= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on Mark Zuckerberg plans to give away 99% of his facebook wealth over his lifetime - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (50)
Negative action is one of those slippery words that I'm not convinced means anything outside of individual views (ie, if I change the frame of reference, suddenly a negative action looks like a positive one.)
In this instance, let's take the following scenario. Zuckerberg goes to his team and asks them to tweak their newsfeed sentiment algorithm so that it only applies to articles about him, and to set it so that 60% of the articles about him that get through are positive.
From the perspective of him going through and telling his team to do something to the facebook algorithm, that seems like a positive action. From the perspective of him preventing other people's articles from being shown (or causing them to be shown more) that seems like a positive action.
By "negative action" I mean that he can suppress content he doesn't want people to see.
He can also plaster Facebook with his face, in a more or less subtle way by tweaking the newsfeed algorithm, but ultimately if he wants to gain positive reputation, he needs some really newsworthy and moving thing about himself to happen, not just "7 awesome facts about Mark Zuckerberg" clickbait trash.
Reputation isn't just a zero sum game.
It's a bit surprising that anyone is arguing over this issue. Clearly if Zuckerberg can convince people that he is giving 99% of his fortune to (worthy) charity, it will enhance his reputation and status. This is obvious to anyone, and therefore it opens up the reasonable possibility that his primary motivation is in fact to enhance his reputation and status.
Maybe the problem is that people are getting hung up on the word "publicity." When people say "He's doing it for the publicity," the charitable interpretation is "he is doing it to enhance his reputation and status."
If a debate is obvious with the charitable interpretation it makes sense to have the debate about the actual reasons why people take the positions they take.
The underlying battle is about what Zizek calls liberal communism. The steelman is: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/slavoj-zizek/nobody-has-to-be-vile It's about whether a person should be applauded for doing earning-to-give or whether earning-to-give should simply be seen as a way to "enhance his reputation and status". Those cultural norms matter. Having the wrong cultural norms make people die who would otherwise be saved.
If it's in your morality to pratice charitable reading at the cost of human lives, feel free to live with that moral decision.
I'm not sure what your point is here but it sounds like you agree with me. The real question to discuss is how much it matters if Zuckerberg is doing this primarily to enhance his reputation and status.
I have no idea what your point is here.
If I misunderstood you and we agree that's great.
The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.
Well what did you think I was saying?
And in what way did the media "practice charitable reading"?
That it's right of the media to say that Zuckerberg made the donation to increase his own reputation and status.
I didn't say any such thing. Please read what I say carefully before responding.
And please answer my other question:
In what way did the media "practice charitable reading"?
I already said that I might have misunderstood you. You suggested that further explanation is helpful. What do you expect to gain from another answer?
I'd say it's more about a public figure who transfers billions worth of stocks to a for-profit company that they own while making a big show of it should be applauded or we should be wary of their intentions.
It's also about why EAs all fell head over heels the moment they heard the word "give" in connection with some transhumanist dog whistles such as "advancing human potential" and "live much longer and healthier lives", contravening to their own stated core principle that charitable donations should be done in a way that produces measurable benefits to people, not warm fuzzies.
And yes, finally it's also about this so-called liberal communism thing, which I prefer to call modern aristocracy:
should we, as a society, encourage or discourage a system where basic services depend on the grace and benevolence of few elites who can grant or withdraw them of their own accord, without democratic oversight? Should we encourage or discourage overt political lobbying by private organizations with billion dollars worth of endowment controlled by elite interests? Whether you agree with Zuckerberg's object-level political positions, such as the Startup Visa Act, isn't political advocacy by very large scale lobbying something to be worried about?
There are also issues of perverse incentives. If, say, the school system becomes dependent on a steady stream of donations that come from the dividends paid by Facebook stocks, then school employers and users alike will have a massive vested interest in Facebook's continued profitability, creating a whole new level of "too big to fail".
The day that Google finally manages to make a buzz/g+/whatever that works, or that some guy in their basement comes up with a disruptive idea that makes Facebook-style social networks obsolete the way that cars made horses obsolete, who will the government, teachers trade unions, parents organizations, etc. side with?
Sure, Google can play Facebook's corporate charity trick too, and so can Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc. The guy in the basement with a bright idea can't. Should we resign to a future of corporate neo-feudalism?
Nothing in the announcement indicates that Zuckerberg won't use his money in a way that produces measurable benefits.
There's no society without political lobbying. An organisation like Amnesty International requires private donations. If all money spent for the public interest is money raised by the government through taxes there's no room for Amnesty International.
Societies with don't have strong civil society organisations like Amnesty International who aren't relying on government money don't have functioning liberal democracies.
Without organisations with competing agendas you get problematic monocultures.
We likely wouldn't have LessWrong without the billionaire Peter Thiel funding the Singularity Institute and now MIRI. Now a lot of money comes from Musk into FAI research. Governments don't fund that research.
Last month we had a post on LW about Steve Goodman and John Ioannidis METRICS. Given their role of critizing the scientific community it's useful for them to have funding that's independent from the government and given because a billionaire believes in their course.
If all money spent for eduction would be payed by Zuckerberg that would be a problem. I don't think he should control the majority of the money spent on eduction and this proposal doesn't look like it would have that effect.
I think it's good to have for-profit companies, not profited oriented organization like the Zuckerberg initiative and government involved.
I don't think it makes sense to equate Mark Zuckerberg with Facebook or Mircosoft with Bill Gates but as far as the debate goes Bill Gates already funds eduction.
Actually you find one of the points of Zuckerberg's list is:
Can we cultivate entrepreneurship so you can build any business and solve any challenge to grow peace and prosperity?Presently the education system is very bad at telling people how to work on their bright ideas in a basement. Focusing on targeting school to do that is opposed by teachers trade unions etc.