this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
1231 points (98.2% liked)

World News

40018 readers
3267 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Bill Gates criticized Elon Musk for his support of far-right politicians, including the UK’s Tommy Robinson and Germany’s AfD party, calling it "insane shit" and accusing Musk of destabilizing political systems.

Gates questioned Musk's focus on divisive politics while managing global businesses like Tesla and SpaceX.

Gates also expressed concern about wealthy individuals influencing foreign elections.

Musk has faced backlash for controversial actions, including a Nazi salute.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 221 points 3 days ago (7 children)

I always forget Gates is one of the elite. Then I remember how ruthless and savage he was in the 80s.

Then I remember.

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 90 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

80s, 90s, and a few years into early 2000s. Gates ruthlessness lasted decades, destroyed many businesses and lives, and is mostly whitewashed thanks to his philanthropic efforts and a few reddit amas and some secret santa participation

Not to mention the destruction he did to computing as a whole. The nightmare of proprietary bullshit is something that he did not architect but he pushed heavily and lobbied for constantly. He had the position to push for interoperability from an early stake in computing, to set the stage for computers to have a strong precedent to work together. Instead he and microsoft made every effort to work against open standards. They would adopt open standards and extend them with proprietary extensions to intentionally ruin them. A lot of what is infuriating about modern tech can be traced back to precedent that microsoft set at his direction

Reminder despite every donation he has made his net worth is higher now than it ever was and this has essentially always been the case. His philanthropy, while objectively good, is a measured pr effort that does not impact his overall obscene wealth and basically never has

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 44 points 3 days ago (2 children)

He's still pushing 'intellectual property' as part of his philanthropy. The creators of the Oxford vaccine wanted to open source it and give it away for free. Gates opposed that and he got his way (partly because of the influence of the Gates Foundation). The delays this caused probably killed millions of extra people in the Global South (not sure if anyone ever did the maths on this).

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not shocking to hear, he’s a scumbag at heart. But now if you say that people will be like “uhhh how can you say that he’s donated so much money”

Then when you point out he’s donated literally 0% of his overall current net worth, his past (and current, apparently) behavior has arguably as much humanity if not more than he has offset, etc you’ll get whataboutism. “What have you done??”

I don’t want philanthropy to be contingent on the whims of billionaires. Gates has done a lot but it still has major issues, there is no real transparency, and it’s still authoritatively controlled because he has a great deal of influence over his foundation. The even bigger issue is that he is by far the exception. Other billionaires donate minimally only to maximize tax benefits and only to issues they have been personally impacted by.

The other day I was with people who were watching a football game. The eagles won and I asked why the owner gets to speak first at the trophy ceremony, let alone at all, given it was the teams effort. This led to a whole discussion but one thing that came up was how he donates so much money to autism research because he has a grandson with autism. This was meant to appeal to me because I have a background working in autism research and I work with people with autism a lot.

all I could think is “how fucked up is it that we have to hope that an obscenely rich person personally experiences the issue for them to decide to bequeath funding?” This inherently means that things with a much higher rate of prevalence, like autism (1 in 36, roughly) or dementia (prevalence varies widely by age range (2% to 13%) but ~10 million cases per year), will get tons of money. But what about far less common things? I’ve worked with people who have extremely rare conditions. Angelmans syndrome, prader willi, chromosomal deletions, (rates of 1-2 per 10,000) or extremely rare things like hellers syndrome (rates of 1-2 per 100,000).

This is why we fund things like NIMH, so that money can be fairly dispersed to ensure that all things are researched. Teams of people research what needs to be researched. This isn’t even just about equity; sometimes researching lesser known disorders leads to discoveries that are applicable in a broader context

But instead we let a few oligarchs hoard money. Most of them don’t bother to fund this stuff at all and they few that do only bother to do so when it’s something personally relevant to them. We have no say in the matter.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The biggest argument against philanthropy is that they get to deduct it from their taxes, so instead of us as a society collectively deciding what to do with that money (provided you had a working democracy, of course), the billionaire gets to decide that. And some of that philanthropy money actually goes to causes that further undermine democracy. Just because something is a charity doesn't mean it does good. You can deduct donations to the federalist society or the heritage foundation, for example.

[–] labbbb2@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

What bad did the heritage foundation do to you? /s

[–] labbbb2@thelemmy.club 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

'Global South' sounds like some right-wing term. LMIC (low middle-income country) is better.

Apart from Australia and New Zealand, the Southern hemisphere houses pretty much just the poorest countries. Poverty also correlates strongly with average temperature, so it increases as you approach the Equator from either side (oil-rich Sultanates included, since the countries are rich but the people are still poor).

For what it's worth, many people here in Brazil use the phrase "global south" as a better alternative to "third world", an expression which no longer makes sense since the fall of the USSR, and I haven't ever seen anyone on the Left here be offended or bothered by it.

[–] 000999@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The global south is a real thing, look it up.

As a matter of fact, the term replaces "third world" lol

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

It's a common term, used by the leftiest of lefty think tanks.

[–] labbbb2@thelemmy.club 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

His philanthropy, while objectively good, is a measured pr effort that does not impact his overall obscene wealth and basically never has

Like with the some billionaires.

Untrue. Most don't engage in actual philantropy at all, but donate only to causes that will directly benefit their bottom line, such as sectors that depend on their products, or for scholarships in fields where their companies hire heavily. That isn't actually donating. It's just tax-exempt investing. In this sense, Gates is a cut above other billionaires.

His actions merit a freshly sharpened blade on his guillotine. Musk can have the rusty one that we'll need to drop thrice to get the job done.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

His philanthropy, while objectively good,

I wouldn't even go that far.

Say you have a crazy idea that education would be better if kids went to school blindfolded so they wouldn't be distracted. You then use your vast fortune to arrange for that to be tried out on a bunch of kids for a few years. It's a disaster. It sets those kids back for years. You realize it's a disaster, so after a few years you abandon the project.

In that case was your philanthropy objectively good? Or was it probably bad?

Those are the kinds of experiments the Gates foundation has done. Because Gates is so insanely rich, he doesn't have to bother with convincing people he has a good idea. He doesn't need to run his ideas by education experts or psychologists, he can just run with them. So he does, and he fucks shit up, then he leaves.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 72 points 3 days ago

I mean, if he means any of what he said here then we could use some of that right about now.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 45 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I bet Elon can't jump over a chair.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Maybe Elon’s mommy will allow him and Zuck to have a chair jumping contest in the octagon.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'd put money on Zuck, he seems like he might be able to jump a chair.

Shitty Person, but possibly good chair jumper. Maybe Zuck will do a Philanthropy run later in life like Bill?

[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 2 points 3 days ago

If Zuckerberg ever does philanthropy, it will be in a dystopian format where you need to hand over all your personal data to receive the benefits

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

And how he fought tooth and nail against generic versions of the covid vaccines being allowed, likely leading to thousands if not millions of deaths and many more getting sick in poorer countries where most people can't afford name brand drugs.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

had he actually cared, he should have demanded and funded research into them to either prove his point or fix the problem.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Further proof that Capitalism is a religion.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

not religion. a disease of society

[–] BozeKnoflook@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bill Gates became friends with Epstein AFTER he was convicted.

[–] 5gruel@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] BozeKnoflook@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html

And unlike many others, Mr. Gates started the relationship after Mr. Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.

https://www.soapcentral.com/human-interest/news-when-bill-gates-first-meet-jeffrey-epstein-former-microsoft-ceo-reportedly-regrets-ties-disgraced-financier

Bill Gates made his acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011 when Epstein had been jailed for years for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

https://jacobin.com/2021/08/bill-gates-jeffrey-epstein-mistake-cnn-interview

They were two of the richest men on Earth, meeting after Epstein had already been convicted for child sex trafficking, very intentionally scratching each other’s back and bolstering each other’s charitable endeavors. The relationship between them — and what compelled both to build one — should be seen not as a lapse in judgment but as an indictment of billionaire philanthropy itself.

There's plenty more out there if you look.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Didn’t he short Tesla?