You've got cause and effect reversed. Bill Gates started giving his money away after he was attacked for his anti competitive behavior and attempts to kill open source, etc.

The rich donate because they are protecting their reputation and for the sake of their own self image (everybody needs to be the hero of their own story).

The only ones who can manage that and not be charitable are the utterly self deluded (e.g. Trump).

Don't expect them to donate a damn thing if they are lauded as heroes. Bill Gates likely wouldn't be giving his money away at all if it he didn't feel the need to repair his image in the 2000s.

Same reason all of the robber Barrons were philanthropists - do you think they would have been more charitable if they had been cheered on instead of villainized? Like hell they would.

I suggest you watch the documentary Inside Bill's Brain https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771

Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort. And he himself states it was his mother who inspired him to give: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-mother-inspired-p... If Bill's giving was a cynical PR play, why would he be pushing other HNWs to give through the giving pledge? Wouldn't it be better to discourage them from giving so he looks better by comparison?

Note also that a few years ago when Zuck pledged to donate 99% of his money, the internet erupted in incoherent anger. Similarly whenever the news covers tech philanthropy, the angle is always "well really this is something that the government should be doing, the fact that it is being handled by private philanthropy is kinda problematic". The giver's generosity is inevitably taken for granted. For the supposed PR benefits of philanthropy there is a shocking lack of good PR. Far more scorn is heaped upon wealthy philanthropists than rich people who just quietly buy yachts and stuff. Your reaction of "giving is just a cynical ploy" seems to be way more common they "hey, they are giving, that's pretty cool" in all the online discussions I have seen of billionaire giving.

BTW, did demonization of wall street in the wake of the 2008 crash trigger a wave of philanthropic giving from them?

I didn't state that it was completely a cynical PR effort nor do I think it was, but it's a reaction to a guilty conscience nonetheless. I think it's partly his way of resolving his cognitive dissonance over him not being a good person in pursuit of wealth and power.

For what it's worth, though, saying "my mother inspired me to do this" is precisely what a PR flack would advise him over "I was guilt tripped into this by my critics".

He does routinely use PR firms for image management.

Positivity sells and human interest sells and giving his critics more airtime would not be advantageous to him.

Mark Zuckerberg did the same thing here - note the title:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10658787

>Note also that a few years ago when Zuck pledged to donate 99% of his money, the internet erupted in incoherent anger.

The comments above read more like coherent suspicion rather than incoherent anger.

>For the supposed PR benefits of philanthropy there is a shocking lack of good PR.

Bill Gates has successfully repaired his image since the early 2ks. The fact that Mark Zuckerberg didn't repairs his overnight after acting the way he did previously is hardly proof that it doesn't work.

> I didn't state that it was completely a cynical PR effort nor do I think it was, but it's a reaction to a guilty conscience nonetheless.

And you are pulling that theory completely out of your ass.

I highly doubt you have met Bill Gates or spent time with him or have the slightest idea about what his private thoughts are on anything.

Doesn't matter, you shouldn't trust billionaires period. Every single one has exploited people left and right to get where they did. They don't care one iota for you, why do you care so damn much about them?

As I said above: "Don't expect them to feel a sense of obligation if you're going to assume the worst about them just because they are rich."

You say that "Every single one has exploited people left and right", what evidentiary basis could you possibly have for making that statement? There are thousands of billionaires worldwide, could you name even 100 of them off the top of your head, much less explain how each and every one "exploited people left and right"?

Haters gonna hate.

>Haters gonna hate.

And if they didn't, billionaires wouldn't donate.

If your goal is to get billionaires to donate, hating them indiscriminately is not a good way to do that, since that means there's no incentive to give.

Bill Gates is doing far more good for the world with his money than the US government would.

> BTW, did demonization of wall street in the wake of the 2008 crash trigger a wave of philanthropic giving from them?

You steal a loaf of bread - you go to jail. You commit fraud on a scale that destabilizes the global economy - you get to say that people pointing out your misdeeds are "demonizing" you.

I didn't say it was unjustified, just checking if the hypothesis that bad PR leads to philanthropy is true.

> Bill is way too invested in this stuff for it to be a cynical PR effort

Proceeds to link a literal PR propaganda piece by Gates and Co.

If your giving is a cynical PR effort, you don't donate to unsexy causes like better toilets or nuclear plants. I'm willing to believe that MacKenzie Scott's giving is a cynical PR effort because she's donating to all the trendy social justice causes. That's what I would do if all I cared about was my public image and didn't care whether my money actually did good. Most coverage I've see of MacKenzie Scott's giving has been positive.

you might not like this, but 2k was over 2 decades ago, nobody gives a fuck about it now except some HNers and Linux people

recent fake news about Bill Gates connections to covid/vaccines probably caused more PR damage to him than all of you combined

Seriously. Every time I read a post like the parent you are replying to, my eyes roll back a little farther in my skull. It's like they teleported from the slashdot comment sections from 2 decades ago and decided to carry on without missing a beat.

I was talking about events from almost two decades ago. Did you think Bill Gates became a philanthropist yesterday?

Putting your money into ONGs that you control is not giving away anything. It's playing the meta-capitalist game, influencing markets at another level, markets in which you invest money while you pave the path for your investments by using your ONGs to work together with governments.

This is nothing new either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation