top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It always blows my mind when I see people defend this guy.

He was so universally hated that he disappeared from public for like a decade while working with a PR rehab firm. That firm worked a goddamn miracle though.

Also, having a non-profit whose endowment is invested in your companies and their partners. He’s a piece of shit billionaire, but he’s good at being a piece of shit billionaire.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Was Gate’s philanthropy always just to make other rich people think he was cool? And now that right wing politics are in, he’s shifted over? I don’t see another explanation.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago

    He mostly used it for two things. One, as all rich people do, to donate money to their own foundations to save taxes. Second, to push his thoughts and interest on what should be research and what shouldn't.

    He didn't do either of these things overtly (e.g. as Musk for the latter), but still Billionaires do Billionaire stuff.

    Probs also might have helped his image with Billionaire friends and the public.

    There are plenty of times when his funding things interfered. Alas there are for sure times when his funding things helped, but no one individual should posses such power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Bill Gates wanted to think of himself as a good person. Charity was his attempt to prove himself as a good person, and Effective Altruism got so much funding and PR because it tries to make billionaires look like good people. Effective Altruism argues that rather than looking at someone's actions, you look at how much better they are than what would replace them if they didn't do that, and then argues that there will always be more billionaires that are exploitative because that's how the market works, so that doesn't count, while not every billionaire makes a charity, so that does count.

    The problem for EA is that many of the charities it recommends have to engage in lobbying to be practical, but if you allow for lobbying then obviously lobbying for legislation that reduces billionaire exploitation would be beneficial, and that's not what their donors want. So EA had to drive itself insane to curve away from that obvious conclusion, with people that still insist on it being pressured out of the movement.

    But the result of that is that the ethical philosophy that billionaires wanted to rely on for indulgences for their sins had now become obviously insane, even to most of them. That's how you get people like Peter Thiel not giving a straight answer to whether humanity should survive, that's how you get shrimp welfare, etc. etc.

    Gates doesn't like the insanity, but that that leaves him without moral excuses. So with other billionaires throwing their lot in with Trump, he does the same so he can at least stay rich for longer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    People get tricked by these billionaires into thinking they’re decent, by donating to organizations run by their children. Nobody gets to be a billionaire by being moral, every single billionaire got there by stealing from the workers who did the heavy lifting, by robbing their wages and benefits. You cannot become a billionaire without taking from others. They are all a disease

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    gates was never decent, especially around the vaccine initiative during covid. africa criticize him of using it as a way to institute vaccine colonialism in the continent. plus he needed to distance himself from being a ruthless businessman at MS, and THE EPSTEIN FILES TOO. his charities also laundering money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    This guy is in the Epstein files, but somehow avoided all the criticism relating to it.

    He has a well paid PR team.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Thats like me paying 25 cent for a gumball at the mall

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    "Some guy whose only ethos is having a lot of money somehow generates headlines from giving some minor fraction of a percent of his ever growing wealth to a useless entity"

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Bill Gates is a fascist. He has no spine, no ethics, no morality. He is a billionaire piece of shit.

  • source
  • 10 comments in c/globalpolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Just imagine how hard they can think now with all that money

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    And the best they could come up with was “Just tell people to worry less about the climate”?
    Sounds like that think tank isn’t really worth it.

  • source
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's odd and not on brand ... I wouldn't be surprised if the think tank misrepresented itself to get the funds

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Yeah, misrepresenting everything including themselves and facts about climate change is what Bjørn Lomborg's think tanks DO, and Gates would have known that if he'd taken just 10 minutes to research them before showering any of them with ill-gotten gains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Has anyone here read the article?

    The foundation donated, not the man. The foundation’s finances are not exactly simple with thousands of organizations getting funds from them at any given time.

    Where money is distributed is not a decision specific to Gates. It’s based on the leadership decisions in the foundation to issue grants. The direction of the granting process is at a high level guided by the board of the foundation, that includes Gates, but those directions are at the “focus on medical research grants into Malaria, AIDS, and TB”, not at the individual dispersal level.

    The delegation of authority rules would likely place a 3.5 million dollar decision on a VP level in the foundation to approve.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And to clarify, he will have taken at least 10 minute to research them before showering them with ill-gotten gains.

    He knows who he is supporting. The question for us is, why is he supporting them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Might simply be because he agrees with the lies and wants to profit from spreading them:

    In October 2025, Bill Gates issued a statement about climate change that some described as shocking. He said that climate change does not pose an existential threat to civilization

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment