Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Philanthropic Arm of Google

Posted by Zonk on from the reach-out-and-touch-in-a-good-way dept.

GoatJuggler writes "I accidentally visited google.org recently and ended up at a different Google site that appears to be a placeholder for Google's future foray into the world of philanthropy. A quote from Sergey Brin & Larry Page is there now, 'We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems.' Not much to see there now, but it's certainly refreshing to see a successful company leveraging their success to do good. Googling part of that quote led me to a blog that references the uniqueness of Google's SEC filing. The Google Foundation is referenced, and Google's job page now mentions that they are looking to fill the position of Executive Director for the Google Foundation. So, expect Good Things(TM) (like saving 3-legged kittens) from Google soon."

37 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. All that, and a great tax write off too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (see subject)

  2. Cleaning their image by sellin'papes · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just another major corporation saying 'don't be afraid of us, look at all the generous things we do'. That scares the shit out of me.

    If google is making enough money to give it away to boost their reputation, then I wonder how much tax they are paying. How much money in tax breaks to Google could have gone to building schools, money for hospitals, or even to pay down the deficit?

    --
    This is my last post.
    [6th Estate]
    1. Re:Cleaning their image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, looking at the recent spendings of the US government, I think the money will be better spent by Google than by the folks collecting taxes.

      Just my opinion.

    2. Re:Cleaning their image by zkn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are saying that you would trust the government to use the money in good intentions rather then google, on the grounds that google intend to spend them in good intentions?
      This is just expanding the "don't be evil" policy to "Be good" wich can't really hurt anyone(Exept 3legged kittens apparently).
      Besides google cant stabilice an intire economy on it's own, even if it does decide to pay more taxes then it rightfully should.

    3. Re:Cleaning their image by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Had the money not gone to charity, only part of it would have been taxed. As such, even less, after administrative expenses and so on, would have reached those who need it.

      If you're worried that Google trying to screw the system over by giving to charity, you have your priorities mixed up.

    4. Re:Cleaning their image by William+Robinson · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Hmmm.. your fears are not baseless. Their monopoly and financial muscle certainly brings some concerns. But if the organization is giving better signals, why not just accept it.

      Moreover this is not their first gesture. If u are aware, Google is supporting Firefox big way. Internet world has gained a lot from Google.

      --
      hilarious
    5. Re:Cleaning their image by spongman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      more tax money doesn't help bad schools, it just makes bad schools more expensive.

      collecting taxes to pay off debt just moves the burden of debt from the government to the people. the only way for a country to pay off debt is to become more productive, and raising taxes isn't the best way to do that.

    6. Re:Cleaning their image by tobybuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is always someone who will kick you in the nuts for doing the right thing.

    7. Re:Cleaning their image by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We (that is those of us in the U.S.) have made decision, either directly or by proxy through our lawmakers to allow companies, to a certain extent, to decide to funnel money into charitable causes instead of into their tax bill. Companies do this because there's more PR in charities than paying your taxes.

      If, every time a large corporation does this (and they all do), you're going to get scared of what horrible evil that PR is covering up, you're going to end up cowering in fear at every step. It's just one way of the government spending tax dollars that doesn't involve the government getting to decide HOW to spend those dollars. IMHO, that's a heck of a lot better than handing it to war-mongers.

      What really boggles me is that a genuinely good company like Google (I've talked with several people there, and watched their business closely, and they ARE good) gets accused of having horrible malicious goals more than any 3 other companies I've ever heard of. I mean, for Pete's sake, GE makes NUKES! It's their job. They crank them out like candy. And yet, somehow it's Google that we focus our scrutiny on?!

    8. Re:Cleaning their image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      more tax money doesn't help bad schools, it just makes bad schools more expensive.

      That is certainly true when the schools are bad because they're wasting money on crap, but some schools are short of money, and would do good things if they had it. The hard thing is to figure out which are which...

      collecting taxes to pay off debt just moves the burden of debt from the government to the people.

      Now that's just stupid. Government debt is your burden, or your children's. No politician or civil servant is going to suffer if the public debt increases. You will, when you're competing with them to borrow, and when you're trying to import things and pay for them with a devalued US dollar.

      the only way for a country to pay off debt is to become more productive, and raising taxes isn't the best way to do that.

      That's one way, but not the only way. Cutting spending on crap like porkbarrelling and crazy wars are others.

    9. Re:Cleaning their image by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just repeating what I'm sure others have said, but if Google is going to give away $100MM to causes they like as opposed to paying $100MM in taxes, then we're not really worse off. The problem begins when we have companies that don't pay $100MM in taxes and then... Give it to the execs.

      Unfortunately, while Google's scenario is the prefered one*, we still need to avoid the alternate exec-paying scenario. Hence, the government serves as an unwanted, but necessary conduit by which to distribute this money.

      * In the State of Delaware, your yearly tax return has an option for you to directly contribute to causes you may want (preserving wildlife, breast cancer education, veterans) from your refund. Sort of a neat idea -- I wonder what % of people take advantage of it.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    10. Re:Cleaning their image by SA+Stevens · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Companies do this because there's more PR in charities than paying your taxes.

      Actually, some entities do this because the government is so corrupted, slanted by special interests, and utterly incapable of doing certain needed things. Many charitable foundations have people who might be termed 'captains of industry' sitting on their board, people who have PROVEN they are capable administrators. Government, on the other hand, is composed of careerist civil service sloths, and the overgrown shyster 'used car salesmen' types who succeed in politics.

    11. Re:Cleaning their image by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google hardly has a monopoly.

      Their search isnt their income-producing profit, their advertising is. And they surely have no lock on the advertising market, even the web advertising market. They also dont really have much power to abuse any perceived monopoly you think they do have, since if you dont like their search, you *are* always free to use another one, on a moments whim (yahoo/msn/whatever).

      Someone else's choice of search engine hardly has any effect on your choice (unlike the case where someone sends you a document that your job depends on, and sends it in a proprietary format that the vendor of only one brand of software refuses to document, and even goes so far as to *patent* key technology that would have to be used in any competing software trying to read/interpret that data - which would definitely be an abuse of monopoly)

    12. Re:Cleaning their image by Storlek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice, but your experiment is meaningless unless you're searching all three search engines for all three phrases. If you search Yahoo for "Evil Microsoft" the first page is also the Microsoft homepage, whereas Google doesn't even list microsoft.com on the first page at all for that search. The first result for "evil Yahoo" on MSN search is evilyahoo.com, and Google brings up a news story from SEO Logic that just happens to have the two words next to each other in the page title. ("Google vs. Evil, Yahoo Acquires Inktomi, Commentary on Froogle...")

      You can draw your own conclusions from that, but I say it just shows that search engines aren't all the same.

      --
      Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
  3. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    maybe one day they'll give as much and do as much as microsoft/bill gates has.

    i dont really think the starving people in africa bill gates has fed really give two hoots about where the money comes from.

    sometimes, being capitalist swine can be a good thing.

    1. Re:cool by northcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, we are all really greatful for our Capitalist care-takers in USA. Can we please have the priviledge of worshipping your feet?

    2. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      sometimes, being capitalist swine can be a good thing.

      Here's one hypothetical scenario:

      • Bill Gates never got into the computer industry.
      • Microsoft was never formed.
      • The computer industry wasn't held back by its monopolistic practices.
      • Netscape succeeded in making the web a platform a decade before Google.
      • The computer industry as a whole was 300% more productive over the next ten years.
      • Commoditisation of the operating system meant that money was not siphoned off every industry that uses computers needlessly.

      You are forgetting that Bill Gates' money came from somewhere. What good could the people who had that money do with it if it wasn't taken from them through the illegal actions of Bill Gates?

      The ends don't justify the means. Bill Gates could give billions more without affecting his lifestyle one iota, and yet he continues to hoard billions of dollars. People are starving, and he continues to hold onto money he could never realistically spend in his lifetime.

      Did the money he has contributed help a lot of people? Of course. Does it mean anything in the grand scheme of things? Nope. Those people could have been helped by contributions from rich Netscape executives. Bill Gates doesn't have a monopoly on philanthropy, only on operating systems.

    3. Re:cool by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Oh grow the fuck up. Nobody is saying to worship the "capitalist care-takers". All we're saying is stop whining when a company does something good with their money by giving it to charities.

      But wait, they're getting something out of it, they're getting a tax writeoff and lots of PR! HOLY CRAP! What is this world coming to.

      If companies are giving money to poor starving people, thats a GOOD THING. Don't bring your prejudices against America into this.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:cool by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think anybody's really opposed to Bill Gates (or anyone) donating money to good causes - but on the other hand, most people (or most Slashdotters/geeks/etc. at least) also reserve the right to criticize Bill Gates for everything else he does. The fact that he's doing good things does not mean that we suddenly have to overlook all the bad things he's also doing.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    5. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I don't think anybody's really opposed to Bill Gates (or anyone) donating money to good causes [...] The fact that he's doing good things does not mean that we suddenly have to overlook all the bad things he's also doing.
      Really? You wouldn't know it from the rabbid Anti-Bill-and-Everything-He-Does environment which has been so strongly fostered. Hell, Slashdot featured an article not too long ago which featured the fun phrase "Maybe Chairman Bill doesn't 'get' it because he's too busy answering press calls about his generosity in donating his billions to them poor brown people over there.". Of course, backlash was bad enough that they changed it eventually, but the fact that such a thought didn't strike the author as even remotely hypocritical is sad.

      Nobody is saying don't criticize hime when he does something bad, we're saying don't hold that against him WHEN HE DOES SOMETHING GOOD. It's akin to saying "Oh, Mother Theresa dedicated her life to improving the situation of poor people? So what, she cut me off in traffic once!". Take each situation as if it were independant. Bashing Gates for donating BILLIONS to combat crippling diseases just makes you look like an ass.
  4. Other Philanthropists by gihan_ripper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Though much maligned in our community, Bill and Melinda Gates and Steve Case have also set up charitable foundations.

    Of course, it's up to the reader to determine whether their goals are truly philanthropic or whether they serve to extend the agendas of Bill and Steve. More to the point, is any philanthropic organisation ever agenda-free?

    --
    Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
    1. Re:Other Philanthropists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, it's up to the reader to determine whether their goals are truly philanthropic or whether they serve to extend the agendas of Bill and Steve.

      Why are those mutually exclusive? You use the word "agenda" as if it's synonymous with "evil." Can't someone have an agenda for good? What if it's Bill's agenda to wipe out malaria? Certainly Bill has business practices we abhor, but wiping out malaria is an unreserved miracle, no matter who does it. If that's part of his agenda then I hope he succeeds.

  5. "No Evil" and its meaning by LewsTherinKinslayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone on /. loves to discuss whether or not google's rather benevolent attitudes about technology, innovation and being a business is genuine or not.

    Many like to say that google is somehow the golden child of corporations. That they are above all others, magically concerned with not only their own profits.

    Others like to say its all bullshit; a happy face they stick on to look more appealing to the masses. After all, any corporation is as evil as any other, and their primary concern for their stockholders is obviously profit.

    But who's right? I'd say that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. I think the founders of Google and its staff truly, genuinely wish to keep themselves untainted. People always get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear about businesses like Enron. And I for one would certain prefer to employ the business of a company who has this positive attitude, its refreshing. By virtue of this admirable reputation, they generate more business. Seems win-win.

    1. Re:"No Evil" and its meaning by iBod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I think the founders of Google and its staff truly, genuinely wish to keep themselves untainted."

      "Don't be evil".

      I think Google desparatley wish to APPEAR 'untainted' to keep their geek/hippy cred.

      IMHO Google is just another 100% red-blooded capitalist business, doing what they have to do, no matter what they claim to the contrary.

      I'm not saying that's a 'wrong' thing to be, but they should at least drop the BS and the fake bonhomie.

      Profit, market share and stockholder returns are Googles mantras, just like any other successfull corporate.

      If you think otherwise, you're totally deluding yourself IMHO.

    2. Re:"No Evil" and its meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Profit, market share and stockholder returns are Googles mantras, just like any other successfull corporate.

      Well, yes and no. Their statements explain it pretty simply. Being "not evil" can hurt them in the short term, but they believe it will help them in the long run.

      Everybody knows that a company can help its quarterly figures by laying off staff to cut costs. Everybody also knows that this hurts morale and production, and usually hurts the company long-term. A company can pollute instead of switching to a clean process if the clean process is more costly. A company can squeeze their customers for a few extra dollars, knowing that it will take a while for the unhappy customers to find a new supplier.

      What Google has said is that they are looking long term, and will not do these sorts of things just to make their quarterly figures. This is an admirable position to take, certainly after having watched so many companies destroy themselves (with much collateral damage) taking the opposite approach over the last decade. Enron is the epitome of the opposite approach, they made a lot of money short-term, but they killed themselves (and landed executives in jail, while leaving California with a serious power shortage).

      Now, motive would be an interesting question. A good capitalist would take this approach because a company can make more money in 50 years than it can if it burns itself out in 5. Clean-up is expensive, too. A "good person" would take this approach because it serves the greatest number of people, instead of getting a few rich at the expense of the many. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing good for monetary reasons, but what happens when capitalism tells you to do evil?

      Personally, money doesn't motivate me very well. I choose a job based on interest, not salary (I could be making double if I wanted to). I think a lot of techies are this way, because we can be. We can usually make enough money to live comfortably, which allows us to concern ourselves with things that are important or fun to us. We write free software or worry about the government or play WoW instead of trying to make a little extra money. Google's founders can easily be in this category (Think about it, they are billionaires. What do they care whether the company actually makes money or not?)

      I can be a cynic as well as the next guy, but my life sucks bad enough without ripping the spine out of hope.

  6. Corporation by McGiraf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google is now a publicly traded company. So by law they must put their stockholders interest above all. If their phylantropic action just spends money without any return on investment (tax, public image, publicity) they are liable to be sued by stock holders. The "Do no evil" mantra is now meaningless.

    Read thr book or see the documentary:
    http://www.thecorporation.com

    1. Re:Corporation by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really, they can point to their SEC filing and say it's part of the companys mission. Anyone investing should know what kind of company google is, and therefor can't sue it for not maximising profit at all cost.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
  7. To the editors by JDOHERTY · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How and when did Slashdot become a press release spot for Google? Is this a technology story? The poster nor editor make any mention of other companies efforts in this area. Can we do something with 'Goole-giving' right now? Have they innovated the process? Do you think they'll have a 'Google-stock-picker' next, after all we're all need a little help?

  8. Old news by DaoudaW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is _so_ old news.

    The blog and of course the SEC Form S-1 were written in April, 2004. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since then except for a very brief coming soon website.

    Nothing to see here. Move on! Move on!

  9. I've been thinking of subscribing to Slashdot... by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but this story gives me yet another reason not to. I mean come on, a Google story once in awhile is valuable, as is a Firefox story once in awhile, or a Perl story every now and then.

    But for the past month, it seems that every day brings a new Google story or three to Slashdot. Then we start getting "news" stories like this which aren't news at all, but instead describe features of Google which have existed for at least a year. I suppose that I could submit a story about Google indexing belly-button lint, referencing a two paragraph article that I posted somewhere, and it would wind up on the /. front page.

    This story is a non-story, like many of the Google stories lately. Google.org has a bit of text promising to be philanthropic, in some undetermined manner, at some undetermined point in the future. How in $DEITY's name is this a news story? If I were to buy the .org version of my company's domain, and erect a similar site claiming that I want to do great things, would it be worthy of an entry on Slashdot's front page? Of course not.

    Does OSDN get a kickback from Google for every Google article posted here? I really want to know, because it's getting ridiculous, and if Slashdot doesn't provide a way to opt-out of the multitude of unnecessary Google articles, there's no way that I'm going to start paying for this.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  10. Re:In other words... by SA+Stevens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's wrong with the regular /etc/hosts file?

    Have they unleashed another new, non-standard boondoogle into the new systems that crufts up plain /etc/hosts?

  11. Bill Gates and Sergey Brin & Larry Page by 3770 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sergey Brin & Larry Page say they will do Philantropy.

    Conclusion: They, and Google, are the greatest on earth.

    Bill Gates is one of the largest philantropes on the planet.

    Conclusion: He, and Microsoft, is the spawn of satan.

    Don't misunderstand my sarcasm above. I think that what Sergey Brin & Larry Page are doing is great. But lets keep things in perspective. And lets not keep a dual standard here.

    I love Google, and I dislike Microsoft, but I know that to some extent I'm being irrational.

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  12. or a boot licker you seem to think` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The widow gave a small mite (a tiny piece of copper) which was worth more than all that was given by the wealthy and powerful.

    If Bill Gates wants to do some supreme act of charity then he and microsoft can open source windows and do us all a favor.

    Charity from thieves is not really charity, is it?
    He gives other people's money as his money is acquired through monopolistic chicanery and really seems illigitamite to me.

    But, hey the powerful live with in their own delusions so why not Bill Gates?

  13. Purpose of charitable tax "write offs" by anti-NAT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government (well the AU government anyway) doesn't want to apply tax to money you've earned that you give to charities.

    In AU (and possibly other places), a "tax write off" doesn't really directly reduce your tax at all. What it does is reduces your taxable income, IOW, the income that tax is calculated against. For example, if, before tax, you've earned $30 000, and you donate $2000 to a charity, your taxable income then becomes $28 000. The government is being charitable itself, in saying that they don't want a tax slice of the $2000 you've donated.

    Another way to look at it is that your taxable salary is your "profit" for working - you're allowed to make tax deductions on things necessary to generate that salary "profit". For example, being in IT, I can claim Internet access, IT Books etc. All these tax deductions are not reducing my tax, they are reducing the portion of my salary that I'll pay tax on.

    So, if you want to pay no tax, give away all of your salary to a Charity until your taxable salary is below the taxable salary threshold eg. in AU, $6000 p.a.

    I'm fairly sure that companies have the same general options - if they donate part of their profit to charity, they don't pay tax on their donations. Of course, they could give away all of their profit to a charity, pay no tax, but also not pay the shareholders any increase in their investment (dividend, increased stock price via stock buy back).

    I'm not accountant so I could be somewhat wrong about the above. I am fairly sure about the concept of tax deductions not "directly reducing" your tax though - I used to think that way, as I think a lot of other people do. It's all about reducing your taxable income.

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
  14. They'll give people money by ProsperoDGC · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm very amused by the complaints about Google starting a foundation. Yes, Google gets a tax break by donating to charity. But so do most US citizens when you give cash (or time, or gas expenses, or whatever) to charitable causes. So suggesting that Google is being somehow underhand by starting a foundation is a petty argument sourced in sheer cynicism... Unless you only contribute to charity for the tax break?

    The fact is, Google has scads of money just lying about the place. They can invest it, but sometimes the "return on investment" is better if that same money is invested in good works, such as scientific research, food programs, and the like. It depends on your definition of "return," I guess.

    Regardless of what you think about their ethics or business practices, Brin+Page, Gates, Case, and the like have chosen to invest their capital in ventures that will (ideally) generate more than a capital return in the short-term. By doing so through a foundation, they're demonstrating both good business sense and laudable philanthropy. They shouldn't be condemned for either.

  15. This debt is your debt by bitspotter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This debt is your debt
    this debt is my debt
    from preemptive warfare
    to the housing projects

    from the wealthy tax breaks
    to the corp'rate favors
    this debt was made by you and me!

  16. ...undoing the evil influences of Stanford and MIT by cwcpetech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Put some serious effort to get some people who dont have the "Ivy League" background into Google working at the same level as those from those currently there. After they can get get a good deal of people not from exclusionist backgrounds, then they might consider funding a scholarship that no longer makes it "social connection or perceived merit" to get into the Ivy League type of university. After all, if they're "not doing evil", maybe they might want people that dont run things like Stanford, MIT or CIT (see gmail, Orkut, Ivy League and west coast equivalents).