On the surface, this sounds really huge and awesome, but since Zuckerberg is involved, I can't help but think it'll end up being closer to weird, funny or pointless.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is among 17 US billionaires taking the pledge to donate the majority of their wealth to charity, organizers of the effort said Thursday.
The project launched this year by the two richest Americans, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, said a total of 57 individuals or families had now signed the "Giving Pledge."
"People wait until late in their career to give back. But why wait when there is so much to be done?" said Mark Zuckerberg, who is chief executive and president of Facebook and has a fortune estimated by Forbes magazine of 6.9 billion dollars.
"With a generation of younger folks who have thrived on the success of their companies, there is a big opportunity for many of us to give back earlier in our lifetime and see the impact of our philanthropic efforts."
zepfan wrote:On the surface, this sounds really huge and awesome, but since Zuckerberg is involved, I can't help but think it'll end up being closer to weird, funny or pointless.
I'm curious why you think that way.
Thing is, I'd wonder how much wealth Zuckerberg really has now. He's worth in between $6-13 billion dollars, with the high number depending on Facebook's supposed new market valuation of ~$50 billion. Much of that is in equity and because Facebook isn't publicly traded, it's really just speculated wealth at the moment. Of course, he gets a nice salary albeit a rather "ordinary" six-seven digit salary, which would be his present wealth notwithstanding other assets.
From what I understand, it's just a pledge, simple as. So, in the future, if Zuckerberg cashes out, the pledge will stand that he'll spend most of his wealth on philantrophic causes. Doesn't have to be a specific charity per se.
zepfan wrote:On the surface, this sounds really huge and awesome, but since Zuckerberg is involved, I can't help but think it'll end up being closer to weird, funny or pointless.
I'm curious why you think that way...
The idea is a good one but having Zuckerberg involved just seems like it cheapens the whole thing. From him saying that people are "dumb f****s" for trusting him with their personal info, to the ridiculous extremes he went to to avoid making the privacy settings easy to use, to trying to convince everyone that he's doing the world a great service by making your personal info available to anyone who wants it... Honestly I understand that just having facebook page means you're gonna have some info online, but him telling us what we want and then trying to be sneaky when people disagree makes me think "shady corporate spoiled billionaire" before "great philanthropist". I can't imagine he would be especially eager to give half of his money away when he doesn't seem to have any scruples about the way he obtains it. So this whole time he's been trying to manipulate people so he can make extra money to give to charity? Seems disingenuous at best coming from him.
Having said that, I do think the charity thing is a good initiative but I get the feeling it's more about spin and PR than it is about giving money to noble causes (at least in Zuckerman's case). When all is said and done, I really don't think Zuckerman is going to end up halving his bank account.
Mine own two cents, that's all.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - R. Wiggum
zepfan wrote:The idea is a good one but having Zuckerberg involved just seems like it cheapens the whole thing. From him saying that people are "dumb f****s" for trusting him with their personal info, to the ridiculous extremes he went to to avoid making the privacy settings easy to use, to trying to convince everyone that he's doing the world a great service by making your personal info available to anyone who wants it... Honestly I understand that just having facebook page means you're gonna have some info online, but him telling us what we want and then trying to be sneaky when people disagree makes me think "shady corporate spoiled billionaire" before "great philanthropist". I can't imagine he would be especially eager to give half of his money away when he doesn't seem to have any scruples about the way he obtains it. So this whole time he's been trying to manipulate people so he can make extra money to give to charity? Seems disingenuous at best coming from him.
Well, Facebook didn't become big primarily due to Zuckerberg and Facebook's arrogance about privacy policy. I don't think that's entirely integral either to their success or failure as well. Facebook does contextual ads so well with the info you're willing to share (i.e. interests listed on profile) and provokes better engagement. The weakness with Facebook is, if any, is it's still a catch-all social network. Meaning, any drunken photos of myself will be shared amongst people I don't want for them to see, like employees, people I do business with, family, etc. Either Facebook creates micro-social networks within their own main network or someone else will, but I digress.
As for Zuckerberg himself, I agree that to a certain extent he's privileged. Corporate, I don't think so. It's laughable to think the typical Silicon Valley entrepreneur is corporate, but then again, I've worked in startups where the head honchos bring in bureaucracy and toxic political climate, to the extent I think that's a norm. Misunderstood, yes, like most entrepreneurs and self-made people are.
In the end, self-made people tend not to be so generous about their wealth, if you think about it. It's hard-earned wealth and some feel why in the world, should they give some of it. Honestly, I see Zuckerberg on the other end of the spectrum. People like him are not building a Facebook or Google primarily because of the money (well, yes, that's certainly one of the reasons), but because it's some kind of self-fulfilling adventure. Most entrepreneurs I've talked to feel the same way and I certainly do too. Win or lose, success or failure, they're in it for the ride. If they reach the top, they know where they came from and they want to contribute to society in other ways than in their line of work too.
Might be naive to think of Zuckerberg in that light, just like his stance on privacy, but from what I've read and from people who have met him, he's anything but the corporate spoiled billionaire you claim him to be. We'll see. Even then, it'll take some time for Zuckerberg to pocket that wealth anyway (unless Facebook IPO soon, but they've seemingly no interest).
Do any of these billionaires give away so much money that it affects their lives financially? I would applaud them if it meant these guys had to settle for a 60 foot yacht instead of an 80 foot yacht.
"Steal a little and they'll throw you in jail, steal a lot and they'll make you a king." - Bob Dylan
GiantsFan14 wrote: HOW COULD THE TWO MOST BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD NOT MAKE IT WORK? IF THEY CAN'T DO IT HOW CAN I HOLD OUT ANY HOPE FOR MYSELF???
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Dan Lambskin » Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:57 am 
