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.

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: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: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.