"He may have played loose with the rules" does not mean "I don't know if he played loose with the rules". It means "Yes, he played loose with the rules, but on the other hand..."

Thanks. I misunderstood the intent and already apologized in another post to that poster. After reading other posters here in the thread that basically mentioned sainthood, etc. for Gates, I let it color my interpretation of that post, I shouldn't have done that and I was mistaken. Anyway, apologies to all for that misunderstanding.

First, you don't understand what the sentence you quote means. For one, it doesn't mean "maybe".

Second, if you read my message thinking I was worshiping him or applying some sort of sainthood, then it is your opinion that is pre-conceived, blurred and wrong, not mine. I'm explicitly saying the man does not do it out of niceness, but because he likes (and need) to tackle a challenge and we're lucky this time he picked one that would benefit us, especially since he's one of the few than can win that one.

Third, you're greatly exaggerating the wrongs he did as CEO. Not that he did not do any or that it wasn't so bad, but he isn't the second coming of the devil either.

Take a breath.

>First, you don't understand what the sentence you quote means. For one, it doesn't mean "maybe".

When you said, "he may have played loose with the rules" I didn't take that to mean, "he played loose with the rules".

But, I misunderstood you and I apologize.

>if you read my message thinking I was worshiping him

I apologize if I misrepresented your opinion. However, I would hope that if you read back your glowing post in regards to Bill Gates one might get the impression you may not be aware of all the wrongs he did as CEO as well.

>you're greatly exaggerating the wrongs he did as CEO.

Can't say I agree with you there when one critically looks at the sources of evidence that supports my supposition:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551072

>he isn't the second coming of the devil either.

No, he's not. Nor is he Hitler, etc. I apologize if within my short response to you I gave you the impression that I thought he was a spawn of Satan. I'm a bit more of a complex thinker than that, I think. But, I suppose I deserve that since I errantly implied you "worship" Gates. :D

Then again, I tend to get compared to Satan once I criticize Bill Gates in most forums, so I'll own it instead.

>Take a breath.

Thank you, I will. :)

"A small portion of his plunder"? The most charitable interpretation of this phrase is that you're playing a little loose with that possessive pronoun.

I've provided sources of evidence to back this up here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8551072

If you have sources of evidence that can sufficiently contradict my own and show that Gates has been an overall net gain instead of an overall net drain for society, I'd sincerely like to review it.

No you wouldn't, and it is completely obvious. If you are willing to spend enough time to google Big Lists as big as yours, you are bound to come across counter-evidence on your own. That you are asking someone else to waste as much time as you have is sufficient proof that you are looking to silence, not evaluate.

>if you are willing to spend enough time to google Big Lists as big as yours, you are bound to come across counter-evidence on your own.

That's a very good point and I'm happy you brought it up. Although, I wish you'd been a bit more polite didn't assume bad faith with me in the process.

I've been in the process of providing a more "human-readable" (so to speak) breakdown of both the positives of his business practices, charity, etc. versus the negatives. I don't know if you've ever researched something of this scale before or not, but it takes quite a bit of time to vet sources properly and break it all down into a fair manner with methodologies that others can easily understand, relate to and, indeed, find to be a fair comparison/assessment (overall).

Despite working on this with six other people (granted, all off-and-on in our spare time since, unlike Public Relations, we aren't paid to do this), it's taken well over a year so far. Ughh..

In the meantime, I've provided sources of evidence to the public that should at the very least provoke more people to question the narrative that Gates is simply a net gain for society via his philanthropy and gains for society he created via his role at Microsoft, etc. If Gates is a Robin Hood that stole from the rich to provide for the poor, I've yet to see much data that resembles that scenario.

So far, I have measured more counter-evidence that positively reflects Bill Gates' actions than the negative evidence I've gathered (for one, it's very easy to find positives on Gates & MS). Incredibly easy... However, I've found it lacking once one considers all the costs that his monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior at this huge of a scale extolled upon society en masse along with Gates' personal hoarding of assets/money to climb towards his billionaire status to boot.

Of course, it's also complicated by the fact that Gates' assets have provided both good and bad for society as well, so it's quite complex.

But, again, if you've got some evidence that shows that Gates is an overall net gain for society after I've provided all this evidence to the contrary and I'm wrong on this, I'd like you to provide it. I'd like to review it and add it to the pile if it's not there already. Who know, perhaps you have a much better perspective I or the six others haven't yet considered.

For example, I'd like to see a better comparative analysis than what we have so far of all the jobs Microsoft destroyed versus ones they enabled internally and externally. Love to compare methodologies on that as well with more people.

Anyway, otherwise, I suppose you can just assume bad faith on my part instead of forming an argument based upon your own sources of evidence, etc.

>That you are asking someone else to waste as much time as you

That's hostile. How about you put some of that energy to good use and challenge my sources of evidence instead?

>sufficient proof that you are looking to silence, not evaluate.

I'm not looking to silence anyone at all. I very much welcome more data whether it adds to the positive gain or negative drain.

But, anyway, if that's all the "proof" you need to pre-judge my intentions, then I'm afraid we don't require the same levels of evidence to support our own suppositions in the first place, perhaps.

tl;dr - I'm still working on this with others. I'd like to see a better comparative analysis than what we have so far, so if anyone can think of some data that seriously challenges the negatives, I'd enjoy gathering it. I should also note I hope to have a final, comprehensive report completed, edited and ready for heavy rotation by Spring or earlier if we have the time and/or can get more people involved in the process. But, so far, I haven't seen anywhere near a net gain for society by Bill Gate's actions and I hope in the end we can all learn that at the very least, there's a better way to garner a successful business than hurting so many others in the process.

Thanks; this confirms my interpretation of your original comment. You're imputing the economic value of every externality you can trace to Microsoft back to Gates' own bank account. You can make that argument, but using "his plunder" as a shorthand for it is at the very least imprecise.

>You're imputing the economic value of every externality you can trace to Microsoft back to Gates' own bank account.

Not really, I'm much more focused on the externalities of Gates' anti-competitive, monopolistic business practices. His billionaire status is just a small part of the problem in comparison. Speaking of which, I am also looking at the specific assets that makes up his total net worth.

For example, as of now, Bill Gates has a net worth of nearly $82 billion, of which just $14 billion is in Microsoft stock. The bulk of the remainder is $64 billion which is invested in a variety of assets through Cascade Investment LLC, his private investment firm.

Cash, some small technology investments and assets such as his 66,000 square-foot mansion in Medina make up the last $4 billion chunk which is very small in comparison.

I've been researching how his assets both positively and negatively affect society but it pales in comparison to the bigger picture I mentioned in regards to the overall effects of his shady, past business practices that affected society globally (literally).

>You can make that argument, but using "his plunder" as a shorthand for it is at the very least imprecise.

I see your point. He certainly didn’t steal all of it and I should use a better choice of word to describe his booty. ;)

However, I was considering that he's taken far more from society than he's provided for society, so that's why I've called it "plunder", so to speak.

The final report won't have any of that kind of terminology, but as you said, it's probably better if I refrain from using it even it's simply in forum posts, etc.

Thank you for your constructive criticism.

edit: spelling/grammar

>doesn't simply erase his overall negative impacts upon society that runs easily into the trillions

Any source on that? I rather enjoyed using his products.

People also enjoy Coke and now they are friends with Type-2 diabetes.

>>doesn't simply erase his overall negative impacts upon society that runs easily into the trillions

>Any source on that?

Here's some:

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/...

http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

--- (Some homework: Calculate an estimate of all the harm to all these businesses and, by proxy, consumers above)

http://lists.essential.org/1998/info-policy-notes/msg00047.h... (It goes way back)

http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html (It keeps going)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304701 (download the PDF there)

--- Observe the many examples here:

http://thismatter.com/articles/microsoft.htm#tq1

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=241988 (download the PDF there)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=502822 (download the PDF there)

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0907/6205050a.html (FORBES mag)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_l...

--- History of Anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm:

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072487933/466... (a very enlightening read)

http://www.cptech.org/ms/harm.html

http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/part1.html

http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/table.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1016972/nvidia-blam...

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9901/11/microrise.idg/

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/your-loss-their-gain-32...

http://www.fool.com/cashking/1998/cashkingport981118.htm

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/21/61725...

http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/ca_sues_ms.html

--- Microsoft entered into anticompetitive and exclusionary agreements with OLSs and ISPs:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#vii

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The effects of anti-competitive business practices on developing countries and their development prospects:

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf

The Gates Foundation investments include companies that worsen poverty in developing countries, pollute heavily and supports pharmaceutical companies that don’t sell into the developing world.

Also, he’s doing it wrong with malaria.

By pouring most contributions into the fight against such high-profile killers, Gates is diverting staff from basic care. This form of “brain drain”, pulls away trained staff from children and those suffering from other common killers.

The focus on a few diseases has shortchanged basic needs such as nutrition and transportation. Gates-funded vaccination programs have instructed caregivers to ignore – even discourage patients from discussing – ailments that the vaccinations cannot prevent.

The Gates Foundation harms global health by diverting resources from other important local health care services. The foundation diverts medical professionals from other parts of developing nations’ health care systems; the health care systems’ ability to provide care diminishes (except in the area the foundation funds) and the charities do more harm than good. (This has been backed up by several prominent investigations, please look it up)

The Gates Foundation is also undermining public education and exerts too much influence over public education policy without being accountable to voters or tax payers. The reforms include closing neighborhood schools in favor of privately run charter schools, forcing standardized tests which have been proven to harm education (just ask teachers, educational professionals, etc.).

What should we learn from this?

It’s better to have decentralized sources of charity coming from many sources instead of one collective source. Unfortunately, Gates helped to hinder and in many cases completely detroy entities that would have not only given vastly more to charity, but would have also done it in a far more diversified and effective manner.

It’s very ironic.

Bill Gate’s monopoly helped usher in an era of rampant malware for decades because of the lack of platform diversity.

http://cryptome.org/cyberinsecurity.htm

All of this above together cost average consumers and businesses worldwide in the trillions (many of whom were able to give less to charity because of this). Many businesses and consumers were rail-roaded into using subpar products and services via his unethical, anti-competitive, monopolistic business practices.

The sick irony: He’s now using those same ill-gotten profits (that hurts the world in the past, present and future with a lack of diversification) and is giving it to the developing world in an ironically non-diversified manner and hurting them as well.

As Bill Gates was with Microsoft, he’s too arrogant to look at the big picture externalities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Typical question I get is to please source small businesses and individuals giving more to charity.

It's not terribly easy to find good sources because Google's search algorithms (which are written basically by editors, by the way) will give precedence to all the multiple, corporate media Public Relations that merely offers deceiving articles about the "Top 10 corporations who give to charity", etc.

For example, this corporatist Public Relations piece:

http://money.msn.com/investing/companies-giving-the-most-to-...

While you're there at that Public Relations piece above disguised as a news article, please read the informative first comment at the bottom about "how to lie with statistics” as well.

Here's the reality with vital externalities at play that a lot of the corporate media would like us all to ignore:

-- Corporate giving accounts for just 5% of the total giving in 2013.

Yes, you read that correctly, just FIVE PERCENT and that's not just an anomaly for 2013. It's always very low compared to everyone else. The vast amount of all charity is given by small businesses and (especially) lower income individuals. Not just a few huge corporations and some billionaires like Gates.

What corporations and billionaires like Bill Gates really do is spend a vast amount of money on Public Relations to advertise the fact that they give money to charity. It creates the public illusion that major corporations and people like Gates give the lion's share of money to charity when that's completely and utterly untrue. It's a classic example of manufacturing consent.

Of course, this information tends to give people cognitive dissonance since they've been basically indoctrinated via Public Relations to believe otherwise: http://i.imgur.com/MFdTOaq.jpg

But, here's the reality:

http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-gi...

And this here.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6S23Fn6...

Then, of course, there's this:

Why Don’t Corporations Give to Charity?

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/corp...

And finally, this:

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>I rather enjoyed using his products.

So do I, (at least some of Microsoft's products, anyway) including the positive influence MS has had on other products created by other companies. As I said in my first post in this thread above, Gates has also provided a lot of good in the world with his efforts in business and charity, there's no denying that and he should be commended for it (as he already is quite vociferously all over the place). But, I'm not here to parrot his Public Relations that's already disseminated nearly everywhere online and offline. Just stab in any general direction if you want to know about what a great a guy he is. I'm here to talk about his net effect on society and I am therefore presenting the side of Gates that a lot of the corporate media (and otherwise) would like to forget and whitewash in the face of his Public Relations, power and control.

Weird. I was polite, didn't insult the poster I replied to above and provided sources of evidence and my suppositions based upon said evidence.

Instead of simply downvoting me and nothing more, I would've expected other posters here to challenge my sources of evidence here at Hacker News.

Frankly, I thought most of Hackers News was better than this. I hope I'm proven right about Hacker News over time and some start backing up their downvotes with some of their own sources of evidence, etc. that disputes my own instead of simply downvoting a post they don't agree with.

You give HN too much credit. It was never a utopia, and is even less so now than 6 years ago.

That said, your parent comment isn't really a model of a great comment, either. Probably the current best example for that would be tokenadult (http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=tokenadult). He doesn't just dump a pile of links on us with a summary; he puts together very well-composed mini-essays that make individual points, backs up those points with references, and then puts it all together into a cogent conclusion.

You've made two really big claims that are difficult to believe: that Gates has been a net drain on society, and that he has cost the world "trillions" -- a significant portion of the US GDP. That is a lot of money. I quick-skimmed a few of your links and I don't see anything like that in them, mostly just complaints that the Gates Foundation isn't working the way the authors want it to.

Assume that we're all busy here and aren't inclined to sift through a breadcrumb trail of a couple dozen articles around the web to puzzle out how you've come to your conclusion.

There's a much more complete breakdown that's being worked on by a group of others and myself. In the meantime, I just throw some of these sources of evidence out there and quick summaries in various forums for those who are willing to initiate some of their own investigation/research.

So far, it's helped to bring a few more people onboard to help.

That said, I agree with your points that links to sources of evidence may be too challenging or time consuming for some and that's basically why the project was initiated.

>I quick-skimmed a few of your links

I think if you explore some more you'll come to see my points.

"We should teach future generations to give to charity"

We should encourage future generations to develop an alternative to the financial system that in many respects creates barriers to equality and progress in so many fields. It's tragic that eradicating a disease requires us to contribute 'tokens' to facilitate action - and if we don't contribute enough we will penalise sections of our population.

/That's my fill of financial philosophy for the week. //Time to track down that flying pig.