contravening to their own stated core principle that charitable donations should be done in a way that produces measurable benefits to people,
Nothing in the announcement indicates that Zuckerberg won’t use his money in a way that produces measurable benefits.
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’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.
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”.
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.
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?
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.
The guy in the basement with a bright idea can’t. Should we resign to a future of corporate neo-feudalism?
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.
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.