He gave away, or atleast appeared to give, 99% of his wealth away. I can think of better PR stunts for much less money. He is still a net positive person for me, who inspires me more than most others.
That's a generically cynical statement that you don't seem to have any specific basis for. In such cases, for HN purposes you should practice the Principle of Charity and err on the side of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It won't affect Zuckerberg much, but it will make this community better.
Ok, trying to follow Principle of Charity before dropping anti-Zuckerberg comment, were you saying the person you replied to might have not tried to understand the real meaning behind the comment they addressed or that we should be giving Zuckerberg's intent the benefit of the doubt at this point?
Then that's why that principle should not make it into the guidelines. It counters the long-standing principle of choosing a default interpretation of a person's behavior based on general and specific behavior over time. Mark Zuckerbergs business began with a series of crimes/deceptions, increased with even more where he betrayed his customers in various ways, he continued to lie about the value of privacy for ad revenue, and proved it wasn't just his belief by protecting his own privacy buying up all those houses near his. In business & personal life, he stayed a selfish, control freak who destroyed friend, stranger, and foes wherever for ego and esp profit. This pattern of behavior stretches back years.
So, it's rational to default on the belief that... after years of such behavior... his next move will be motivated by selfish gain (ego/control probablg) with potential deception. Also note that character assessment and source integrity ratings are standard practice of experienced journalists, police, and intelligence gathering. Example below in ratings section:
Also, my brief reading of Charity link suggested it fails instantly if person talking is a con artist or habitual liar. Like Zuckerberg but Frank Abignale of Catch Me if You Can even better example. Or litany of PR people working for companies always getting caught doing devious things with cover stories. The Empirical, evidence-over-time model handles both the good and the bad while the Charity model effectively encourages people to act like sheep in front of hungry, intelligent wolves. So, Im strongly against it being part of the guidelines of any forum.
Now, I do get the concept and still thank you for the link. Ill think on it more in the near future as I can see room for self-improvement. I suggest a lightweight version of it where we try to assume a reasonable/charitable version of a comment by default then reply to that or ask clarification before slamming it. No charitable version if person, claim, or topic has a consistent meaning that's neutral or negagive. Probability applies then. Misinformation that's easily disproven by linked evidence, as I often deal with, would be example. Maybe combine this with "keep it civil, focus on claims, and no personal attacks" a la FreeBSD's Code of Conduct. Might make a nice compromise between charity principle and reality.
Just a few of my thoughts for the team's consideration. Just concerned that guideline could censor comments that need to be there while protecting subtle trolls or unreliable sources from quickly being dealt with. It was a good idea but just goes too far into idealism in that link. Especially for discussions on... the Internet. ;)
You'll find instead that it will turn any community into an echo chamber. This sort of tone policing accomplishes nothing but belittling differing viewpoints and alienating users who may (publically or privately) disagree with charitable interpretations.
When the dust clears, you'll have a harmonious web forum -- in which no information is exchanged.
The fact that people have been saying this about HN for many years suggests that the argument isn't as strong as it sounds. What you describe is indeed a danger, but there are many dangers. Effective moderation must protect against all of them.
HN's way of balancing this is to require that comments be civil and substantive. Adding the principle of charity is simply a clarification of what that means.
The 'principle of charity' is not primarily about ethics or tone. It's about intellectual substance. It simply says that people should respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument (or comment or phenomenon). What reason could anyone have for insisting on reacting to a weaker interpretation than they need to? I can think of a few, but none apply to a site that wants civil, substantive discourse.
If you're giving away so many billion, you might as well oversee yourself how they are going to be spent. What sketchiness do you see here? It was already his money.
Non-profits are regulated so it's transparent what they do with the money other people give them. In this case, it's Mark's own money. Even if he executed the sketchiest imaginable scheme, he's only wasting his own money. He is free to start a commercial company with it instead, but he decided the goal should be to do some good.
The time this will become a problem is the second the company accepts money from other people. Then I will join in picking up pitchforks.
