[buddylw]

We can have a discussion about weather we should have billionaires in the first place, but Gates is employing his vast resources in an attempt to improve the world with a humble data-driven approach to reduce suffering in the world. For that, I'm quite thankful.

[verbify]

Precisely - nobody bats an eyelid when billionaires spend their money on yachts, if they spend their money on philanthropy, it should be applauded.

[ryandrake]

For every Gates there’s a Koch. When we, as a society, decide to rely on philanthropy to fund important public works, we delegate the decision of “what’s important” to the world views of a few individuals rather than the people as a whole. In other words we move even more from One Person One Vote to One Dollar One Vote.

[jacquesm]

Bill Gates is busy with a decade long PR effort to whitewash his reputation - successfully. That he does some good along the way is 'collateral upside'.

[WhompingWindows]

Would we even be here talking about him if not for his so-called PR efforts? I think the important point here is that so many billionaires are extremely rich and fly under the radar. Bill got his money in underhanded ways like basically all billionaires, yet at least he's out here trying to apply philanthropy efficiently.

[jacquesm]

Fair enough, but at least with the likes of Larry Ellison what you see is what you get.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

I'm cynical enough to upvote this comment, but I must say that I still prefer 'solve malaria' Bill to the ruthless cutthroat Bill of the 90s.

[jacquesm]

Agreed. What would be good as well would be to see Bill and whoever runs MS come clean about all the shit they pulled and to try to make right what they actively destroyed.

[SeanAppleby]

Eh, I feel like if you were just trying to whitewash your reputation, effective altruism wouldn't be the way to do it.

You could get a lot more PR per dollar spending on something more emotional, less abstract, and more visible to the people he's trying to influence than the kinds of issues he works on.

He seems to spend more coherently with what you'd do if you were trying to actually do good than if you were just trying to optimize PR.

[buddylw]

I do not pretend to know his motives. All I can see are his actions.

[jacquesm]

Any mobster donating to the church or charity could claim to 'do good'. But it doesn't just matter what you do, it matters how you got there. Gates is where he is today - a position to lecture the world on how to behave - by a series of uncompetitive and monopolistic practices as well as a bunch of stuff that should have been downright illegal, and likely would have been if not for an 11th hour change in government.

[mrfredward]

The comparison of Gates to a mobster is unfair. We're comparing bundling a shitty internet browser with Windows to committing murder here.

Gates didn't take a life in building his fortune, but now he is saving lives. He is a net positive.

[jacquesm]

> We're comparing bundling a shitty internet browser with Windows to committing murder here.

It goes a lot further than that, and most mobsters never murdered anybody. It's just business, right?

Besides that, the comparison was made not to suggest that Gates murdered people but that a life full of wrongs can not be justified by charity at the end of it. And to this day Gates profits every day from a lot of their uncompetitive actions. See 'the Microsoft Tax', the way they are co-opting Linux nowadays to lure people to Azure, the way in which they tried hard - and to some extent succeeded - in tainting FOSS, specifically the kernel either directly or by proxy and so on.

[jimbob45]

It's tough to agree with you since the tech companies of today practice profoundly more uncompetitive and monopolistic practices than Microsoft ever did.

[jacquesm]

Just a couple:

- killing independent software providers in a very determined way

- Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

- The SCO Saga

- The Browser Wars

- Forcing manufacturers to bundle Windows with their computers

The list is long. Whether Google, Apple or Facebook are more uncompetitive and more monopolistic today has no bearing on what MS did when it did.

And yes, there is plenty wrong with Google, Apple and Facebook (and a bunch of others) but they are not the subject here. That's classic 'whataboutism'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[pk22]

You should check out Citations Needed two part podcast series on this. https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so...

https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-46-the-not-so...