There is no nobility in spending money someone else earned on a bunch of silly virtue signaling.
Good for her for marrying well, but let's not pretend this is about anything more than her desire for attention.
Good for her for marrying well, but let's not pretend this is about anything more than her desire for attention.
The article from Time below suggests her giving could actually be disruptive, let's hope effective too... One quote I liked particularly "Inside Philanthropy called her methods “simultaneously exciting and troubling to behold.” If all philanthropists worked the way she did—acting alone without a foundation or an obvious way of being contacted—grantmaking might be more efficient, but it would be less transparent, and possibly less diverse in its interests and approaches. (There might also be fewer jobs in the philanthropy business.)"
Is the world a better place because Gates used blatantly illegal monopolistic practices to stifle innovation in the OS space? Or because Facebook is willing to engage in dirtier data-sharing, growth, and addictive product design?
Whatever one thinks of those, Amazon created a market for the long tail of books, media, and then goods that simply didn't exist. And then followed it up with one of the most important platforms in the history of the tech and startup ecosystem.
He's done more good with those than she'll ever do by giving his earnings to whatever is most fashionable at the moment.