hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

"This moving 3D scan of life in Paris is truly stunning"
"This Slow-Motion Fire Tornado Is the Prettiest Damn Thing You'll See All Day"
"Video: How a laser beam cooks bacon"
"Seeing this woman dance on a longboard is beautifully mind bending"

ffs yr the editor of an entire sub-blog and you can't even capitalize yr shitty clickbait headlines consistently

"Turning a Big Mac into sushi is such an incredible achievement"

why can't I just read tech news w/o this worthless garbage! why gizmodo why!

xpost
except against deep blue, as Garry Kasparov learned the hard way

Why can't I read my clickbait without this useless tech news?

http://gawker.com/mark-zuckerberg-will-donate-massive-fortune-to-own-blin-1745573343

so dumb. i think when you've decided to donate $45 billion dollars to charity, it should probably be ok how you decide to spend it. what is biddle even worried about? that zuckerberg will get unfair recognition for a philanthropic decision that is not the ideal philanthropic decision?

don't really find it dumb at all personally. zuckerberg has failed in philanthropic efforts before because of the approach he takes, the organization he's donating to isn't even an actual charity - those are fairly clear criticisms.

I also liked this piece on the same subject (though non-gawker/off-topic): http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/12/mark_zuckerberg_s_hacker_philanthropy_can_we_trust_it.html

they are clear in that they are easy to communicate but they are also dumb. the critique that previous philanthropic acts have failed is beyond asinine (oh let's not be happy he's donating so much money because sometimes when he's donated money in the past it hasn't worked out perfectly) and he has every right to disseminate the money in house. you don't have to send a check to an already existing NGO (many of which are incredibly incompetent and wasteful) to be charitable.

it rubs me the wrong way bc it's just gawker pissing on something that seems kinda wonderful bc they're hateful shits

I just want to announce that I'll be donating 99% of my pay from here on out to the Buying Myself Cool Shit Fund.

good for you?

the press needs to have a default skepticism when powerful people announce how they are moving money around. frankly it has the opposite -- zuckerberg's statement was basically repeated verbatim and greeted with cheers. share if you agree!! it took those backbiting little shits at buzzfeed to tease out that the receiving entity isn't even a charity:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/not-all-of-mark-zuckerbergs-donation-to-go-to-charity#.ccbaKnPOB

“The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will pursue its mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates, in each case with the goal of generating positive impact in areas of great need,” it said. “Any profits from investments in companies will be used to fund additional work to advance the mission.”

damn what a piece of shit this guy is

amazing the hate y'all direct at gawker when Mordy's right here

Ease off mordy you've already been told its not a charity damn man what more do u need

Can't believe there's scepticism about big tech guys getting into the not-for-profit policy game after Omidyar...

what ought we keep our eyes on: $45bil sort-of promised to not-really be given away, 97% positive press reaction thereto OR websites with bitter assholes saying haha wait a second

yeah and wouldn't it kinda be better if he didn't give it away at all and just saved it for his children to inherit? at least we agree on the "bitter assholes" part

how much you want to bet if he and his wife have an unfortunate end that his child becomes steward of the fund at age 18?

I mean idk I bet they will do some charitable work but this is basically how many really rich people set up their families for life -- you're paid to be an employee of the charitable organization or for advising

idk maybe a dude with the last name rockefeller is uniquely qualified to run the rockefeller fund

get a job, max!

I think the skepticism is fair if he intends on giving money to the charter school grift like alot of these tech assholes love doing

we can be sure that zuckerberg's kids will control the board of his new LLC if they have even the slightest inclination for it, plus they'll have enough personal money to own whatever they fancy.

"I think I could be a philanthropist. a kick ass philanthropist! I would have all this money, and people would love me. Then they would come to me.. and beg! And if I felt like it, I would help them out. And then they would owe me big time!"

the charter school grift makes me pretty damn angry

I think the skepticism is fair if he intends on giving money to the charter school grift like alot of these tech assholes love doing

― carthago delenda est (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, December 2, 2015 2:24 PM (48 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

he already gave billions for charter schools in New Jersey but it ended up not doing much http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled

Mordy OTM though

real issue here is once you get to a certain amount of money there's no conceivable way as an individual to spend that much and it is really dumb for ppl to have that much money

i guess you could be really bad at being a high stakes gambler

what ought we keep our eyes on: $45bil sort-of promised to not-really be given away, 97% positive press reaction thereto OR websites with bitter assholes saying haha wait a second

― goole, Wednesday, December 2, 2015 1:52 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel this though, like i've insulated myself into a media bubble that gives the bitter asshole perspective as an antidote to rosy perspective of mainstream media, but i don't actually read the rosy mainstream media in the first place. so i just get the kickback to stuff i'm supposed to be fatigued by, but without ever accumulating fatigue

if zuckerberg and his wife lived eighty more years, they would have to spend over $50k per hour to spend a full $40 billion dollars. assuming they gained no interest or made more on it via investments

i wonder if Cory Booker's presidential campaign(s) will count as charity

xxp i just glance at the front of usa today when i'm in the coffeeshop, that does er alright

so i just get the kickback to stuff i'm supposed to be fatigued by, but without ever accumulating fatigue

― flopson, Wednesday, December 2, 2015 1:34 PM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sounds like the best possible arrangement to me!

it can be annoying when the kickback is righteousness that you havent felt authentically, which is probably where a lot of the annoyance at 'performative' outrage comes from

like in this case i think the appropriate rxn to the news that mark zuckerberg is bill gates-ing his fortune is "ok whatever" where instead, because some people reacted with "what an angel!" i get "what an asshole!"

it's fatigue from reading people who are too in the loop with media criticism and see everything they write as balancing in a zero-sum game. instead of just being right, you have to be wrong in the opposite way that other people were, to like, balance them out

cf the profusion of "how should we think about x" headlines

is there a market for above-the-fray writing that just ignores how other publications write about stuff

i mean lol @ The Economist but there was an interview with the editor who said they have a "no links to blogs or other magazines" policy

feel like there is a large amount of what amounts to policing of arguments, but a lot of it is dissection of how arguments should be approached and questioning the terms of what's being presented

unending analysis instead of formulating cohesive stances based on feedback is the main problem with the churn right now

the economist's stance is that they don't believe in feedback, mostly. or even attribution! they just kind of speak from a pedestal

who is on the pedestal? the monolithic entity known as The Economist

good on them for having a strong editorial voice, no matter how loathsome it sometimes is

this is a pretty good analysis itt of the analysis of the analysis

the economist's stance is that they don't believe in feedback, mostly. or even attribution! they just kind of speak from a pedestal

who is on the pedestal? the monolithic entity known as The Economist

lol, otm

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/philanthropy-charity-banga-carnegie-gates-foundation-development/

the entire philanthropic entity as endgame for billionaires tends to end up with them gifting money to large, for-profit entities in the hopes their ngo plans will provide a benefit for the global poor

i don't think there's an easy solution, but partnering with companies to do research, development, and deployment of health/social/financial tools seems like it would be a better approach. can a non-profit be part of a joint venture with a corporate entity where the project can't be profitable but the resulting infrastructure can be a long-term benefit to the companies? ideally they'd be contracting with companies on projects with a schedule, deliverables, and intended outcomes but right now it's less of a contract and more of a bribe to provide services to different markets

i don't think it's terrible to view the announcement of the gift askance, coupled as it was to the announcement of the birth of his firstborn child, which frankly comes across as a calculated PR move to humanize a famously unsympathetic, mega-wealthy lizard person.

probably gamed it out in the psy-ops lab first

instead of just being right, you have to be wrong in the opposite way that other people were

― flopson, Wednesday, December 2, 2015 9:17 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

board descrip

NY Times biz page said Zuck's move was bullshit, so that's game

worst part about the economist and feedback is even if they do print your feedback they shamelessly pretend you called them sir

lol

http://www.people.com/article/michael-cavallari-timeline-his-troubled-past?xid=socialflow_facebook_peoplemag

man did they stumble into a clickbait investment vehicle or what