Google.org to Spend an Initial $1.1 Billion

conq writes "Google.org, the charitable branch of Google, has hired on Dr. Larry Brilliant to create a strategy for making a 'social impact.' According to the article: 'The network will focus its charitable endeavors on global poverty, energy, and the environment.' Brilliant outlines his goal: 'In 10 years, I'd like people to say Google changed the world less for its search engine than for the way in which it changed philanthropy to make the world a better place.'"

Comments

Brilliant

[FST]

For those of you who don't know who Brilliant is, he has just the eclectic background that makes him a natural fit for Google's philanthropic thrust. He is a physican and epidemiologist who has also been heralded as a tech visionary. He spent a decade studying religion in at a Himalayan monastery in India, followed by a stint as a diplomat with the U.N. He helped lead a World Health Organization program to eradicate smallpox and later founded the Berkeley (Calif.)-based Seva Foundation, an international health nonprofit group credited with restoring sight to more than 2 million blind people.

Uh, no...

[Otter]

Google.org to Spend an Initial $1.1 Billion

I'm not sure how you managed to get that from "Ultimately, Google.org will spend a sum that equals about 1% of the number of shares Google had when it went public. Based on the current stock price, that implies spending of more than $1.1 billion."

The fund has a $90M endowment, and "ultimately" I wouldn't base anything on the current stock price.

Personally, I'd rather have seen them run their business ethically than make money from providing censorship to China and give it back with some nebulous charitable scheme, but...

Re:Here's a start

[rueger]

Now if only those poor little brown people a) could read English, or whatever language Wikipedia is in b) had a handy source of electricity to recharge those laptops c) had another source of reliable information for the times when Wikipedia is totally wrong d) had someone writing information that was specific to their climate and culture, not Southern California.

The problems faced the people in many developing nations are significantly more complex and profound than anything that a free laptop will solve.

Sidebar: the 1.1 Billion referred to is the amount being placed in an endowment. The actual amount that will be available to be spent will be signifcantly smaller. For comparison, check out the Ford Foundation, with assets of some 11.4 billion, and annual progam expenditures of about 500 million.

Re:Goooogle the Gooood Guy

[angel'o'sphere]

If you want to run a business in a foreign country, you have to obey the laws in that country.

So the first question fo rgoogl is: do we want to have a china branch? Yes or no?

If the answer is NO, then you cant have any influence on China.

To change anything there you have to be there. To be there you have to obey their laws and even if that includes censorship.

Finally when you have establsihed a business there, probably with some 10,000 emplyoees, you gain "might".

When you finally have might, you can work on changing something.

The ppl here on /. e.g you and this poster: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178241&cid=147 79934 take a very simplyified position.

You sit in your armchair and yell: "Google is promoting/supporting censorship" therefor Google is EVIL. So, what exactly are you doing? Nothing, imho.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Can you say Netscape?

[corbettw]

If they want to make a difference, how about investing money into good civics lessons in the countries wracked by violence. Teach them peaceful resolution of differences, undermine their tribal identities to create a unified national identity and teach them the value of working together in a way respectful of basic civil rights.

Oddly enough, that was one of the original ideas behind the UN. Until it became wracked with sectarian conflict between different tribes, er, nations.

As for helping poor countries establish stable democracies, the Cato Institute had a study several years ago positing that property rights, more than any other single variable, were the key to long term stability and prosperity. Interesting reading, if you can find it.

Re:Or

[MrNonchalant]

It's obvious from many replies that very few are familiar with what Google.org has already done. Mainly they've worked with non-profits who do very much what you folks suggest. They've been posting about it in the Google Blog and it reads like a book of how to do philanthropy in a sustainable, sensible, and empowering manner.

For instance, one of their partners is the Acumen Fund which invests in local start-ups making goods and services for the developing world (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/acumen-vis its-google.html). Another partner does produces subtitled television from local content as a means to increase literacy in India (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/same-langu age-subtitling.html). Others are detailed on Google.org itself. One such example is TechnoServe which is promoting business developement in Ghana (http://www.technoserve.org/). And they're not just throwing money at the problem, they're donating Google services (AdSense) and plan on supplying logistical and technical aid as well.

In short, all the whiny comments about what the developing world needs (parent post isn't one of them, but nearing that way) are pretty well misplaced. Google has shown a good degree of competence in their technical endeavours, that seems to be translating wonderfully to their philanthropic wing.

Re:Time for shareholder lawsuits

[Orne]

Agreed. Given that Google is now 24% down and dropping from their peak several weeks ago, I (as a Google Shareholder) don't want to see the stock slide any more.

First they miss their earnings forecast this last quarter, which limits the amount of new investment from banks (which only means they should take care of their existing cash), mostly due to competition in advertising.

They are already under attack for providing content blocking for China, now may have to scale back their image searches, are under governmental requests for search records on providing pornography to minors... meanwhile, there're competing search engines, and their tricks in google maps are being duplicated.

When you put all the pieces together, Google needs real intelligence to weather the next few months, or they are going to lose the short-term trader's confidence... and with that, their value drops.

Re:Expand Summer of Code... 800 students?

[billybob2]

Supporting the Summer of Code would enable Google to positively impact education in numerous ways. Educating the younger generation is an investment in the world's future, yet it so often seems to fall off the radar of those in charge.

How can Google support education with Free and Open Source Software? By improving apps that make it fun for elementary, junior high and high school students to learn. And how do you make it fun? By intertwining technology and using computers to their full potential as teaching tools. Take the KDE Education Suite for example: it has open source programs that teach Math, Chemistry, Physics, Foreign Languages and many more. Wouldn't it be nice if every third-world child had access to these?

By supporting college students who work on Free Software, Google would be raising awareness of its many advantages, not to mention giving participants the satisfaction that they've authored something that will be used by millions of people throughout the world. The Free Software foundation has compiled a list of testimonials from people at various educational institutions who have benefited greatly from using Free Software. But more importantly, using Free Software in educational settings teaches students about freedom and cooperation. Richard Stallman and FSF Europe have written great essays on this topic, titled:

Why schools should use exclusively free software
Why give precedence to Free Software at school?

Through Free and Open Source software, Google has the power to make the world a smarter place, enabling its people to make intelligent decisions that will affect all of us.

Re:It didn't work for Bill Gates

[zoeblade]

People keep on dismissing Gates' donations by saying all of the money microsoft makes is from breaking the law, or unethical practices. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only "illegal" activities that have even come close to sticking to microsoft are their actions in relation to IE and windows media player.. both of which are free, and compete against free alternatives.

This sounds like trolling, but I'll reply just in case it isn't.

Here are a few hilights from a random web page, which in turn has links to its sources (just search for something including DOS and sabotage to see similar pages):

Gates gave orders to executives at Microsoft to purposely sabotage DR DOS. "Make sure it [DR DOS] has problems running our software in the future." And where it didn't have problems, programmers were instructed to create bogus error messages saying that it did. The tactic worked and DR DOS was forced out of business, leaving the Microsoft monopoly. Years later, MS paid more than $100 million to settle this case -- long after DR DOS was no longer a threat.

With the MS DOS monopoly as a foundation, Microsoft continued a series of illegal actions designed to extend their monopoly to additional products, including Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. For example, they stifled competition by threatening and extorting computer manufacturers to enter into licenses agreeing to only carry Microsoft products. By the time the Justice Department caught up to them and filed two antitrust cases for a wide range of unfair and anti-competitive actions (1993, 1996), Microsoft had cemented a massive monopoly which gave them hoards of cash to fight any company -- or even the government. Microsoft settled the first case, agreeing to change its illegal marketing practices and was found guilty in the second case.

The charitable giving that Microsoft advertises is usually a business tactic, where they give away software in an attempt to gain traction in a market, such as they do with schools. The software costs them just pennies to reproduce, but they advertise the full retail value for tax and PR reasons. Microsoft rarely gives actual cash.