this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
40 points (95.5% liked)

/r/50501 Mirror

795 readers
1107 users here now


Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts


founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi, I'm from Australia, sorry if this is the wrong place for this. I was reading this profile of Melinda French Gates, ex-wife of Bill Gates, here:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/gigantic-joy-melinda-french-gates-on-her-new-life-after-divorce-20250326-p5lmnp.html

I have a serious question for our American friends.

Melinda Gates is worth approximately US$30 billion apparently. And Mackenzie Scott, ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, is worth US$42 billion. They are both philanthropists, focused on women and girls' welfare.

If they really care so much about women's welfare, why didn't they put their money where their mouth is? This question goes for other progressive billionaires in the US too. If they, along with some of their friends had pooled their money together, they could have bought Twitter (and maybe even mainstream news organizations like The Washington Post).

Twitter was a hugely influential resource for the global center-left, and now it has become a source of far-right indoctrination. Elon Musk took a huge risk when he bought Twitter, but it has paid off for him and the global far-right - not in a monetary sense, but in the sense that they were able to take that space away from the left, which I think was their objective in the first place. The right wing seems to be so much more committed, and willing to spend their money to achieve their political objectives, whereas the left (or center-left, or just democracy-loving people) seem so lame in comparison. What gives?


Originally Posted By u/GrouchyInstance At 2025-04-11 11:47:43 PM | Source


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What is it you think they did?

[–] Wuorg@50501.chat 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

They convinced Oxford to sell the rights to their vaccine to AstraZeneca, instead of making it open-license, as was their initial pledge. Incidentally, Gates also profited substantially from this deal, thanks to his investments into AstraZeneca.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Ok, just making sure you didn’t think he was implanting microchips, lol.

I agree that his stance on intellectual property rights is not one that benefits the common good. But it’s a belief he has held consistently and wasn’t covid specific. I disagree with it, but it does not negate the gazillion things he has done that I do agree with.

And it’s hard for me to think it’s profit motivated because he consistently gives away more money than he makes. If his motive was to make more money he would not be doing almost all of the things he’s doing.

100% agree the IP stuff sucks and is bad for the world. Disagree that his stance on that negates everything else he’s done. Nobody is perfect and he has had a more positive effect on the world than almost anyone alive - certainly more than anyone in his income bracket. Could he be better? Yes. Does that make him bad? Nope.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And it’s hard for me to think it’s profit motivated because he consistently gives away more money than he makes

The foundation trust invests undistributed assets, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment.

They continue to prioritize profits above all (tax sheltered profits of course)

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Right - the charitable company manages its money to try to continue doing charitable work. That is not Bill Gates money. That is charity money.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That pays for the Gates to live like royalty tax free

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

The Gates have way more money than they will ever need. So do a lot of people.

They spend their money helping people. Other billionaires do not.

[–] Wuorg@50501.chat 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

lol, nah nothing like that.

From my view, he favors capitalistic solutionism, throwing his stacks of cash around to crowd out local efforts, will, and doctors. Frequently in a way that furthers his own investments. He's the Walmart of international health. It's easy to garner support when you are pumping money into healthcare, even if you are ultimately propping up the same exploitative system that got us here in the first place. Sending money to places that need it does save lives, yes, but he could save a lot more if he cared to.

He's just laundering his reputation, imo.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

So yeah, your option is just not very well informed.

For sure he is not perfect. For sure there are pros and cons to every choice. For sure there are areas I disagree with him.

But you are random opinion having internet person and the foundation is a 25 yr old foundation with 2,000+ extremely capable people who have so much more research based knowledge about how to be effective in that space than you and I ever could dream of having it’s laughable.