So I just read Bill Gates’ 1976 Open Letter To Hobbyists, in which he whines about not making more money from his software. You know, instead of being proud of making software that people wanted to use. And then the bastard went on and made proprietary licences for software the industry standard, holding back innovation and freedom for decades. What a douche canoe.
And he is one of the “better” billionaires. He has donated over $100 Billion to help people around the world, which makes him look like a great guy on paper.
I think it’s not so much him as a person, but his business decisions in the context of capitalism. That’s the real evil, not any one person.
Just to be clear, I’m not defending him or his actions.
He’s one of the worst billionaires, it’s just that since the 2010s he’s been trying hard to soften that image.
Gates is in the Epstein files.
Yeah. He has shaped the world in very negative ways through his decisions. He could donate his entire fortune today and live out the rest of his life in a monastery, but I would still hate him.
That doesn’t even scratch the anti consumerist behaviour behind what he did to Linux that piece of shit.
He is moving money in his own foundation
Honestly it makes me so fucking depressed when I hear people saying something as fundamentally disconnected from reality, something so needless and unthinking, something so flavorless and insipid as even ironically implying Gates is one of the “better” ones, that “as a person” he may be fine and that no one is “defending him.”
I wasn’t being ironic. Better is a relative term, and I do believe that gates is a significantly better person that musk or zuckerberg, or many other evil asshat billionaires. But that doesn’t make him a good person. I’m not defending him, he has greatly contributed to the rampant capitalism that is destroying our climate and society.
Things are seldom black and white in this world, pure good and pure evil do not exsist. Is it easier for you to see things in absolutes?
Why even make the comparison though
You are right, it’s a worthless endeavor.
Jesus, you’re really doubling down on the unthinking and insipid takes.
I’ll triple down if you like. Absolutism is stupid and a hollow comfort. It’s easy to vilify people, and difficult to hold cognitive dissonance about how any one person can be both good and evil.
Gates is a Epstein customer, an IP thief and a con artist. I 100% agree with the OPs original comment about him. But he also helped eradicate polio from the face of the planet.
It would be nice and simple if we could point to him in his volcano lair of villany, touriring small animals for fun, and say “there, that’s pure evil, that’s him, the devil incarnate”, but the real world isn’t a movie or a video game. It is just not that simple.
If that sort of opinion is a sign of “unthinking” to you, then I suppose I’m wasting my time here.
Oh my God. Please tell me you’re a teenager and not an adult who thinks any of this pablum is wise or profound.
Brave of you to hold a nuanced opinion! So many people have a very binary view of others, and Lemmy’s the same, as the downvoting shows.
And yes, totally, he was a typical morally corrupt businessman and one of the first tech bros in a time before most of Lemmy was even born. But he’s also done a lot of good in the second half of his life. People are dismissive of that but they bloody well shouldn’t be.
Who else has contributed $2bn specifically to fight malaria? Nobody. There’s quite a few now who could have helped but nobody else has. The Gates Foundation has also contributed that much again towards fighting Tuberculosis and AIDs. These are big numbers and they’ve had a real effect. Those of us who live comfortable lives are fortunate where these diseases aren’t everyday killers of friends and family and we cannot fully appreciate the benefit this work has done.
Does this offset his earlier negative behaviour? I honestly think it might do.
What a ridiculous argument you’ve made here. The voting system is literally binary. No one can vote 7/10 on messaging, 4/10 on points.
This is exactly why hes done it. You don’t know what hes actually responsible for. You don’t see the pharmaceutical investments hes made, farmland he owns, or his bad takes (like recently suggesting that we should abandon the climate because he’s dipping his toes into the AI space).
You see some flashy figures and figure, well that must be a good guy!
Some “nuance” that is.
Why would he give a shit what people think about him? Others rich people don’t because when you’ve got enough money you can insulate yourself entirely from what the world thinks.
Nor do the people judging him so harshly.
The fuck? Why would he donate money and save countless lives just to benefit from it via some claimed business link?
What a ridiculous argument you’ve made here.
This is the most ridiculous line of reasoning.
Firstly, many rich people care. Many care about their “legacy”. They want their names on big donations, and on school campuses.
Secondly, many rich people spend inordinate amounts on PR advisement firms, demonstrating that there are significant dollar values put into caring about this. We’re talking about PR for the person, not even for a business.
They judge from what is known. You judge from giving him the benefit of the doubt between the cracks.
This is such a bizarre misrepresentation of what my comment is clearly saying.
I am clearly pointing out that he is still doing evil and you are being blinded by some fancy curated numbers.
I don’t even know how you got to that conclusion.
I wish there was a better way than the “be a horrible piece of shit for the first half of your life until you get your bag, then do nice stuff to rehab your image” path a lot of of them seem to take, but at least we get something out of some of them that way I suppose.
He never stopped doing bad things, he just started rehabing his image