You have to know this level of hyperbole is baiting Godwin’s Law...

I’ll come right out and say it: I never thought Microsoft’s activity was that bad, and I never really understood the ire that Bill Gates received. I agree it was worth antitrust action, but the way people talked about him and the company has always struck me as self-righteous and hollow. There were just so many worse people and things that it seemed silly in my opinion, and sort of lacking in awareness about the broader context of the country or even the world. In fact I would go so far as to say people carrying on about him like this made it more difficult to take Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior seriously because it stifled honest conversation. If Gates is anything remotely close to “evil incarnate”, then what adjective would you use to describe, I don’t know, Kim Jong Un? Do you see why it’s hard to take your point seriously when your proclamation is that over the top? How can we communicate in good faith if that’s where you’re starting from?

People diminutize the fact that Gates has spent billions of dollars of his own wealth both leading initiatives and helping others along for inarguable good in the world by calling it “PR” - if that’s PR, what isn’t? How can we reasonably and rationally discuss the legitimately impressive humanitarian achievements of the Gates Foundation or Microsoft without you just dismissing it as the machinations of someone hellbent on a quest for power? What satisfies your bar for altruism?! Listening to descriptions of the man, you’d think he was literally burning puppies and kittens alive in the early days of Microsoft while blasting The Imperial March, like some kind of macabre cartoon villain.

Have some perspective. It was an internet browser.

... a bit more than that.

But also not "literally burning puppies and kittens alive in the early days of Microsoft while blasting The Imperial March" ...

More to the point, when people talk about Gates like this, it's both dismissive of his very legitimate philanthropic accomplishments and stifling to any well-reasoned, neutral conversation we could have about Microsoft's legitimate failings.

Let's put aside the silliness of dismissing actual philanthropy by complaining that it puts people in a positive light. If I take the parent commenter's thesis at face value, then Bill Gates' philanthropy is a public relations conspiracy designed to get people to forget "how bad he was" in his Microsoft years. Frankly, I can only hope more CEOs become so publicly vilified for anti-competitive practices that they decide they need to start foundations to spend billions of dollars reducing various life threatening diseases by double digit percentages.

So yes, you could say I'm willing to look the other way, or at least more fondly, when it comes to Bill's Microsoft years. If his public relations strategy is to make himself look good by doing good, then I don't have anything to complain about. What are we supposed to do, nod to each other and say, "Yes, but let's not forget about how evil his company was in the 80s and 90s..." in a somber tone every time his philanthropic works comes up?

It's ridiculous. And most of the vocal proponents of this idea are intellectually insulting, with passive aggressive remarks that accuse people of being shills in a web of lies.

Yeah, no.

I want to hear from you how, specifically, Microsoft’s high valuation (and thereby most of Gates’ wealth) is a product of war, famine, and poverty. I want concrete evidence, not handwaving, and not global capitalist conspiracies. If you can’t provide that, your claims are intellectually dishonest and you’re spreading a narrative.

Why do we even have to, yet again, bring the burden of the proof to fight a PR orchestrated with millions of dollar ?

It's an impossible to win fight to tell the sky is blue to people if the minute they don't look at it anymore, they doubt it and ask for proof.

Reporting from where, precisely? And how does it negate Gates’ philanthropy? We need to see details. What may be obvious to you is entirely unobvious to us.

> Why do we even have to, yet again, bring the burden of the proof to fight a PR orchestrated with millions of dollar?

Because claims require the burden of proof in general, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is your claim exactly? That the Gates Foundation has not, for example, nearly eradicated polio? That they weren’t even involved in the 99% reduction of its incidence? We’re debating with you in good faith by explaining what we see, it would be nice if you acknowledged us as intellectual peers and bothered to humor us with some evidence. You’re refuting our evidence with...nothing, and you haven’t given us evidence to refute. What are we supposed to do, just believe you?

> It's an impossible to win fight to tell the sky is blue to people if the minute they don't look at it anymore, they doubt it and ask for proof.

Look, if you want to rant into a void, continue carrying on like this. If you want to seriously convince people, you need to make an effort with falsifiable claims and some evidence instead of going on about a grand conspiracy to make Bill Gates look good.

What an incredibly effective conspiracy, to spend billions of dollars helping people. How nefarious of them, who would have thought of that!

Also, it's not safe to assume that everyone has read the same things you've read, and knows the same things you do. You have to be prepared to present your evidence during every conversation. Those are table stakes.

That’s both dismissive and intellectually insulting. Please tell me how this is “PR” and not honest altruism:

1. The Gates Foundation’s philanthropy is partly responsible for a 25% reduction in malaria diagnoses from 2005 onwards: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Mal...

2. Their efforts have dramatically reduced polio, nearly to the point of eradicating it entirely: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Developmen...

Let’s start with those two. I gave you links directly from the foundation’s website. Please, by all means, enlighten us.

Especially when we all are also part of the economy and therefore by your logic also responsible for every war and famime etc.

So it is our hypocrisy as well.

But related: you know, that there have been wars and famine and poverty since the beginning of humanity(and before) ?

But I guess it's ok, if you fight Malaria.

And aiding a dictator sounds bad, but when "aiding" simply means doing business with him, then you can blame allmost the whole world. As we all are buying things that were at least partly made in dictatorships. And what is the alternative?

Not doing business with states who have not our perfectly nice democratic governments?

And don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft for making exclusive deals with any governments to strenghten their monopoly, but "evil" is something different.

Like what I came across yesterday again,

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

and the fact, that there was a public outrage in the US, for convincting one of the murderers. And not so much about the massacre or the cover up itself.

And that this does not seem to have changed fundamentaly regarding the ongoing drone war, imprisoning innocent people for years in Guantanamo, torturing, massacring etc. etc.

So blaming only the rich seems hypocrite to me, when the very normal base of the people don't think or act that nice by themself. As far as I know over 70% consider Snowden to be a traitor ... so what can you expect?

What exactly is the problem with "buying a stairway to heaven?" If you're actually doing good work, how is this criticism not just a vacuous attack?

I'm just annoyed that the rest is forgiven because of it.

Well, I never considered him to be the evil incarnate, even though I am for free software as long as I can remember. But yes, the hatdred towards him has declined.

But I think it might also have to do with him stepping a bit away from Microsoft and focusing more on his foundation (even though I don't believe, that his foundation is really doing so good). And Microsoft in general being not that important anymore.

Why?

But the other things, like helping with Computers means helping establishing Microsoft Monopoly.

And supporting heavily chemicalized monoculture farming, as a means to end hunger, I am very sceptical as a means to sustainable provide food production.

I'm a liberal voter, but I found the liberal reaction to Trump's election to be extreme. People thought it was the end of the free world and progress as we know it. Someone I knew spent a large sum of money on a bomb shelter.

When your assessment is that low, is there really anywhere to go but up in the future?

But in hindsight that all seems a lot less evil to me than what today's giants are doing: vacuuming up our personal lives and delivering them to the NSA, cultivating addiction and depression in children to increase ad views, etc.

1990s/2000s Microsoft seems saintly to me by comparison.

It sends a toxic message: be a ruthless businessman today, and, if you succeed, donate money you don't need before dying and people will call you a saint.