Gates Criticizes Google For Not Helping The Poor

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If there is one person on the planet that can honestly criticize you for not helping the poor (without being a big fat hypocrite), it's Bill Gates.

When you're dying of malaria, I suppose you'll look up and see that balloon, and I'm not sure how it'll help you. When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that. Certainly I'm a huge believer in the digital revolution. And connecting up primary-health-care centers, connecting up schools, those are good things. But no, those are not, for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we're going to do something about malaria.
Click to expand...
 
How is he a hypocrite? Because he didn't start his foundation until 25 years later? He used his own money for that, so I'm not sure if it really counts.

From wikipedia:
As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second-most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity; the couple plan to eventually donate 95% of their wealth to charity
Click to expand...
 
I hold an enormous amount of respect for philanthropists. I don't hold much respect for philanthropists who criticize others for taking a different road.
 
I think companies who feel the need to do charitable projects should try to minimize the self serving nature of them ... if they really want to do self serving projects they should do them as part of their normal business and not as their charitable business dealings ... you do have to give Gates credit, he has put his money where his mouth is ... he is probably the Alfred Noble of our generation
 
King Icewind said:
How is he a hypocrite? Because he didn't start his foundation until 25 years later? He used his own money for that, so I'm not sure if it really counts.

From wikipedia:
Click to expand...

Steve didn't say he was a hypocrite. Read the line again.
 
King Icewind said:
How is he a hypocrite? Because he didn't start his foundation until 25 years later? He used his own money for that, so I'm not sure if it really counts.

From wikipedia:
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension, she is not so good.
 
wonderfield said:
I hold an enormous amount of respect for philanthropists. I don't hold much respect for philanthropists who criticize others for taking a different road.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's what I got... :/

If you don't share my opinions on this, you're a bad person. Sorry, Bill. You spend your money how you want, they can do what they want with theirs. Google isn't wrong at all by the way they do things. Would I give more to charitable things? Yes, in a heartbeat. But, I won't criticize those that don't. That's kind of fucked up.
 
see microsoft and apple's patent war on google, trying to get back their monopolies .
More mud slinging , trying to change the publics view on android through the press.

Like kids throwing mud in the schoolyard.
 
Philanthropy is a personal issue, When you try to guilt other people into it then that becomes a serious problem. How people make their money and spend it is no ones business.
 
Until someone with enough money gets pissed off and lobbies for laws so its a crime to not share your wealth to the sick if you make over a certain amount :)

Joking of course, but with how laws gets passed these days who knows.
 
Methadras said:
Philanthropy is a personal issue, When you try to guilt other people into it then that becomes a serious problem. How people make their money and spend it is no ones business.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is trying to guilt them into something necessarily but he is making a valid criticism of their priorities (it might carry more weight coming from an NGO though) ... although getting these underdeveloped areas access to internet might have some value for the people it might not be fully utilized because of the other social issues that are destroying these populations (that Bill Gates referred to) ... perhaps Google could encourage other companies to work on those issues so that giving internet to a person dying of starvation doesn't look nearly so self serving ;)
 
Gates is a great consultant when it comes to effective philanthopy and planning, but really should be offering opinions like these when they are solicited, more than shooting from the hip.
 
As a Rotarian, I absolutely respect what Bill Gates has done for the world. His foundation can be HUGELY credited for why polio is almost gone from the world. There are just only a few pockets left with what was once a devastating world wide disease.

That said, people and corporations have the right to do what they want with their money. If you don't agree with what a company does with their money, then you simply don't support them. For instance I don't support Apple and I am on the cusp of abandoning Android as soon as a better option comes up. I really liked the W7 phones but Costco wasn't selling any when I bought my Samsung.
 
Google isn't a charity. Now, if Bill Gates says the two founders should give more, or directly finance charities, then that's his choice. But Google is a business. Bill Gates himself didn't become charitably involved until his retirement. Ironically, because Microsoft was run as a business like it should have been, Gates has the money to devote to charity.

Who knows how many people have benefitted from Google and then that allowed them to donate to charity or to volunteer? A lot of our country's wealth and leisure time results from companies like Google. Some people get so wealthy and have so much time on their hands that they lose sight of things.
 
delahaya said:
Google isn't a charity. Now, if Bill Gates says the two founders should give more, or directly finance charities, then that's his choice. But Google is a business. Bill Gates himself didn't become charitably involved until his retirement. Ironically, because Microsoft was run as a business like it should have been, Gates has the money to devote to charity.

Who knows how many people have benefitted from Google and then that allowed them to donate to charity or to volunteer? A lot of our country's wealth and leisure time results from companies like Google. Some people get so wealthy and have so much time on their hands that they lose sight of things.
Click to expand...

Google.org is a charity, which is what the article is talking about.
 
Easy for Bill to say this. What's the real issue? Is he finding it tough to basically give away billions to try and battle a force of nature called malaria?
 
Galvin said:
Until someone with enough money gets pissed off and lobbies for laws so its a crime to not share your wealth to the sick if you make over a certain amount :)

Joking of course, but with how laws gets passed these days who knows.
Click to expand...

But it sort'a works that way already. If... you pay taxes. Or if you're supposed to pay taxes and don't.

Just that the "aid" given doesn't always go to the intended recipients. Nothing is perfect. Sometimes warlords get the big box of guns, I mean food.
 
Ho, ho ho!

Rich people telling other rich people how to spend their money is just rich!

I've been giving away things to the poor for centuries but you don't hear me criticizing Gates for doing nothing during all that time, especially during the Black Death!

Merry Christmas!
 
amddragonpc said:
Easy for Bill to say this. What's the real issue? Is he finding it tough to basically give away billions to try and battle a force of nature called malaria?
Click to expand...

Humans battle nature all the time when it comes to diseases like malaria, that battle can be effectively won, the scale of the problem is the issue. What he is saying here is just common sense, when you don't have enough potable water, what good is free WiFi? Google's own former charity head said the same thing in 2006:

Google.org, the company's non-profit charitable foundation set up in 2006, was formerly led by Larry Brilliant, a medical doctor and technologist who worked on smallpox eradication, and went beyond technology projects.

"Why would we put Wi-Fi in a place where what they need is food and clean water?" Brilliant told the New York Times in a 2006 interview.
Click to expand...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57...criticizes-google-for-not-uplifting-the-poor/

I think that's why projects like One Laptop Per Child didn't fare so well. Sure, having access to technology is great, but in so many places around the world the needs or so much more basic and large.
 
amddragonpc said:
Easy for Bill to say this. What's the real issue? Is he finding it tough to basically give away billions to try and battle a force of nature called malaria?
Click to expand...

We know how to battle malaria..... it was called DDT. It has been outlawed. I bet you more people have died from not spraying DDT due to malaria then ever have died from DDT.

DDT is still bad but I think not controlling mosquitos spreading the disease is probably even worse.
 
Instead of everyone being in full on retard mode, you do realize this was a direct answer to a question he was asked in a interview correct?

It's not like he just came out of the blue and criticized Google, he was asked to share his opinion on how their internet blimps were going to solve problems in third world countries and he gave his opinion.

RTFA!!

One of Google’s (GOOG) convictions is that bringing Internet connectivity to less-developed countries can lead to all sorts of secondary benefits. It has a project to float broadband transmitters on balloons. Can bringing Internet access to parts of the world that don’t have it help solve problems?
When you’re dying of malaria, I suppose you’ll look up and see that balloon, and I’m not sure how it’ll help you. When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there’s no website that relieves that. Certainly I’m a huge believer in the digital revolution. And connecting up primary-health-care centers, connecting up schools, those are good things. But no, those are not, for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we’re going to do something about malaria.

Google started out saying they were going to do a broad set of things. They hired Larry Brilliant, and they got fantastic publicity. And then they shut it all down. Now they’re just doing their core thing. Fine. But the actors who just do their core thing are not going to uplift the poor.
Click to expand...
 
I don't believe anyone here accused Bill of criticizing Google apropo of nothing. Did Bill criticize Google? Yes.

Regardless of the set of circumstance that brought it out, criticism was levied.
 
I understand where Gates is coming from, and major, major kudos to him for what he's done, but at the same time, mind your own bidness. :)
 
I think Gates is off the mark downplaying the importance of information access for those suffering from curable diseases, like diarrhea. It's true that the lack of potable water is part of the problem but the lack of knowledge about what to do about the affliction is another equally valid concern.

I also disagree with Gates' position in regards to how he feels his legacy should (not) be preserved. He has stated in earlier interviews that the foundation will not last much longer than his or his wife's life by design. He also doesn't feel that his wealth should pass to his children. I disagree with both of those positions so while I think he does have some standing to criticize others I certainly don't think he's the final word on the topic.
 
Free internet will allow people to access information. Which in turn will help with every problem they face.

How will a website relieve a childs diarrhea? Well you can google remedies, google the reasons for diarrhea, google sanitation, how to clean drinking water through boiling it, activated charcoal etc etc. Knowledge is power... teach someone to fish rather than give them a fish blah blah blah

Information is a key thing, I'd have thought Gates would know that.
 
When corporations donate to charities it becomes a huge tax write-off and shouldn't be considered a legitimate donation if written off. Every time a corporation does this it's really just forcing US citizens to donate their money (tax dollars) while making someone else look good.
 
BryanSTG said:
When corporations donate to charities it becomes a huge tax write-off and shouldn't be considered a legitimate donation if written off. Every time a corporation does this it's really just forcing US citizens to donate their money (tax dollars) while making someone else look good.
Click to expand...

People aren't taxed at a higher rate when a corporation makes a charitable donation.
 
No, but their tax dollars are essentially being given away by a corporation who is taking credit for the "donation". The corporation, in turn, writes it off and then pays even less tax back to the government while looking like angels.
 
Am I the only one that think's all these generous rich people aren't doing ENOUGH?

I mean, look at that billionaires foundation or whatever where all these billionaires have pledged to give away all or most of their money when they're dead. Sure, on paper this looks awesome, but if they REALLY GENUINELY CARED THEN WHY NOT DONATE THE MONEY NOW?!

I mean, sure people like Mark Zuckerberg have lots of money and plan on giving it away when he dies but he isn't even 30 yet! So, going by the average age of death, his money isn't going to be usable for charities and what not for, what, another 40-50+ years?

Yeah, awesome bro.

Same goes for Gates. They PLAN on giving 95% of their money to charity...mind telling us when that is? I mean, he could do that shit NOW and still have more money than he'd know what do with if even with the 5% he keeps (3.6 billion dollars for those who don't care to do the math).

So to me I think it's awesome all these people want to give their fortunes away, only problem is that by the time a lot of them do it'll be too late for a lot of things it could be used for now.
 
I think it's a nice way to chose which charities you support, rather than being forced to support all the state run ones. The same goes for individual citizens. We get writeoffs, too.
 
Firstly, it's a public corporation's duty to act in the interests of their shareholders. Paying more taxes than necessary — which can devalue the organization — is not acting in the interests of shareholders.

Secondly, you can hardly fault anyone for wanting to give governments less money to squander than necessary.
 
JoeUser said:
Am I the only one that think's all these generous rich people aren't doing ENOUGH?

I mean, look at that billionaires foundation or whatever where all these billionaires have pledged to give away all or most of their money when they're dead. Sure, on paper this looks awesome, but if they REALLY GENUINELY CARED THEN WHY NOT DONATE THE MONEY NOW?!

I mean, sure people like Mark Zuckerberg have lots of money and plan on giving it away when he dies but he isn't even 30 yet! So, going by the average age of death, his money isn't going to be usable for charities and what not for, what, another 40-50+ years?

Yeah, awesome bro.

Same goes for Gates. They PLAN on giving 95% of their money to charity...mind telling us when that is? I mean, he could do that shit NOW and still have more money than he'd know what do with if even with the 5% he keeps (3.6 billion dollars for those who don't care to do the math).

So to me I think it's awesome all these people want to give their fortunes away, only problem is that by the time a lot of them do it'll be too late for a lot of things it could be used for now.
Click to expand...

Gates has already given billions. Why should he HAVE to?
 
JoeUser said:
So to me I think it's awesome all these people want to give their fortunes away, only problem is that by the time a lot of them do it'll be too late for a lot of things it could be used for now.
Click to expand...

If Gates gave away all of his fortune (95%) in one fell swoop I don't think it would be responsibly spent. Time needs to be taken to make sure the money isn't wasted or lining people's pockets.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Gates has already given billions. Why should he HAVE to?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he HAS to but he, along with a lot of others, have already SAID they are going to give it all (or most) of it away...so what EXACTLY are they waiting for? For millions of people to die and suffer first?

I mean, don't get me wrong, Gates and others have done a lot. For sure. But why stop there? I mean, Zuckerberg is giving away all his money but only AFTER he dies...so yeah, good job doing something now bro! Fuck the kids dying of starvation now, huh? I only want to feed the starving children of the future!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top