What do you mean by that? Zuckerberg and Gates are indisputably elite because they're two of the richest people in the world.
But I wouldn't call them elite beforehand, and definitely not if they didn't work a day in their lives. Their parents' money seems to come from being a lawyer, a dentist, and a psychiatrist. That's not "elite", that's something any family can achieve in two generations.
You could argue a much lower threshold for elite, which is fine, but then it's quite a bait and switch to lead with Zuckerberg and Gates for that category.
Perhaps it's just me, but in the Zuckerberg case specifically, I'd think quite a bit of luck and timing had to do with it. If Zuckerberg had been born 10 years later after the obvious social network ideas were already created? Or if he had gone to a no-name college (or none whatsoever) and Facebook had never taken off the way it did at Harvard?
Or maybe you meant they were born elite, in which case, I don't know anything about that.
This is the big idea here - being born in the right situation gives you the ability to bear risk where a lower middle class kid can’t bear that risk because if things don’t work out, that kid is going to be homeless. When you can take a lot of risk with little downside, it almost always pays off in the long run.
I think the main value add - looking back on how I perceived FB when it came out and why a lot of us started using it - was branding and a cleaner, fresh design. And the newsfeed was a new concept...