Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Philanthropy For Hackers

Posted by Soulskill on from the giving-it-good dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster and the first president of Facebook, was part of a generation of geeks who rode the dot-com boom to financial success. Over the past two decades, that population has dramatically increased, and former hackers are carving out spots as leaders of industry. In the Wall Street Journal, Parker has posted advice for how the hacker elite can approach philanthropy. He points out that they're already bringing a level of strategy and efficacy to charity work that hasn't been seen before. "These budding philanthropists want metrics and analytic tools comparable to the dashboards, like Mixpanel, that power their software products. They want to interact directly with the scientists, field workers and academics whose ideas power the philanthropic world but who have traditionally been hidden away in a backroom somewhere, shielded from their beneficiaries by so-called development officers." One thing he advises is keeping away from large charity organizations, which largely exist to keep themselves going. He also suggests getting actively involved with the political process, even if such organizations are often distasteful.

15 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. Large charities by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In general, I think the point about large charities being mostly about sustaining themselves is correct. However, they have connections that can often make them the only (albeit imperfect) organizations that can mobilize relief after major disasters. Further, some specific large charities provide unique services that smaller organizations, however well run, cannot replicate. An example is the Red Cross and their monitoring of prisoners of war. I also greatly respect one or two large charities. Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) does tremendous work, such as fighting the ebola outbreak for months before the WHO did anything effective.. Generalizations can have limited validity, but must not be taken too far

    1. Re:Large charities by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      It's a critical point, one that Parker also mentions, that scale matters -- in fact I think it should be the first constraint before deciding what you want to do. Some things are too big for a small charity; some things are too big (malaria, polio) for any single government to make a difference for long. I also agree that MSF is one of the best -- when I visited Sudan 10 years ago they were the only NGO I bumped into (although I was there for other things). They take on the really difficult shit without complaint.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    2. Re:Large charities by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Then there are charities which do things worldwide and have naturally high overheads. Orbis International, aka "flying eye hospital" is one of them. Basically they fly a donated DC-10 (from FedEx, I believe, one of their old planes and they remain one of their biggest sponsors) to poor parts of the world, and treat all manner of diseases that affect eyesight, for free.

      Flying a DC-10 isn't cheap, and operating one isn't either. But they do it because this lets them have a controlled operating room and recovery area. These are places where if there is a hospital, it isn't set up to do eye surgery, so they bring the hospital to them with a minimum level of technology and cleanliness.

      So yeah, they have huge overheads, but for all those children and adults they help, it literally is a life changer to go from barely seeing to opening a new dimension to life. It also means instead of living their days out on the street begging they could actually be productive members of society, and be able to attend school Or even a father with failing eyesight can have his vision restored and resume working. (They're not about eyeglasses, but more about cataracts, glaucoma, cancer, and other complex eye diseases).

      If you want your dollar to have the most impact on people, give locally - the food bank is generally an excellent place who have the connections that literally stretch every dollar (while they get lots of in food donations, they need money to buy the staples that aren't often donated - fresh produce, for example). But there are a few charities where yes, more money goes into running them, but that's because they need to do bigger things - MSF, Orbis, etc.

  2. Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hackers or hacks?
    How many of those "success" stories exist because they had the brilliance to do something right again and again, instead of just once, then "ride the wave" of that early success?

    Bill Gates, as much as I hate the guy and his legacy, did something right with Microsoft not just a few times, but for decades. Same for Steve Jobs and Google's founders.
    Facebook? Other than the fact that it's very popular it brings very little innovation, they don't have any other products, nothing outside their comfort zone. They live in their tiny shell feeding off the early success of being the biggest social network.

    1. Re: Curious by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Facebook is doing what those others do which is buying up other people's good ideas and building on them such as Instagram, WhatsApp and Oculus Rift. In fact Gates' first big win was with someone else's product.

    2. Re:Curious by retchdog · · Score: 1

      hey, Facebook researchers are doing some serious hard-core work in the fields of computer vision (=how to track you) and applied psychology (=how to get you to want to be tracked and click on ads). they just hired Yann LeCun ffs, who basically invented convolutional neural networks as we currently know them, and he seems at least as happy and productive there as he was at NYU.

      of course, this has little to do with Marky Mark Z., who seems to have just been in the right place at the right time with the right personal characteristics. then again, you could say the same about Bill Gates. that's the bitch of it, really. who knows whether the alternative to Microsoft would have actually been any better in the long-run?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  3. Relevant to you? by 1umpy · · Score: 1

    Wow! A $600 million gift is very impressive but most of us are not in that "Internet baron" class... yet! We all hope we get there I'm sure. If you're interested in a way to commit to philanthropic action now for when you make it big later, then check out www.thefounderspledge.org.

    1. Re:Relevant to you? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      How about just giving away you skills and ideas now for free. The measure of your real worth is not you wealth and egoistic philanthropy (which is often more destructive than constructive). The measure of your real worth is who you think you see in the mirror. Who gives a tiddly crap about how main stream media with it's wealth worship ideology treats you now, a billion years, hell just a hundred thousands years, forward or back it is all totally meaningless, only you own perception of what you have freely contributed will define your true worth, a positive or negative worth, contributed more than you consumed and nothing is more consumptive of society than accumulating wealth. You do not have to make money to be of worth to the human society you are a part of and factually the greatest contributions are done for free everyday, those contributions that bind humanity together. Being able to buy more junk and more fully obeying the demands of marketing, than others around does not make you special, unless you think being a victim of marketing somehow makes you 'special' (I remember that as being the euphemism for disabled children, somehow seems more appropriate when talking about victims of mass consumerism, hmm, the 'special' people).

      Philanthropy the art of making the myopically greedy look better, at least for a short time. Charity, helping to serve a better a society for the long term with no reward or recognition, just the ones you provide yourself. Which is the greatest accomplishment, which is shared with the many rather than being exclusive to the few and which in total contributes far, far more to the whole of human society.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. President of Facefark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Hackers share certain values: an antiestablishment bias, a belief in radical transparency, a nose for sniffing out vulnerabilities in systems..."

    Calling BS

  5. an interesting similar article by itsthebin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Inspired to make a meaningful donation, I wondered: What is the best charitable cause in the world, and was it crazy to think I could find it?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

    --
    ...I obey the laws of physics....
  6. Start by getting the GOVERNMENT out of it by mi · · Score: 1

    Start by getting the government out of philanthropy and other benevolence. They suck at it, but insist on spending tax-dollars on it anyway.

    But be careful — if you find something, that seems useful, the government may decide to impose it on everyone (at gun-point, which is how government does everything.)

    Of course, the Statists would lament:

    It's bad news when the government is in such disarray that it needs a money from a billionaire to keep providing services to the country's neediest

    but don't fall for it. First of all, such statements are self-contradicting — because it is exactly the money from billionaires, that the government spends on "the country's neediest" even when it is not shut down. Top 20% of the earners pay 84% of the income tax today... But, when a philanthropist chooses to spend his money this way, it is noble and legal, whereas for the government it is a patently unconstitutional thing to do:

    “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

    — James Madison

    Yes, boys and girls, "helping the needy" is just as illegal for the state to do as is eavesdropping on your communications or searching your house without a warrant...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Start by getting the GOVERNMENT out of it by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Madison was wrong. Other founding fathers such as Hamilton understood the General Welfare provision very broadly. Anyway we don't need taxes; fund the government at zero cost through the Fed. Banks make use of the Fed's financing powers, let the government direct the Fed to finance a basic income. Indexation of all incomes hedges against any potential unexpected inflation by keeping purchasing power from decreasing.

    2. Re:Start by getting the GOVERNMENT out of it by mi · · Score: 1

      Madison was wrong.

      Well, he was "only" the guy, who was writing down the items, as they were discussed during the convention. Surely, he had some insights. Maybe, you — in the 21st century — know more about the intent of those ancient legislators, but you aren't sharing... You just flatly say "wrong" — like a good little tyrant you secretly wish to be... Sigh, as they say, Statists gonna state.

      Other founding fathers such as Hamilton understood the General Welfare provision very broadly.

      Some citations would be useful here... As well as arguments for why we should be taking Hamilton's opinion over that of Madison and Jefferson.

      But, if he was really so good, why are you proposing we "cherry-pick" Hamilton's ideas — instead of also electing the top executive ("national governor") for life — and have him appoint state governors?

      I, for one, dread the thought of how this country would've looked, had that sort of tyranny prevailed — Russia, where the presudent's tenure is de-facto life-long and where he is appointing local governments even de-jure, is a very close example, actually.

      Moreover, I suspect, you would've hated it too — had you even known about the man, whose opinion on "General Welfare" you advocate. You are wrong — the interpretation of "General Welfare" pushed by the Statists opens up a whole to drive a freight-train through. This was, of course, obvious for centuries. For example, that same Madison said later (1794):

      The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects...If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers but an indefinite one..."

      Indeed, whether it is to ban speech, confiscate guns, perform warrantless searches, seize funds and property without trials, eavesdrop on citizens' communications — the government would simply need to claim, those are done "for General Welfare". It would be a dreadfully depressing country to live in... Oh, wait...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re: Start by getting the GOVERNMENT out of it by donrob_nz · · Score: 1

      Look, some people had some good ideas about how to organise a government 200 years ago. But they weren't perfect. Why do Americans have to view everything through this filter of what they think some people would have thought about things today if they were still here? Is it because you are so religeous - sort of what would Jesus do for the constitutional religion? The writers of the constitution were a brilliant collection of people, but they weren't prophets, and the constitution is not sacred. Btw - you do know where the Internet came from, don't you?

    4. Re: Start by getting the GOVERNMENT out of it by mi · · Score: 1

      the constitution is not sacred

      It is not "sacred" because it was not handed down to us by a Deity. It is sacred in that every four years the incoming President repeats the same solemn oath to defend it.

      Whatever "sacred" means to you, it is the law of the land. But it can be amended. For example, when we still believed in limited government, one that could not just order people around willy-nilly for The Greater Good, the prohibition of alcohol was done as a constitutional amendment (the 18th — less than 100 years ago!).

      However, only a few decades later the same same government banned marijuana with a simple law — without obtaining the national consent by ratification of an amendment. The 10th Amendment was thus nullified.

      a brilliant collection of people, but they weren't prophets

      Well, they were. For example, the prediction of the growth of Statism was scary:

      The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.

      — Thomas Jefferson

      and the point about it concentrating in large cities — especially accurate:

      When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

      — Thomas Jefferson

      you do know where the Internet came from, don't you?

      Yes, it came out of a military research project. I also know, where electricity, telegraph, telephone, radio, TV and rail-roads came from. We didn't need the benevolent guidance of government's omniscient bureaucrats for any of those, we didn't need it for the Internet.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.