Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital | Hacker News Reader

Mark Zuckerberg condemned for giving $75M to a San Francisco hospital

vox.com

17 pointsflurly32 comments

I object to the editorialized title. No one condemned him for giving the hospital a bunch of money. They condemned him for being Mark Zuckerberg (a human being who shouldn't have hospitals named after him on account of his being Mark Zuckerberg, so they say).

They're free to give the money back. I mean I wouldn't take money from a murderer, or some other bad person.

It's also worth noting it's not the hospital itself actually objecting to anything, it's the San Francisco City Council. I'm not sure they actually have any power over it one way or the other.

I wonder if the hospital should release a statement supporting Zuckerberg and the donation?

Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.

I think there's a bit more nuance, and that the behaviour of tech leadership figures can appear strange and hokey from the outside too.

Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.

Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached.

Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least.

People with all kinds of intentions will try to create outrage from situations like this. I think it's worthwhile to be curious and learn and discuss the details. It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.

> Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.

Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.

> Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least

Maybe. I mean if I had a hospital renamed after me I'd probably want that too, but if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement? Here in Columbus where I live we have the Wexner Medical Center which is named for Les Wexner who is the co-founder of Victoria's Secret and Limited Brands. Physicians, nurses, and staff wear a logo on their uniforms which says The Ohio State University and then under it Wexner Medical Center.

So at a minimum, it's at least not unusual to me. Although yea sure I can see how people can say they don't like it and whatnot.

> It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.

If you're speaking to me, I'd like to know who you think I'm not talking to (or talking to) and who I'm antagonizing or not antagonizing.

If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic, well, I apologize that you feel that way but I also believe that statement based on the variety of news sources I read, comments and news stories here on Hacker News, and my own opinion from having visited a few times and seen first hand how some policies have affected the city.

>>> e: Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.

>> j: Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.

> e: Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.

Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints different to your own.

> e: if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement?

Yep, perhaps they should have declined the offer. Hopefully there was good-faith debate about the terms and implications of it. Let's see whether we learn more over time; life goes on, either way.

> e: If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic

Not really, no; it was something about your tone, so no worries there.

> Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints different to your own.

Great. Thanks. Always a good thing for people to do and we need more of that. I wouldn’t say it’s warranted here, however, because I can see viewpoints and also think they are “out of control”. (Just a term of convenience so please don’t read too much into that specific way of phrasing things).

For example, I can see good intentions or the viewpoint behind letting people defecate and do heroin in the streets, and also come to view that letting people do so is still a crazy idea. (And I do, in fact I think it’s absolutely out of control).

Similarly, I can understand a small town in Alabama wanting to teach the Bible in their public schools because it’s their schools and they pay for them, but also find that utterly incompatible with my views.

Good ole’ Midwest. Right smack in the middle ;)

Likewise, thanks - that makes sense, and those are (in both examples) policies that outsiders probably find mind-bending.

Do you know who "required" Zuckerberg's name to be plastered all over the hospital? Hint: it wasn't Mark Zuckerberg.

The hospital is owned and governed by the City and County of San Francisco. They definitely have plenty of power over it.

If what I've read is accurate, his name is on the hospital at the insistence of hospital administrators. They were hoping it would encourage other, similar donations. It seems he made the mistake of letting hospital administrators have something they wanted on top of the mistake of donating a large amount of money towards public health care.

You can take donations from people you consider unethical, and still lament that that's what you have to do to keep a hospital open. In fact I think it's better than just taking money shamelessly, even if it is a necessary evil in our current economy. Hospitals are going broke with elective surgeries all cancelled-- now's not the time for principals. Principals can't treat covid-19.

PG also tweeted about this: "Is there another American city that would respond to someone making a $75 million donation to their hospital by passing a resolution condemning the naming of the hospital after him?"

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1339264603805671426

Is there any other city where techies descended upon whom also largely revile selected tech billionaires and thus represent a voting block elected leaders would pander to?

I could see Portland doing that.

Compare this reaction to Greenpeace’s (arguably one of the most prominent radical activist organizations) eventual cooperation with Facebook after accusing it of powering a data center with 60% coal-generated electricity. They agreed on a way forward, instead of full-stop condemning Facebook.

I’m curious, what are the City Council’s demands? Is there any way forward for Mark Zuckerberg, or is he definitively considered a supervillain by edict? I definitely don’t defend him, but it seems absurd for this condemnation to occur, especially in the context of a global pandemic.

From the article:

> “We’re of course thankful for the gift and we’re thankful for any gift to our most important institutions during this time,” said Matt Haney, another supervisor backing it. “But that doesn’t mean that we should for forever essentially have given away advertising rights on this most essential public institution.”

Doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance

"we are thankful for the money you gave us in exchange for agreeing to naming rights. but it's unreasonable that we should have to give you the naming rights that we agreed to as a condition of taking your money"

does that seem more or less unreasonable?

because as far as i can tell, that's what happened.

Hospitals are hurting right now. They cant do elective surgeries which is what their profit is made. Without that they're financials black holes. Zuckerberg is coming in at a dire time with his request of 50 years of naming rights. Does he owe the hospital anything? No, just like no one owes those sick and dying patients anything. But it's not unfair to point out the thorn on this 'rose'.

the original deal happened in 2015.

i’m not a fan of zuckerberg by any means, but in this case i maintain it is disingenuous on the part of the hospital.

It’s not like Zuckerberg asked to have his name on the hospital, he donated a bunch of money and they named it after him. All this politics around a donation is ridiculous

But he did. According to the article, the hospital is contractually obligated to use the name for 50 years.

Sorry you're wrong. Zuckerberg did not want his name on the hopstial. SF General pushed him to put his name front and center (ostensibly so other rich people would be "encouraged" to donate as well).

You may well be correct, but I'm unable to find anything confirming it. Do you have a source?

The linked article says removing the name would require returning the money per the terms of the contract and "the hospital agreed in 2015 when it accepted the $75 million that it would keep the Zuckerberg name for at least 50 years."

Another article [0] says "[...] Zuckerberg SF General Hospital, a name the Zuckerberg-Chans bought themselves in 2015 for $75 million."

[0] https://sfist.com/2020/07/24/more-supes-call-for-stripping-z...

The quoted text is just a journalist trying to use a cute metaphor.

Anyway, here are two Bay Area journalists who discussed this a few years ago when this topic first came up:

https://twitter.com/SovernNation/status/1067938730940411904

https://twitter.com/natogreen/status/1068204834992480256

Thanks for that.

I still find it curious that according to the contract, they would have to give the money back if they change the name. At least thats whats being reported.

According to SFgate : They say the new name, good for 50 years, is inappropriate when San Francisco taxpayers are paying for most of the hospital's upgrade by approving more than $1 billion in bonds.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-Francisco-may-condem...

Bite the hand that fed. They are not going to get more funding by condemning philanthropist.

Zuck was clearly jelly of Benioff and Conway having UCSF buildings named after them.

If you give someone money in exchange for something, that's called a purchase, not a donation. Zuckerberg did not make a donation, he bought the naming rights to the hospital.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Whadda jerk. This has saved me from making the same mistake. I was about to write a check to charity, but now I see the error in my ways. Now I understand how I was just using this to bolster my privilege. Close one. Whew.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com