Wow man that's some top level hate. You do realize that Zuck has pledged away 99% of his wealth? Providing third party apps access to friends list was a strange permission. I have never used an app that asked for it. But there are plenty of dating, games and social apps that could only work with a permission like that.

I think people are reading too much into this fiasco. We are better off fixing Facebook. It serves its purpose well.

> You do realize that Zuck has pledged away 99% of his wealth?

He hasn't. He has pledged to donate 99% of his wealth to a private, for-profit organization that he owns.

I also pledge to donate 99% of my wealth to my bank account.

>He hasn't. He has pledged to donate 99% of his wealth to a private, for-profit organization that he owns.

I initially thought you were being overly critical here. It looks like you're right, the "Initiative" he created is an LLC and not a non-profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative#Com...

Yep, and not his first rodeo either. Remember the "Internet.org", a for-profit initiative that is part of Facebook? Putting ".org" in something for-profit that tries to achieve monopoly is as dishonest as it gets...

If you read higher up in that wiki it lists all of the money the initiative has given away so far. I'm not sure why people think that the LLC doesn't give away money.

The issue isn't that the LLC doesn't give away money. The issue is that it is a LLC.

That's called influence, changing people's minds with relatively small amounts of money. And it works.

Changing people's minds is no longer considered influential?

Interesting tax avoidance strategy. Any idea if this is also what Bill Gates is doing?

His and his wife's is a proper foundation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...

The money is out of their hands, and can't be distributed back to them.

Even in that case, he and his family will for a long time have the political benefit of deciding how the money will be spent. And political advantages usually translate into economical advantages, so it can also be viewed as a scheme at some level.

I don't think this cynicism is warranted. No matter how much benefit you think the goodwill of others is towards you for giving away your money, is dwarfed by the benefit of having billions of dollars.

If the political benefit really outweighed the costs, then every single billionaire would be doing the same thing, purely out of selfish interest. How many of them are?

> If the political benefit really outweighed the costs, then every single billionaire would be doing the same thing, purely out of selfish interest.

Well, they are doing for the selfish interest of feeling and looking good.

And I'm completely ok with that!

Lots of them are doing it. In fact, one of the oldest schemes devised by American billionaires is to start a foundation and to call themselves philanthropists. After all, how many billions you really need? It is better to take a portion of this money and invest in public relations.

Oh, sure, I'm not saying he is a saint or anything. But Gate's actions are very, very different than "I'm donating to a company I own and calling it an 'initiative'" Zuckerberg. That's a whole new level of dishonesty.

Not exactly, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates is a nonprofit. However, there's a book called "No Such Thing as a Free Gift" about the social costs of letting our .00001% be the welfare providers for society. Pretty good if you're interested.

I'm also happy to give away every dollar I earn, once I have $440m in my bank account.

>You do realize that Zuck has pledged away 99% of his wealth?

Please stop spreading PR. He put the money into a limited-liability corporation, and spread a bunch of articles about a "pledge." It's nothing more then a tax-sheltered investment vehicle.[1] This is not the same as putting it into a charitable trust. He can use the money to influence whoever he decides to give it to.

1. http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/zuckerberg-charity/

"Corporations can make for-profit investments and political donations—and unlike charitable trusts, they don’t have to report their political donations."

There's an enormous difference between Zuck's "charitable" corporation (not a foundation) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

There's no visible effort at giving beyond the US Zuck Feelings Tour and hiring professional political hacks as his CZI staff.

> It serves its purpose well.

It’s purpose being?

Maybe it’s the use I make of it, but it doesn’t add much to my life. It could go away and I could replace any of its function with something else, or not miss the function at all.

Cambridge Analytica/Obama campaign data fiascos aside, many are arguing more and more that Facebook is doing more damage than good to society.

Granted, this is hard to measure, but it’s a valid concern.

> It’s purpose being?

Connecting people. Communication between friends. Social events.

> Maybe it’s the use I make of it, but it doesn’t add much to my life. It could go away and I could replace any of its function with something else, or not miss the function at all.

So, maybe learn to use it better? Less? Not at all?

> many are arguing more and more that Facebook is doing more damage than good to society.

I wish people who actually use it and benefit from it would be taken more seriously on HN. This is pretty stark "silent majority" scenario.

> Zuck has pledged away 99% of his wealth?

They will actively ignore problems that deal with public health and security, but promise to "cure all disease" through philanthropy. Please.

“pledged”

Actually, he put his wealth in a tax-exempt “””charity”””.

People tend to forget that pledging away 99% of your wealth makes you much more attractive to getting investments now. It is all a marketing gimmick.

Why the cynicism?

Should giving money away be unfashionable?

Flashily promising to give money away should not be treated the same as _actually_ giving money away.

Didn't he plan to give away almost all his money over time?

He plans to "give away" money to an LLC he controls, which makes donations and invests in companies with some kind of social mission.

Not saying an LLC that makes investments in for-profit tutoring companies is bad, really, just not a charity in the usual sense, and not a gift to the public good.

HN has no obligation to "handle" your vitriol.