Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google.org, a For-Profit Charity

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the for-the-greater-good dept.

Google has set up a subsidiary, Google.org, a for-profit philanthropy with initial capital of a billion dollars. Not being organized on a tax-free basis carries both advantages and drawbacks. From the article: "Unlike most charities, this one will be for-profit, allowing it to fund start-up companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists and even lobby Congress. It will also pay taxes." One of Google.org's first projects is the development of a plug-in hybrid vehicle that achieves a mileage rating equivalent to 100 MPG.

3 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. Re:interesting by n8Mills · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sour grapes. It sucks to be on the forefront without being provacitive enough to get noticed. Maybe you can spout headlines while lighting yourself on fire? Maybe you can read a crystal ball while getting dangerously close to contracting aids... maybe you can... blah blah blahgargharg

  2. Call me a cynic... by CousinLarry · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    but, uh, am I stupid for thinking that if google.org is "for profit" then its not a philanthropy, but rather its a business?

    And moreover -- it sounds like a business where they can try out pie-in-the-sky, shot-in-the-dark notions without getting the scrutiny that such projects would have if they were housed under the main umbrella of the company. Investors' biggest critism of the company is that the projects (and the founders) are too scattered and unfocused, seems to me like this is a baloney way for them to keep throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.

  3. ORWELLIAN DOUBLESPEAK by drDugan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is NOT a charity and it is NOT philanthropic. This is a for-profit entity, no matter what they say or how they try and spin it. I have founded and run non-profit entities, and guess what - it is hard, even when you have money. Oversight, restrictions, tax headaches, reporting, etc. You have to actually do things that really help the public and not the owners. When you are a for profit you can do whatever you want. Anyone with half a head on their shoulders should be jumping up and argument-slapping the next person who takes the line that this is a charity. This is a PR stunt on steroids if I ever saw it.

    Oh yeah, remember that the public chares of Google have restricted voting rights. If even if you are a shareholder, tough shit. see http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1960985,00.as p

    This story completely insane: I guess when you control all the world's information you can simply state two completely contradictory things and the whole world just laps it up like children.