I applaud the practical impact of this act, however I do not view it as charity. Acts of charity are anonymous. Charitable donations made in a highly public manner are publicity.
In this specific case however, he is financing a public health initiative in a geographical area where many residents read his blog, therefore getting the word out that the shots are available through one's blog is not an unreasonable way to make sure the effort is effective and makes a difference. Many who read his blog will reblog and word gets out. Let's compare this to a nun who arranges for free flu shots at Target instead. If no one knows about it, then it doesn't do any good. Those who can't afford the shots are not going to go in and ask on the off chance a donor has provided them. One wants to get the word out. Is she being self-serving by announcing to people that the shots are available? It seems unfair to make that assumption.
George Orwell would have been most proud.
I disagree that "I paid for free flu shots at Target" is going to spread faster than "There are free flu shots at Target". Obviously I can't prove it, but even if you were right, I think the reduced amount of publicity might teach the man about the nature of humility and working quietly and diligently behind the scenes to effect change.
It comes from certain specific ancient theologies which adopt philosophical positions of endorsing anonymous giving.
In christian theology, for example, there is the principle "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing". Back in those days some almsgivers would carry a bell and ring it as they gave out money to the poor, calling attention to themselves. It's possibly the bell ringing practice originated in wanting to let the poor know that alms were available, but christian texts clearly indicate that it had become a way of calling attention to oneself for their charity works. To this end, some persons donated in order to receive admiration from others, not out of compassion for the less fortunate. It was thus mentioned "they have already received their reward". This was contrasted to anonymous giving and a future reward in heaven as an alternative. But note still the person is doing it in expectation of receiving a reward, and not out of a sense of compassion.
Unfortunately, in the modern times, these principles are not normally brought up by others that share one's religion, but rather as a debate tactic to make others look bad and put down those who are trying to make a difference, regardless of any faith issues.
This principle is often brought up, as we see here, in order to pass judgment against those who give charity. Those who pass this judgment sit in self-righteous judgment of others rather than "minding their own business" as these judeo-christian writings also implore. Thus those making such pronouncements are picking and choosing that which makes them happy. The judgers judge because it makes them feel good about themselves, not because they are members of the same church as Larry Page (who is actually atheist, according to various sources) or others who are merely concerned with them having the right motivation in alignment with their communal belief system. The judgers have received their reward - a smug feeling of superiority over others who work to help the less fortunate.
Lots of companies and other organizations give out free or discounted flu shots every year, but they don't get the publicity this does. Raising awareness is a big part of maximizing the value of this effort, since the shots don't just benefit the individual getting them but their community as well (since it reduces transmission overall.)
Teaching Larry Page humility is less important than getting the job done. The man has more money than god and he still goes to work every day, even after issues that forced him to stop doing his public CEO work for a while. How much humility does he need?
Nowhere does the word anonymous appear. Words are not defined by your view of them, but by common usage (in English). And charity and publicity are not mutually exclusive.
The downvote is not meant to say "I disagree", it is meant to be used to get rid of spam, trolls or comments not adding to the discussion. If you disagree, respond to the comment with your reasons for disagreeing, like all the quality responses to vectorbunny's comment.
Heck, you might even upvote comments you disagree with if you think they add value to the discussion.
So, I ask you, which makes for a better HN? One where people downvote to disagree, or where people respond explaining why they disagree?
In my mind it is the latter behavior that makes HN a good place to be.
So regardless of what pg has stated I will continue to believe that it is far better (for HN) to respond to comments I disagree with than to downvote them, for down-voting (aka punishing) someone for saying something I don't agree with doesn't help me, it doesn't help the commenter, it doesn't help HN. So what's the point?
That's not how other people use the word. You should pick a different word if you're going to have your own private definition.
"Charity does not mean that you give and you feel very good that you have given, that you give and you oblige the person to whom you have given. Then it is not karamat; then it is not charity.
Charity is when you give and you feel obliged that the other has taken it; when you give with no idea that you are obliging anybody in any way; when you give because you have too much. It is not that the other needs.[1]"
[1] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-08-05/edit-...
Also, vectorbunny has a deep philosophical and spiritual point here, as he later elaborates on, and I don't believe he deserves the downvotes simply for stating his view of true charity. Yes, in the United States, the word charity doesn't imply anonymous donations, but charity is an ancient concept going back to the dawn of civilization.