Why would such moves be automatically altruistic?
The saying goes "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
It'd come with strings attached...
When you put it that way, he can't be anything other than an asshole.
You can always opt out if you don't like it. Store your data in your mattress. :)
People know how banks operate and they are regulated. The same is not true for Facebook, which makes negative policy decisions all the time.
Banks are one of the most opaque industries and are constantly devising (ingenious) ways around regulation.
You have to look at both acts of commission and omission when you're considering someone's impact on the world.
Zuckerberg is donating an eye-watering amount of money to charity. That's cool, but what about the rest of his wealth? His net worth is something like $14bn last time I checked.
That makes this a donation of around 3.5% of his net worth. No more impressive than someone with $200k of assets donating $7k to charity. In fact, given diminishing marginal returns to wealth, it's considerably less impressive. $500m is nothing to someone with a net worth of $14bn. It's just some digits on a piece of paper.
Consider a parallel universe in which Facebook never existed, and the $14bn that accrued to Zuck through his stake in the business was scattered amongst the many investors from whence it came. Who is to say these investors, between them, would not be donating an average of 3.5% of their net wealth to charity?
You're making a mistake. There wasn't $14bn in investors pocket that was simply moved to Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg created wealth. It wasn't simply moving existing wealth.
In your parellel universe, there was less money to donate.
"You have to look at both acts of commission and omission when you're considering someone's impact on the world."
No, that's wrong. When considering someone's impact on the world, you only need to consider their impact. Mark's impact was creating Facebook, with all that implies, the good and the bad. And it also, now, includes giving 500 million dollars to charity, which will probably save at least some lives (doubtful it will have no impact or a negative impact, imo).
Unless by impact you mean something more like "considering whether someone is morally good or bad", in which case I'd agree with your statmenet, but still rule that Zuckerberg is good from the public info on him.
There was literally $14bn in investors' pockets that moved to Zuckerberg. That's how it works. They liked the cut of his jib, so they gave him money in exchange for a slice of his business.
If it hadn't gone to Zuckerberg, it could have gone to someone else, perhaps someone more charitable.
> In your parellel universe, there was less money to donate.
Zuckerberg may have created wealth, but he didn't create money. The money supply is controlled.
> No, that's wrong. When considering someone's impact on the world, you only need to consider their impact.
A person's impact on the world is determined by both the things they do, and the things they fail to do. We could argue at length about whether acts of omission ought to carry moral or legal punishments, but they are undeniably part of the overall impact that you have on the world.
> And it also, now, includes giving 500 million dollars to charity, which will probably save at least some lives (doubtful it will have no impact or a negative impact, imo).
My point is that, sure, Zuckerberg is cycling money into charitable causes, but in his absence the very same money may have been cycled in greater quantities, at a greater rate.
That's the bar at which you measure Zuckerberg's character.