This is completely misleading.

Even a cursory google search will give a rather long list:

- Giving Pledge: Ellison signed the Giving Pledge, committing to donate the majority of his wealth to philanthropy. Recently, he announced plans to donate 95% of his $373 billion fortune, focusing on science, healthcare, climate change, and AI research.

- Ellison Medical Foundation: Invested nearly $1 billion in biomedical research on aging and disease prevention before closing in 2013

- Lawrence Ellison Foundation: Supports research on aging, health, education, sustainable agriculture, and wildlife conservation.

- Ellison Institute for Transformative Medicine (USC): Established with a $200 million donation to advance cancer research and personalized therapies

- Ellison Institute of Technology (Oxford): A for-profit philanthropic initiative tackling global challenges like healthcare, food insecurity, climate change, and AI. A new campus worth $1.3 billion is planned for 2027

- Significant funding for Oxford University through EIT partnerships, including scholarships and research programs.

- Lion Country Safari Acquisition: Purchased the 254-acre wildlife sanctuary in Florida for $30 million through his foundation, ensuring continued conservation efforts.

- Larry Ellison Conservation Center: Opened in California to rehabilitate and breed endangered species

I'm not a huge fan of his or how Oracle has conducted business, but his giving represents billions to charity, not exactly fitting for the "dung beetle" label people are so quick to apply to him.

So he has pledged to give away 95%. But so far it seems like he has given very little, maybe 1%?

So according to you there's some magical formula for when he has to give it all away? If you were him, wouldn't you want a lasting legacy? Something that your wealth effects generations over decades or even a century?

Also, keep in mind he's already given away over $2B in charity, but even at 1%, that's still not very much for you?

Yeah I would say 1% is not very much, even if it is $2bn. In fact, it's less because it's $2bn. Him giving 95% of his wealth away would affect his lifestyle about as much as most people giving 1% of their wealth away. Probably less. Him giving 1% away is completely insignificant.

I guess you could argue he can't give away 95% now because he wants to maintain control of Oracle... which is fair enough I guess. But still, 1% is not very much.

I don't understand how people can defend extremely wealthy sociopaths. He's a CIA contractor and a genocide supporter, and he's trying to consolidate media to censor certain narratives. The guy is a piece of work. And there's no way he contributed that much more than everyone else to capture most of the wealth generated by the work of his employees. Being more of an aggressive sociopath doesn't mean you did more or better work than everyone else in his orgs.

Boo hoo.

Misinformation is misinformation and it does no one good.

You must be talking about yourself, everything I said is easily verifiable with 30 seconds of research. Do some introspection - you are projecting.

Oh I'm talking about you colordrops without color.

CIA contractor, like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and more.

Introspect my bung****

More than 0 is more than zero. In case you forgot where this conversation started from

My only point is that the parent post wasn't being misleading. No, 1% isn't much.

Most of that is clearly going to his own charities for tax benefits.

Yeah I don't know why people shame dung beetles with association to him

Pledging and giving are not the same thing.

"Larry Ellison has been involved with two philanthropic organizations. First he made a $300M donation to Stanford, in exchange for not admitting wrongdoing in an options backdating scandal. All other philanthropic work is to the Larry Ellison institute for prolonging of life--namely his." -- Bryan Cantrill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc

It's amusing but it's not true. From Wikipedia:

> In 1992, Ellison shattered his elbow in a high-speed bicycle crash. After receiving treatment at University of California, Davis, Ellison donated $5 million to seed the Lawrence J. Ellison Musculo-Skeletal Research Center.

> In 1998, the Lawrence J. Ellison Ambulatory Care Center opened on the Sacramento campus of the UC Davis Medical Center

> In 2007, Ellison pledged $500,000 to fortify a community centre in Sderot, Israel, against rocket attacks

> In 2014, he donated $10 million to the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces.

> In 2017, he donated $16.6 million donation to support the construction of well-being facilities on a new campus for co-ed conscripts

> In May 2016, Ellison donated $200 million to the University of Southern California to establish a cancer research center: the Lawrence J. Ellison Institute for Transformative Medicine of USC

> Between 2021 and 2023, Ellison invested $130 million in the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and has pledged a further $218 million since then

You listed multiple sociopathic stuff. A western hegemony think tank is not a good thing. Giving money to a genociders is the opposite of good.

Nobody claimed otherwise. The claim was that he gave money to nothing except his own life extension fund. And you agree that he's given money to other things.

Ah I see my mistake. I had noticed grandparent being about charity and was responding to that.

It depends on your definition of "charity". If you're talking about Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, Wikipedia says:

>The organization states that it is the official U.S. charity authorized to collect donations for IDF soldiers.

>Charity evaluators have generally rated the organization favorably.[9]

>The organization is recognized as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charity in the United States and has been tax-exempt since July 1983.[2]

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

Would you consider a “charity” for Nazis or for an org that has killed and maimed tens upon tens of thousands of children to be a good thing or even charity?

The listed criteria for what they evaluate is not what the issue is. Did you check Charity Navigator? An org that focuses on abusing kittens will be evaluated as good by them as long as its governance is by the books.

Wikipedia regardless is not something that should be cited directly when it comes to anything remotely political.

>Would you consider a “charity” [...] an org that has killed and maimed tens upon tens of thousands of children to be a good thing or even charity?

I do not consider Planned Parenthood a good thing. However, I will still admit they are technically registered as a charity with the US government.

Friends of the Israel Defense Forces is rated 98% and 4/4 on Charity Navigator.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/133156445

Note that I made that claim in 2011. I had tried to research this a bit for the brief period of time that I was at Oracle, and really couldn't find anything (other than the Ellison Medical Foundation). That said, I think my essential assertion stands: given his wealth, Ellison's philanthropic work is de minimis.

These numbers are rounding errors to Ellison. I give a higher percentage of my net worth every year than he has in total

Funny death is the equalizer for now till you get the foundation situation

Sounds like he is a refreshingly honest person

> in exchange for not admitting wrongdoing in an options backdating scandal

>> Refreshing honest

?

Honest doesn't make good.

Sounds like he’s a twat.

Isn't falling for virtue signalling charity donations more of a twattery?

It is always enlightening when people criticizing "virtue signaling" accidentally reveal that the problem they have is not the signaling, it's the having virtue.

There was a time when one of the virtues was not to brag about how virtuous you were. I think that's why a lot of folks have a problem with virtue signalling. In their minds if you're signalling by doing something publicly it karmically negates what you're doing and almost alchemically turns it into something resembling vice.

I'm merely trying to explain how it is that people can have a problem with virtue signalling and to them it doesn't really contradict what is to them true virtue where you do something good and stay quiet about it.

This comment feels like it was made outside the context of the existing conversation. The comment I replied to was calling all charity virtue signaling and not just vocal giving.

But either way, I personally don’t think a library is any less valuable to a community just because it has Carnegie’s name above the entrance.

Society providing incentives for rich people to give money to charitable causes is good actually. An evil person doing good things for selfish reasons is still doing good things.

The real problem comes when you look up what charity actually does with the money.

It is hard to not get the feeling that outside of the local food bank, most charities are a type of money making scam when you dig into what they do with the money.

If you choose to classify all charity donations as "virtue signaling", yes.

If you reject that absurd false framing, no.

It's not virtue signally if you're tangible helping people. Like if I give away food, maybe I have the intent of signalling something, but I'm also giving away food. That actually happened.

The world would be a much better place if rich people virtue signalled much more and thereby donated more.

He's been divorced five times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison#Marriages

But I guess with the first one having ended pre-Oracle, he's had a pretty solid pre-nup ever since.

He did buy an entire island in Hawaii and makes it a decent place for the natives (from what I hear) but otherwise...

Billionaire Drools That “Citizens Will Be on Their Best Behavior” Under Constant AI Surveillance

https://futurism.com/the-byte/billionaire-constant-ai-survei...

Is the kind of mindset behind this guy.

dung beetle of *wealth

Which is kinda irrelevant. Him selling Oracle shares does not fundamentally change the world in any way. Sure you can say "he should sell shares and do charity", but you could make the same argument that whoever would be buying those shares could be doing charity instead.