Slashdot Mirror
The Philanthropic Arm of Google
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."
Is there any way to filter out stories about Google on Slashdot?
This is the second thread I'm seeing saying that they don't know what "Philanthropy" means. Do people really don't know what philanthropy means? I live in a non-English (non-European/American) country and English is not my mother-tongue and philanthropy was one of the words we learnt here as little kids. This is really surprising me.
Hmm, I don't know which post will be more off-topic: this or the parent. Anyway...
The government is not an independent entity. It actually represents the people and whatever it does affects the people. The debt of your country is your debt as well, and you share it with your co-nationals. Moreover, your government operates with the money from your taxes which is, ultimately, your money. Basically your country being a debtor means that your government has been spending the money you haven't given to it yet (simplistically written, admittedly, but you haven't gone beyond the republican slogans either).
If you didn't like that thought, then think for whom you vote next time.
You might find excuses to prove me wrong, but they won't amount to more than being just excuses.
Raising taxes is not a problem. It's how they are spent that makes a difference. If your government raised the taxes to provide universal health care, nobody would need to pay for insurance. Take with one hand, give with the other. However, that also means that your government would be managing more of your money, and some people have a problem with that (for good reasons too).
You don't provide any reason for saying that low taxes encourage increasing productivity and, implicitly, economic growth. And that's because it's wrong and you don't have a valid reason. The statistics waved so dearly by the republicans are misleading at best. They are measured in yearly intervals and the reference is always the worst year of the recent period (e.g. 1982 for Reagan's tax cuts, 1999 for Bush II). The claims made based on these numbers are fraud. The measurements should be compared over whole economical cycles (i.e. periods between two successive recessions; this usually translates into one decade). The peaks and the averages should be considered, not the lowest points.
If you did all this, you'd find that the tax rate doesn't have any significant influence on the state of the economy.
More to the point, is any philanthropic organisation ever agenda-free?
Well, it would be kind of pointless if it was, wouldn't it? They get donations to accomplish some good. That good would be their agenda.
Anyway, I do understand your meaning, and I tend to disagree. All people have selfish interests, but they also have altruistic interests. Most people don't mind making small sacrifices to serve some good purpose, although many aren't willing to go out of their way to do so (and many, like you, are cynical enough to question whether a given donation is going towards the cause or towards the organization). If you're Bill Gates then $100M is a small sacrifice to help save thousands of kids.
I was thinking recently about a conservation group I volunteered with once. I was thinking about how reasonable and practical they were. They didn't try to force an agenda on anyone, or push ideas that would hurt humans in favor of wildlife. Contrast this with a group like PETA or GreenPeace, who can make serious pests of themselves by literally attacking people they don't agree with. I realized that a smaller philanthropic group might be better than a large one, simply because they don't have enough power to try to force their agenda on people. Because they can't force their agenda, they have to prove that the cause is worthy and the solution is workable, which makes for a very responsible group. The small size also minimizes the beaurocracy and the risk of people being there simple for the power or money (and not the cause). Just a pondering, anyway.
I choose a third option.
3. Google is really no better or worse than the average corporation, and the average corporation can and sometimes is benevolent.
You see? It's not an either/or choice.
Yes it happened to Ford and to the Body Shop also, they did not get sued but the founder lost control after they went public and the good stuff she was doing with the profit was mostly stopped.
What law is that which the neocon point of view projects that the corporation puts the stockholders first? That is a lie and it gets repeated over and over.
Being sued is not the same as being guilty.
You attempt to justify evil by making an excuse about stock-holders. Under your definition of a corporations responsibilities then corporations of Wahabbi muslims would have to try and convert all of their stock-holders because otherwise they will burn in hell. Utter nonsense to me.
As an exercise why don't you define 'stockholders interest'. Can't you see that is a subjective idea? So how can you justify what you say.
Please stop parroting the neocon lie which buts the corporation as Fuedal lord and master.
It comes from old greek.
/learning greek, have too much time on hands.
phil- meaning love of, pasion for, interest in etc, anthropic - of man.
So it means something like "love of humankind" (generally).
Words with similar bits in are like necro-philia, (love of dead things) or the ghastly "X-phile".
Also things like anthropo-morphic (people-shaped).
From what I understand, Bill Gates' foundation does not have anything to do with Microsoft, though, does it (other than being funded by money that Gates earned due to his job at M$)?
;)
That being said, there's another, more important point, too: the fact that someone (whether a person, company or any other entity) does some good things does not mean that all the bad things they do have to be overlooked. Even if M$ would directly fund charitable causes, I still would reserve the right to criticise them for the bad things they do - and there's plenty of stuff to criticise them for.
If I was more cynical, I might even say that a thief who uses part of his loot to fund charitable causes is still a thief, but I'm not *that* cynical yet.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Gates was GOOD for the industry. He "got it" (something Apple still hasn't) -- commodity hardware is good, and fosters a healthy software industry.
Like it or not, an operating system is a natural monopoly. *Something* would have won out. Software companies need a standard to write to.
There is no way we could've had a web platform a decade ago. Hell, a web platform might not be possible now, even with relatively common broadband. Not to mention that a web platform will suck for a lot of things. And let's not even talk about how screwed up Netscape was. Their software was HORRIBLE toward the end.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The web was never going to be a platform in the 90s. Hell, it's only a barely serviceable platform for a very limited range of applications now. In fact, given how spectacularly Netscape imploded - yes, I subscribe to reality, Netscape is at least much at fault for the death of Netscape as Microsoft - there was never any indication that the people at Netscape ever "got it". They never even got close to creating anything other than a barely serviceable browser let alone a platform.
Try again with a more realistic scenario. Perhaps one where IBM still rules the world - would the shareholders of IBM be donating money so freely?