| How do we even judge moves like this? On the one hand this is one in a continued series of "I don't care how it looks" real estate moves by Zuck. EG like his plan last year to build fake houses on 4 zone residential lots around his Palo Alto residence and turn the block into his private compound http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/15/palo-alto-mark-zuckerb... And I get it, can you imagine being internationally famous for being a YOUNG billionaire? Life would be very strange. I can see it seeming "fair" that you could use some of that wealth to claw back what you can't have anywhere - privacy - when on the other hand you're trying to be "macro good" as one of the world's largest philanthropists? (1 / 2) So what do we do put a green checkmark in the "Good guy" column and a red checkmark in the "asshole" column? Sort of like any of us except his checkmarks are super sized? (1) http://mashable.com/2014/01/02/zuckerberg-charitable-donatio... (2) http://www.pcworld.com/article/3010838/software-social/zucke... |
And donations are always so ambiguous. For one, I wish someone would attempt to quantify how much less a donated dollar helps than a dollar made at the expense of the population hurts (ounce of prevention vs. pound of cure). For example, what percentage of that donation is going straight to that organization's advertising budget? Moreover, what is Zuckerberg getting in return? Political clout? Further control over the city?
And if this is how he justifies kicking people off their land (which, yes, clearly he is), it simply doesn't add up on the existential scales.