A Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein That Bill Gates Now ‘Regrets’
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I'm sincerely asking these questions: I agree he seems like an OK guy these days... but the rational part of me kinda wonders what evidence we have that he isn't just the product of a giant PR campaign.
That Gates played hard in the business world doesn't take away from the above. He is who he is. In my view, a good person. If Gates turns out to be involved in Epstein's pedophile ring then of course I'd change my opinion. I deeply hope he wasn't though.
There must be a named bias for this particular type of statement.
Usually when people say things like that, I wonder a lot (for a very short period of time, though) about what kinds of company they keep.
But chances are, if you've met one, you haven't met them all. Over time people change. Bill was pretty nasty as a business man if you were competing with him in any way whatsoever. As a philanthropist retiree he seems pretty awesome.
Blanket statements (like this one) are only true from the point of view they were made in. If you're lucky.
i mean doesn't it? this "playing a game well" as a proxy for fairness/justice/merit metaphor as a source of legitimacy i think is strained in business. if you play basketball well and win a championship then you showed merit because the rules are tight - it's very hard to win by another means than being talented (i.e. cheating). the exception that proves the rule is how upset people get when basketball players "flop". business is the one game where the only rule is "don't get caught" so it doesn't seem correct to reason that since he did well he played fair.
So overall I agree with you there is probably some of the titan of industry reforming his reputation kind of thing going on (like Carnegie, Rockefeller et al). But I think there is probably a little more than that going on, as well, and I think that deeper authenticity is probably what gives people hope, although that hope culturally may end up distorted through the infatuation with his power to get to the "world's greatest guy" thing. Which I think he would probably reject, himself, if you asked him.
Here's another great example: https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_i... . MS deliberately displayed false incompatibility error messages when Windows detected it was being run on DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS in an effort to crush any fair competition. MS was absolutely ruthless in the 90s, and I can only hope you are younger than 30ish or so if you don't think MS's behavior then was immoral. It's interesting to me that Google gets so much shit for their practices these days on HN when MS was easily an order of magnitude worse in the 90s.
Drcode remembers...
"Bill Gates ordered to all application business units to include checking routines of operating environments and if it is Microsoft DOS, nothing will happen. But if it is non MS-DOS (such as DR-DOS), application will display messages saying that 'This application has been developed and tested for Microsoft MS-DOS. Since you use different environment, this application may not work correctly . . .' "
B. J. Bahk, Microsoft, August 9, 1989
"Microsoft's unfair contracting practices have denied other U.S. companies a fair chance to compete, deprived consumers of an effective choice among competing PC operating systems, and slowed innovation."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, July 16, 1994
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factstat.html
Or if you prefer the full findings of fact from US vs. Microsoft:
https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...
That seems entirely reasonable. If you're selling software and you've tested it for a particular OS, and someone using it isn't on the OS, why wouldn't you notify them that issues they experience could likely be resolved by switching to a supported OS?
Anti-competitive would be preventing it from working at all on different operating systems.
(In the earlier part it wasn't able to access all the memory without jumping through hoops; throughout the period it wasn't using the available protection mechanisms to isolate processes properly.)
This was for business reasons, not because the human race didn't know how to write a better OS.
(I don't think this makes Gates an evil person, but I think it does make it fair to say that Microsoft stymied the computer revolution to some extent.)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists 2. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_... 3. http://techrights.org/2009/06/25/bill-gates-office-patents/
It's a real intellectual struggle for me because his recent Netflix, his writings, his book recommendations, the company he built, the Melinda + Bill Gates Foundation, he's done so much good for the world but I still haven't seen him come out against Intellectual Monopoly laws, which due so much bad for the world (and which he has made such a fortune off of). The examples of the evil that Intellectual Monopoly laws do are numerous, but take the recent opioid epidemic—the root cause was patent law! You make 100x+ more money off selling patented drugs, regardless of the outcome on the patient, so we have a whole industry that is focused on making patented drugs, and not actually helping cure or heal people, and we get horrible horrible things like the opioid crisis (disclosure: took the lives of a number of my friends).
If BillG comes out against Intellectual Monopoly laws of copyrights and patents, then I will think he is a true saint.
Another idea: maybe Bill Gates, like many of us, is a morally complex person who has done immense good and also done some bad things, some of them possibly very bad.
Gates never acted ethically in business. Billions of dollars in donations don’t change the fact that his association with Epstein is perfectly in character for him.
How do you know?
Also: it's possible to make an "anonymous" donation and let your friends and family know you're doing it. That way, to the people you know and want to impress you seem both like a generous philanthropist and a humble private person.
My point is, it's possible to read any action in a bad light and assign a bad motive to it. In my view giving money to worthwhile causes is good, even if you're doing it to rehabilitate your image or make yourself look good
You asked what could be the reason why "are most people in 2019 so convinced that Bill Gates is "the worlds greatest guy?"
I'm pointing out it might have something to do with a $50 billion philanthropic organization.
http://www.openculture.com/2019/01/how-alfred-nobel-read-an-...
The list is long. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Pew, Kochs, ...
Then employ your family members to run the foundation and pay them a huge salary.
I can’t validate this, but I recall the article.
He has done some good of course, but some people tend to see anyone "giving away money" == faultless saint.
all it takes is one person to do that.
Look at other super rich, and what they do in comparison...
I literally never encountered a person who was convinced that. Neither I heard about anybody being convinced so. You seem to be fighting a straw man of your own building. We all know about Gates' dealings in Microsoft and his other faults. No need to preach to this particular choir.
> do we have any evidence that Bill Gates is a generous guy when he isn't attaching his name to it for self promotion?
I think when a person gives away as much, we can excuse him for wanting his name on it. But when you will be giving away your billions, you are free to do it completely anonymously and in secret, that's fine too.
In 1998 internet explorer was the dominant browser and many websites refused to load on anything else. That condition persisted for several years thereafter.
I think the antitrust probe was probably the turning point you're noticing.
If you could not hang out with people that have made mistakes, you could not hang out with anyone. If you could not hang out with people who have criminal records, among the people you could not hang out with would be MLK.
I grew up in a poorer city where a few of the people I hung out with are in jail for long sentences, or drug dealers, or dead from drugs. Do I regret hanging out with them? No. If you run away from anything you are told is bad or evil you are going to live in a bubble. That shows cowardice and not courage. Better to use your brain and think for yourself (and not engage in the bad behavior or condone it, but not flip the bozo bit on anyone who has been accused of anything). Does that mean I'm a bad person? Do Emily Flitter and James B. Stewart only hang out with perfect angels?
I don't even care about people who do drugs, but someone who exploits children, seriously? That isn't just some random mistake, let alone ethical protest against an unjust law, it's one of the vilest crimes anyone can engage in.
You realize that you yourself are in all probability the descendant of many people who engaged in what you call "one of the vilest crimes"? But we don't even have to go back in time to see how your argument is intellectually phony. The current age of consent in Nigeria is 11 years old. The age of consent in the Philippines is 12 years old. Are you saying that people in Nigeria and Philippines are the most vilest criminals of all? I for one am for our older age of consent(although I think it ludicrous when we arrest 18 year olds for having a relationship with 17 year olds), but I'm not going to lie and say there is anything morally wrong with a lower age of consent. If an asteroid hits earth tomorrow and wipes out 80% of the population, you better believe that suddenly no one will bat an eye that the age of consent becomes 13.
I'm not defending Epstein—I have no idea the details, other than that a great injustice was committed by his "suicide" (murder or assisted suicide, the suicide without a qualifier is laughable) because that meant we may never hear the true story of what went down. I didn't know MLK either. I'm not comparing them. I'm saying that being accused of something or even having a criminal record is not a reason to not associate with someone, without using your own mind and thinking for yourself, as many of the greatest moral heroes in history are people with criminal records. I would have loved to hear Epstein's side of the story. But instead, some people ended or helped end his life (a gross failure of the U.S. Goverment), and so we won't hear it.
Now, perhaps the details of Epstein are horrible and involve violence etc--in that case, yes perhaps someone should have stayed away if they deemed the crimes were true. Maybe I should look up the details more before I comment, I dunno. I just am giving my take to say, slow down with the pitchforks.
But something about this:
> although I think it ludicrous when we arrest 18 year olds for having a relationship with 17 year olds
I am not an expert but I don't think this happens. Long ago I read somewhere that US age of consent laws (which vary by state) carve out exceptions if one of the people is only slightly above the age, or apply a different standard for young people. So for example a couple of two high school students where one of them happened to have a birthday before the other wouldn't be forbidden.
11 and 12 year olds are powerless in relationships with adults, they are biologically and intellectually still children.
There are few things that I think are absolutely morally wrong, but this is one of them. Those people from Nigeria and Philippines that engage in such practices are definitely vile persons. Taking advantage of someone that can't defend themselves is the very definition of vile.
I agree with this, and perhaps I don't know the full details of what he did.
But a common pattern I see in life (and something that I've come face to face with in a few terrifying moments in the physical world) is that people go into mob mentality and don't think enough about things, and switch to "out for blood" mode.
From what I read, he had relationships with teenage eastern European girls who were desperate for money. So the mob is out for blood and wants to go after him. But few people think about how to really prevent future Epsteins, and protect future children, and that would require thinking deeply about why were these girls in such dire straits? What can we do to improve equity in this world and remove poverty so people everywhere aren't vulnerable to such coercion? That to me is the more interesting, important, and moral problem to solve.
> Ms. Arnold said Mr. Gates and the foundation had been unaware that Mr. Epstein had been seeking any fee.
> Some of the Gates Foundation employees said they had been unaware of Mr. Epstein’s criminal record and had been shocked to learn that the foundation was working with a sex offender.
> In March 2013, Mr. Gates flew on Mr. Epstein’s Gulfstream plane from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey to Palm Beach, Fla., according to a flight manifest. Ms. Arnold said Mr. Gates — who has his own $40 million jet — hadn’t been aware it was Mr. Epstein’s plane.
> Mr. Epstein complained to an acquaintance at the end of 2014 that Mr. Gates had stopped talking to him, according to a person familiar with the discussion.
Obviously, everyone is in damage control mode and looking to distance themselves from Epstein, but there is a very good chance that Bill Gates and others knew exactly what he was involved in and went along with it anyway.
How do you fly on someone’s private plane without realizing it is their plane?
I was wondering this too, so I googled it:
https://flyxo.com/operator-partners/
Apparently, if you own a private jet, you can rent it out on the equivalent of Uber. Seems like the sort of thing rich people would use a lot when their own plane is somewhere else.
Easily, you just assume it’s a charter. When you fly on private jets every day you stop thinking about these things really fast.
A rich person isn't going to boast to an even richer person that it's their plane.
If I were in Bill Gates' shoes and thought there was a chance that Jeffrey Epstein would provide (personally and via his connections) enough money to save hundreds of thousands of lives... honestly? I would absolutely ignore the "convicted sex offender" thing too. Because, you know, hundreds of thousands of lives.
You might be surprised. I'm sure that Gates can pick up a phone, say "I want to talk to Mr. X" and one of his flunkies will make it happen; but introductions are incredibly important -- especially if you're asking for something.
He is fairly introverted as far as wealthy people go, I wouldn't be surprised if his circle of true connections is much smaller than you would think.
That's the story I heard a few weeks ago anyway.
"... any account of a business partnership or personal relationship between the two is simply not true." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep...
The Microsoft founder said he was “never at any parties or anything like that,” and that all the meetings they held together “were meetings with men.”
“I met him,” Gates told the Journal. “I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him. I didn’t go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that. There were people around him who were saying, hey, if you want to raise money for global health and get more philanthropy, he knows a lot of rich people.”
https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20858936/bill-gates-jeffr...
It's a weird story. It's hard to imagine Gates, whose foundation is the largest charitable organization in the world, really needed Epsteins advice on setting up charitable funds, which seems to be the official line. And Gates certainly wouldn't need help networking or coming up with $$.
Or that might have been one of Epstein's other associates.
Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking in 2008, eleven years before his story became national news. A cursory Google search of his name anytime after his conviction would have turned that up. And yet all these luminaries were happy to continue keeping his company and taking his money through those eleven years -- until he became a public relations liability.
Even if they privately had regrets about maintaining a relationship with Epstein, clearly those regrets weren't strong enough for any of them to actually, you know, do anything.
Given that people convicted of crimes such as prostitution deserve to be re-integrated into society rather than being shunned, it's not clear you can accuse Bill Gates of much except maybe taking on a PR risk to himself to be kind to another human being. I am assuming he did not have a relationship with Epstein for the money.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/02/usa.internatio...
Not that I want Bill to be the bad guy, but if he is, it should come up. Enough with the preying on the vulnerable. This is 2019
Is it me or is it pretty obvious that Epstein's ploy was to implicitly blackmail rich people after seducing them with young women? reply
From our chairs it's easy to say how dare he but ...