Hacker News Reader

Your argument is just plain old stupid. Not bad, not poor, just stupid.

Because there are big problems, one should not solve the small problems? Because I know of aids, I should not give a dollar to the local begger?

Please stop this bullshit about aids orphans in Africa - it's just propaganda by the charity organisations who want you to give them money. Children are children everywhere in the world. Those aids orphans are not abandoned by Africans - every human being has the nurturing instinct. Neighbours are not letting orphans starve in Africa. Africa does not NEED you to solve this problem - it is a large problem, but it's not a critical problem.

There are WORSE things, but they are not sexy. There are men who work their entire life shoveling coal for hardly any money to survive, but nobody cares about them. They are not cute, they are not small, so they are abandoned.

Don't let those charity fat cats shape your perception of where help is needed. THINK first! And everyone cannot fight the same battle, we have to diversify and fight different battles. So if you see someone doing nothing, then ask him to do something. If you see people already helping in one way, don't try to make them do what you are already doing, otherwise all these other problems will get ignored.

You may notice that this letter is not to a private citizen working with their own resources - it's to one of the wealthiest individuals leading one of the wealthiest companies in the world. A company that is not primarily owned by him, but by investors all over the world. This is about using Google - a multi-national giant funded by the investments of others to take a large risk alienating users to help a cause that already has wealthy and vocal advocates. Big risk with other people's resources and little potential upside for those people - doesn't seem like a great idea.

Today you help gay people, tommorow you help aids. Not mutually exclusive, one does not prevent the other. One step at a time, and try for real change.

Look at Bill Gates - they open this "charity" and then invites all his friends to save on their taxes by donating money in there. Utter bullcrap. Charities are the new Tax Havens. And they just hit people like you with propaganda on what needs to be done. It's all about:

Aids, Cancer, Malaria, Darfur, Earthquake in Sichuan, Tsunami, Pandas, Eagles, Dolphins, Whales, Cats & Dogs, Zimbabwe.

The media topics are almost always the same, but are you telling me you really think that the bulk of the worlds suffering is in any of those topics? Are Dolphins more worthy than Hyenas?

Charity is a big-industry, and they use marketing techniques to get money from people. And in marketing, you need to get a clear brand - Darfur is a brand, Aids is a brand, Starving Children are a brand. They don't run billboards with real and unsexy problems in the world.

I spent a lot of time in Africa and in China, and the people I really respect are very small - I met this American couple who have been running a haven for monkeys in the border of Cameroun for the last 20 years. They make a real difference - they have put everything they have into that project, and they have saved so many animals. But these large charities will collect millions and do nothing there! I've met doctors who go to villages and treat the poor people there for free. Those are REAL heroes! They touch disgusting wounds and look at wretched people without flinching. They are people to look up to, people to admire.

Not cigar smoking men sitting in offices in New York and meeting with advertising agencies on how best to create a fundraiser for the new batch of teenage stars.

I would just ignore these people if I could, but when I see them influencing otherwise intelligent people, it really pisses me off.

THINK! If people are asking you for money, don't believe everything they tell you!

Aids, Cancer, Malaria, Darfur, Earthquake in Sichuan, Tsunami, Pandas, Eagles, Dolphins, Whales, Cats & Dogs, Zimbabwe.

Don't be so quick to trivialize cancer and aids. I assure you: if you ever have to see someone close to you suffer and ultimately die of one of those nasty diseases, the problem of getting a marriage license for gay people will pale in comparison.

Sometimes the media serves a good purpose. Not all the time, but sometimes. I personally think that cancer and aids, darfur (last i checked something like 400,000 people, mostly innocent, were massacred), are much weightier issues, and therefore deserve the bulk of media attention.

This is not to discredit the honorable work of people working on relatively small societal problems such as gay marriage, but in most of the above problems, the core argument is that lives are being lost. Think about that.

Darfur is utter nonsense. Remember Sierra Leone? Liberia? I saw the videos coming out of those countries, and yes, that place was a war - a REAL war. Remember the Hutu Tutsi thing? Another real massacre. There are pictures all over the net.

But Darfur is just wierd. In this age of Cameras, Camera People, Live streaming, how come 400,000 people have died, and there are no videos of actual combat? Darfur is the strangest "war" I've ever heard of - it seems to be a theoretical war. I've never met the people running from there, I've never seen the videos of the actual war, I've never seen real photographic evidence of any massacres.

People want to constantly hear about wars in Africa. But that age has suddenly ended. All the wars in Africa have ended, what's just left is just local clashes and conflicts between ethnic groups, and various organisations who have a vested interest in there being conflicts in Africa push up these topics. Do some real research, you'll see how wierd the Darfur war comes across compared to Sierra Leone or Liberia. Also, research the role of China in the region.

Cancer sucks, but cancer has been there since the beginning of time. People get it, people die. The only reason so much focus is given on it is that it is the one disease that being rich has no effect on. So the rich people have vested interest in getting rid of cancer before other diseases like Malaria.

Aids is of course a problem, but seriously, remember 10 years ago? 1998? The news about Aids was the same panic as right now. But the thing is this - for an exponentially growing disease, with drugs that are ensuring that the people infected stay alive longer, should it not have been more devastating than it turned out?

The Aids projection seem to be staying at roughly the same number. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just saying that it's not an explosive epidemic.

In this age of Cameras, Camera People, Live streaming, how come 400,000 people have died, and there are no videos of actual combat?

Perhaps if you did more research you would actually find that its kind of hard to get videos of actual combat. Even if you could get said footage,how easy do you think it is to publish stuff like this when there is a suppressive government? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And i'm not arguing about whether or not these are problems. I'm saying that they are bigger problems than the one posted.

Then how come there is so much footage of Liberia and Sierra Leone? And Sudan is not a supressive government, it's a failed state where the central government is weak and cannot control the country.

Mark,

Have you heard of the phrase, stop while you're ahead.

I followed your rebuttal essentially stating that one should not lose sight of small problems for the larger ones, but your derivative spiel about charities and about Darfur is incoherent babble.

Seriously.

Darfur was a non-issue in the US/ world-media until perhaps 2006, and even now, most Americans (and perhaps Germans as well?) don't know much about Darfur, don't care, and most importantly to your argument, they don't donate time or money to the issue. So what charities exactly are benefitting by distributing the 'propaganda' about the 'war' in Darfur.

It's not war, it's genocide.

Are you one of those who also didn't believe Holocaust Germany happened? Not enough evidence for you?

Stick to a logical argument backed up by either logic and data, or please do not argue here again. I'm tired of seeing your pointless rants where you spew this ridiculous, utter, nonsense.

Ridiculous, utter, nonsense? And what other pointless rants of mine are you talking about? If you want to make a point, then make a point based off my argument, not by descending into personal name calling.

What other pointless rants are you talking about?

(And by the way, I've been several times in the general conflict zone area. What are your info sources that make you so sure I am wrong?)

I don't think they took this stand to be edgy, or to allocate brand capital towards some public good. They took it because their employees wanted them to, complemented by a personal belief that it's the morally right position to take. Microsoft was going to take a similar position several years ago -- also from employee pressure -- but backed down.

Edit: Here's what I'm referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04...

Yeah, my point is not that there's anything wrong with being edgy or allocating brand for some public good. Look at Bono and the One campaign for example.

The point is that Sergey has many "public good" issues to choose from. Some issues will have far greater impact on relieving suffering in this world - especially for those who have little or no voice themselves. Some issues will have a much smaller impact, especially for those who already have a lot of power and are wealthy and very vocal about their issues. Some issues will be very divisive among Google shareholders and users. Some issues will be very uniting.

It's really a matter of choosing what to do with your resources - and Google is a public company now - not a privately owned company by Larry and Sergey. Employees and shareholders are on both sides of this issue - what may be 'obviously the right thing to do' for some of his shareholders is 'obviously the wrong thing to do' for others. This is a divisive move for his company on an issue trying to help already very powerful and wealthy advocates. To spend brand capital so heavily and unilaterally like this when you could be doing so much good elsewhere and at the same time build unity among shareholders and strengthen your brand - just seems like a poor decision.

And my point is that they aren't doing this to maximize the public good under some moral calculus. Google has nothing to do with AIDS orphans in Africa.

It's very unpopular to do "moral calculus" - generally only economists will really do it. For a great presentation on prioritizing solutions or "moral calculus" as you call it, see: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...

If Google has nothing to do with AIDS orphans in Africa - that's their choice. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Bono, etc would normally have "nothing to do with AIDS orphans in Africa", yet they have chosen to.

You're being pretty rude, dissing Google for not doing "enough" good.

They're a corporation. They make money offering us products that we like. They've made a very GOOD set of products, and I still use several daily. That's the end of my relationship with them. If they're supporting gay marriage, that's great of them, I'm proud of them, but it doesn't affect my using their product. They are not obligated to do anything more, and your getting snotty about their not doing something OBLIGATED is pretty awful and self-righteous.

Gates and Buffett and Bono are doing good stuff. Be happy for them. Don't use them to denounce other companies.

A "moral calculus" is not something that one "does". Dictionary definition of calculus:

a system or arrangement of intricate or interrelated parts <the calculus of forces in world affairs — Martin Mayer>

A moral calculus is a moral system. The moral calculus is the moral system.

The best is the enemy of the good - Voltaire

Comparing someone's efforts with what they could have done is a way to deflate and discourage them. While I don't think Sergey will care about your attitude (or even be aware of it), I care.

It's not that Sergey can only ever make this one comment in his life, and he has to pick the very best use of it. He can support more than one cause - and perhaps the journey of a thousand miles starts with the ground under your feet?

Great point. Someone like me could come along to anything good someone is trying to do and say "Hey, what about the orphans!" You do have to start where you can and with what you have - and doing one thing doesn't mean you can't do another later.

Sergey holds a special place in the world since he is one of the wealthiest ($15+ billion) and holds major control over one of the wealthiest companies in the world ($135+ billion - more than even Coca Cola). Most of us would say that places considerably more responsibility in his hands when it comes to taking on world problems. Just a sliver of his wealth can change the lives of millions.

So the letter really is an attempt at a wake-up call for Sergey. The homosexual marriage movement is wealthy, well-supported, and has a very loud megahorn. Using a public company to support a divisive political measure for already wealthy and vocal adults when there are children languishing elsewhere without a voice, just seems like a misplacement of Google's power.

Be the change you want to see in the world - Gandhi

People often see public figures as deities, and abdicate their own center of action to these gods. Saying "the government/corporations/rich should do something" strengthens their power and diminishes yours.

But they aren't gods. They aren't that powerful.

Exactly. The difference between a public figure and a nobody is that the public figure made themselves public. Anybody CAN do it, it's just that nobody DOES.

California politics directly influence Google's employees. Would I want to work for someone who refused to take a stand on whether I could visit my partner in the hospital?

Second, although AIDS orphans are tragic, a general "we support AIDS orphans" blog post would be considered rhetorical and would not get garner much additional support for AIDS orphans. However, voting is coming soon and Google's position on this will change votes in CA.

Third, yes theoretically I suppose that Google is "spending an enormous amount of Google brand and influence" ... but practically, they're spending ten minutes of Sergey's time to write a blog post.

Google is not going to lose business -- you can't use the Internet without seeing their ads. I also doubt that its brand name will be tarnished much -- some people may despise the move, but a lot of others will like Google even more (including myself). Many companies already provide full benefits to same-sex couples -- isn't this already publicly affirming them?

Wow, what bullshit. It is not about the number of couples who might be affected. It is about fundamental human rights. Sure, it doesn't matter that much if somebody adds a certificate to their relationship or not - but to make it illegal is more than that, it is a public statement against gay relationships. It is a stepping stone towards hatred, intolerance, discrimination and all sorts of nasty things many people don't want to have in the society they live in. If you start to compromise on the rights of one group of people just because they are a minority, you open the doors for compromising on the rights of all sorts of people, just because they are a minority.

AIDS orphans in Africa is a completely unrelated problem, so your throwing it into the discussion is a cheap strawman argumentation. Also, not everybody agrees with Lomborg. Also, are you sure Google is not doing anything for the cause of AIDS orphans? They might have donated money and stuff.

Also, how much money has it cost to draw up the proposal for the anti-gay-marriage bill and organize the ballot? Why was that money not spent on AIDS orphans? Why were there enough people annoyed about gay marriage to warrant wasting a lot of public money on that useless debate? That seems much more scandalous to me than somebody wasting a couple of minutes to write a blog entry.

It is about fundamental human rights.

What are fundamental human rights?

http://www.google.com/search?q=nonsense+on+stilts+natural+ri...

Feeling smart? I was just taking a shortcut in the discussion. I know there are no "human rights", there is only the law of the stronger guy. Still there seem to be some shared desires among humans in most societies.

And it is not about feel-goodness, either. We try not to bother our neighbours too much because in turn they won't bother us, either. If you take away some rights from the next person, expect the same rights to be taken away from you the next day.

You think Google using its influence to go against Proposition 8 is something, I don't want to know what you think about individual Mormons donating $6.4 million dollars to support this nonsense proposition. I'm not even beginning to count all the other donors. Also let's note how none of this would be an issue if some people would just STOP pushing their beliefs on others..that would be tens of millions of dollars that could go elsewhere.

Compared to orphans in Africa, yes, I'm going to sound rich and spoiled, but Proposition 8 is here now and it needs to be dealt with now. There are other NGOs and others trying to deal with crises worldwide (and I do donate as much as I can in every way to them), but I have to do my own bit to get rid of this deranged proposition November 4th because I really, really want to have the ability to get married to another woman and still have the same rights as, say, my heterosexual parents do. So forgive me and lots of others (Brad Pitt? Ellen DeGeneres? Steven Spielberg?...) for caring so much about something that affects us deeply.

For what it's worth, I may have access to world class healthcare, but it's costing me an arm and a leg. Should I be unable to afford it, well, I don't even want to go there.

(In the end, I'm not really disagreeing with Matt here. I don't think they're exclusive of each other, but I think Sergey thought Prop 8 was a way more pressing issue that could potentially end soon, and Google's support could only help. I would not mind seeing an easier way to adopt children since I plan to do so in the future, but honestly Google isn't gonna turn into an adoption agency anytime soon and I'm sure many people already use Google to find out more about the whole adoption process to begin with.)

Prop 8 is a "way more pressing issue" than AIDS orphans? In what sense?

Because it's outright discrimination right here that voters in california need to deal with in November that could most definitely have an effect on other states and maybe eventually countries in removing discriminatory practices: a set deadline to deal with an ugly issue that if enough people vote yes on, will mean that everyone on all sides will waste more money and time trying to fight (and oh man, the money going into these yes and no on prop 8 campaigns..). Not that that won't happen if this prop is defeated, but it would be less of a mess than it would if it were not. California's potential impact on this situation is huge. It's a start.

Now, if we were talking money, which afaik Google has not donated to any no-on-prop-8 campaign, then I would agree with the open letter Matt wrote, but a public statement? From Google?

I'm not saying AIDS orphans aren't a pressing issue as well, but organizations and companies better fit to attempt to make an impact on that and many more humanitarian crises are working right now to do so and have been for a while, and I really don't think Google doing what they did for prop 8 for AIDS orphans instead would change much. Google did something like "Donate to $x charity!" link on their frontpage for previous crises like hurricane katrina and the recent devastating earthquake in China, and I bet that would have a larger impact if said charity were one like MSF etc. working to treat and stop AIDS or some adoption agency specializing in AIDS orphans. Or to AIDS research. Or something. Feature a new one every week. Sponsor a child. Adopt a child. Anything. Now that's a cool idea (although one would have to wonder how many people would pay attention, what kind of usability impact it would have on the site, and how many people would just see if they could remove that on their personalized page..).

The world sucks, honestly, but just because one problem is a lot worse than another doesn't mean that the lesser problem should be pushed aside for the sake of the larger problem. They're not exclusive, and some entities are just better fit to help on one than another.

Which of Google's billion dollar resources did Sergey use? It's a fucking blog post. He can write pro-gay blog posts and still donate to AIDS orphans at the same time.