy?

Because significantly more good is being done? It should make you happy if you care about the particular issue being solved. If not, that's fair, but it means we're not complaining about philanthropy anymore, but about rich people being rich.

[iamcurious]

You claimed I should be happy about rich people being rich. I asked how you expected me to do that.

Also, I'm not sure good is being done at all. As my second question showed.

[fantasticsid]

Guys, be grateful! Whatever you say he's probably still doing much better than you or me. And certainly better than thousands of bankers out there.

[FeepingCreature]

Still. Results.

[ant6n]

Show them.

[ant6n]

The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power. An amount that an individual shouldn't have in the first place. And this particular individual doesn't have a particularly good track record.

1) For example, 'investing' in education may boost the private education system at the further detriment of the public one - long term this could be worse for accessibility of the poor to good education. Zuckerberg does not have a track record of wanting to help public education in a way that includes stake holders like ... parents. Controlling an education system also allows indoctrinating people in convenient ways. I'd rather the public decides which propaganda our young generation's minds get poisoned with rather than a billionaire with uncertain motivations.

2) For example, bringing the 1 billion poorest on the internet may involve giving them some sort of crippled Facebook+wikipedia-only access for free. This would create a great funnel to Facebook, in the name of charity, of course as a tax-deductible charitable donation, and would effectively make it harder for these people to access the real internet that can actually help solve problems for them. Because it's tough to compete with free. Zuckerberg may end up destroying local companies trying to provide access to the internet. Just like direct food donations can undermine the local food production industry.

A young mother dedicating 99% of their life to charity is unlikely to have the potential for far-reaching negative consequences. And as you described that scenario, she is less likely to have motives about accumulating power, less likely to have a negative track record of mis-using power or misrepresenting intentions.

[vezzy-fnord]

I'd rather the public decides which propaganda our young generation's minds get poisoned with rather than a billionaire with uncertain motivations.

How are the public's motivations exempt from uncertainty?

(This is a false dilemma, anyway. The educational prospects of the poor in public schools are already bad, regardless of any action undertaken by Zuckerberg. I also find your implication that private school investment somehow "crowds out" public schools to be highly dubious. The real solution is abandoning the traditional schooling model entirely.)

[ant6n]

The claim is that high-quality private education undermines the quality of public education. If everybody with connections, power and money has their kids and grand kids in a private school, then there's little incentive for those who could affect change to actually fix the public school system.

[TeMPOraL]

> The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power.

It might feel that way. What Gates Foundation does, or what Elon Musk does (not charity, but hitting the market with a stick until it gives up and moves where he wants it to), feels like an exercise of power. It feels undemocratic. It feels good.

There are problems in this world - some of the biggest and most important problems, like climate change, energy crisis, poverty or education, are of this type - for which both democratic governments and free markets fail spectacularly. Making things worse is usually more profitable than making them better, so that's what businesses do. And democracies spend endless amounts of time and resources on constantly talking and doing nothing. I'm very happy that there are people who can single-handedly do something about problems that lie on the other side of coordination trap.

And yes, I'm aware that this type of power can backfire and the next rich person may use it for evil. But when the alternative is to continue doing nothing (or making things worse), the risk can be worth it.

[vezzy-fnord]

most important problems, like climate change, energy crisis, poverty or education, are of this type - for which both democratic governments and free markets fail spectacularly.

Countries with democratic governments generally do not have free markets. Don't butcher the term's meaning.

(In fact, there is evidence that markets, free or otherwise, do advance education. Alternative educational institutions like Montessori, Sudbury, Summerhill and democratic schools tend to be private.)

"Poverty" also isn't what it used to be for many in both First and Second World countries, unless you're extremely myopic.

[ant6n]

I'd argue that more democratic countries (say, Denmark) are more successful at dealing with climate change, poverty or education than less democratic countries (like Saudi Arabia or the United States).

[dragonwriter]

> The 'charitable work' feels to me like it's primarily an exercise of power.

All uses of wealth are uses of power; wealth is a form of power, after all.

[bharath28]

>To put this into context, if a young mother dedicates 99% of her life

The difference, of course, as you note is that she is either "dedicating" or has "dedicated" 99% of her life while Zuckerberg's claim is for the future. That combined with other factors (as you state -their dislike for Zuckerberg's fortunes, how he got it, Facebook privacy issues, etc.), seems to explain the criticism.