
A letter to our daughter - arasmussen
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-letter-to-our-daughter/10153375081581634
======
prezjordan
> We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion --
> during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small
> contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already
> working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside
> many others.

Ninety. Nine. Percent.

~~~
austenallred
I mean, what else are you going to do with $45 Billion? Build a really big
house?

I've had the opportunity to rub shoulders with a few billionaires over the
past few weeks, and it's remarkable how differently they think about money
than the people who don't have it. Sure, they may buy a nice car (or jet), but
after a certain level the only thing you can do with that kind of money is
plug it back into something meaningful.

Hats off to Zuck and the other people who try to turn their success into
something even greater than, well, their success.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
>I mean, what else are you going to do with $45 Billion?

You are thinking about it the wrong way. You don't spend $45B on _stuff_ for
yourself. You spend $45B on changing the way governments and populations live
work and how power is balanced.

When Bud Fox asked Gordon Gekko "How much is enough" Gekko knew immediately
that Fox wasn't in the same league. Money isn't about stuff, it's about power
and influence.

~~~
sytelus
I strongly feel this power, influence, giant houses, jets, personal cruise
ships etc are old generation stuff - something that grey haired Gekko will
personify. The "new rich" is dramatically different and for the better.
Today's centi-millionairs wants to stay anonymous, don't want to have butlers,
have houses that they can manage without permanent staff and often prefers
travelling first class or renting Yatch instead of buying them even if they
can afford it. The new rich sets target to make X amount of money and then
"retire". Their "retirement" consist of working hard doing their favorite
activities and travelling the globe to sample the "regular folks" flavors.
Most of them don't have desire to keep growing billion dollar business which
will sip away their time and energy. They have strong political belief but
have no desire for acquiring political power directly or indirectly. They are
not in to heavily influencing how rest of the population shall live. They
consider time to do their favorite activities far more important than keeping
money scoreboard. They want to buy fashionable cloths and accessories but not
those that will immediately attract attention and single them out in the
crowd. They want to be physically fit and avoid having family as long as
possible. They like to invest in ideas and technology more than traditional
financial instruments.

I think new rich crowd will almost completely replace old generation wealthy
in next 50 years or so. People who are born in this decade will have very hard
time understanding philosophies and life style choices of Gorden Gekko.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Hate to break it to you but what you described about the "new" millionaires is
the majority of all multimillionaires, regardless of generation.

See: The Millionaire next door

~~~
majani
I accidentally downvoted you due to fat finger error, sorry.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Well I'm crushed, but hopefully I can get over it ;)

------
robert_tweed
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this seems about as philanthropic as Ron
Hubbard starting a religion.

Firstly, the donation is stock not cash, so the value of this foundation will
be directly linked to the value of Facebook shares.

Secondly, it has been stated that one of the things this foundation will do is
"participate in policy debates". If the headline was "Mark Zuckerberg to put
$45 billion is stock behind lobbying effort to establish Internet.org as a
monopoly in developing countries", that wouldn't sound quite so positive,
would it?

~~~
morgante
It sincerely depresses me that the top comment on Hacker News is so incredibly
cynical. The man is giving away a huge amount of money and you can only find
ways to detract.

> Firstly, the donation is stock not cash, so the value of this foundation
> will be directly linked to the value of Facebook shares.

So? The vast majority of his wealth is _in_ Facebook shares. That doesn't
change the fact that he's giving away the vast majority of it. You think he
should have sold it all now, destroyed its value, and donated a much smaller
pot?

> it has been stated that one of the things this foundation will do is
> "participate in policy debates".

One of many things. Not to mention he has never attempted to make Internet.org
anything close to a monopoly.

That your reaction to an incredibly charitable act is such pure cynicism is
absolutely disgusting. There are plenty of billionaires who hoard their money
or perpetuate hereditary fortunes, and those who don't should be commended.

~~~
iamsohungry
> Not to mention he has never attempted to make Internet.org anything close to
> a monopoly.

Do you even know what Internet.org _is_? They're providing free access to a
subset of the internet that Facebook controls, while forcing people to pay if
they want to access the internet as a whole. _The entire reason Internet.org
exists_ is to create a Facebook monopoly on data access in developing
countries.

Your entire comment is naive.

~~~
carb
Internet.org provides access to a subset of the internet that Facebook chooses
to pay for. The target audience is mostly people that can't afford any
internet access to the first place because it is to outrageously expensive. As
well, that subset of the internet is open to developers to submit their own
services to be supported by Internet.org [1]. Last time I glanced through the
agreement, Facebook is just trying to avoid paying for HD photos and video
downloads, which would increase the cost of Internet.org beyond feasibility.

An initiative can be charitable while also benefiting the donor. The users of
Internet.org get free access to Facebook as well as the other services being
provided and that doesn't detract from the service or make the whole
initiative evil.

I have yet to see research that providing a zero-rating service is harmful as
you suggest.

[1]: [https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-
org](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org)

~~~
iamsohungry
> I have yet to see research that providing a zero-rating service is harmful
> as you suggest.

"Internet.org provides access to a subset of the internet that Facebook
chooses to pay for."

> Last time I glanced through the agreement, Facebook is just trying to avoid
> paying for HD photos and video downloads, which would increase the cost of
> Internet.org beyond feasibility.

This could be achieved by choking bandwidth, which would be easier to
implement, simpler, and more transparent. Instead, you get stuff like:

"In order for your content to be proxied as described above, your URLs may be
re-written and embedded content (like javascript and content originating from
another domain) removed. In addition, secure content is not supported and may
not load." [1]

Let's be absolutely clear here: Facebook wants to control what content gets
into Free Basics and how it's presented, and is willing to make security
impossible in order to do it. This enables both censorship and mass
surveillance controlled by Facebook and whoever is willing to pay them.

> The users of Internet.org get free access to Facebook as well as the other
> services being provided and that doesn't detract from the service or make
> the whole initiative evil.

It's not the things users get access to that I'm worried about, it's the
things they _don 't_ get access to, and who else gets access to those user's
data.

[1] [https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-
org/participat...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-
org/participation-guidelines)

------
ryandrake
Something's always bugged me about relying on philanthropy as a source of
funding the public good, as opposed to the public funding the public good
through taxation and the democratic process: In the former case, the public
doesn't really have much of a say about where the help goes. We must rely on
the judgment (and personal values) of a few rich people and hope they pick
charities that maximize the benefit.

Would the outcome be better or worse if we had, say, a 99% tax bracket at >$N
million, and let the public decide the best way to deploy that funding via the
ballot box? Would that process better align with the values of a democratic
society? Or would we just get more corporate welfare, bombers and aircraft
carriers?

I'm not ragging on philanthropy--it's awesome that some of these billionaires
understand the meaning of "enough" and choose to give away their fortunes to
worthy causes. But is it best for society to leave it to a few lucky 'elite'
to judge what is and isn't a worthy cause?

~~~
mgraczyk
I have more faith in the judgement of the system that elects billionaires than
the system that elects our government.

Billionaires will spend their money in more efficient and productive ways than
our government spends tax dollars. You may disagree with a rich individual's
vision of the future, but he will be vastly more likely to effect his vision
than our elected officials.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Perhaps billionaires will spend their money more efficiently.

But they'll spend less of it on the public good.

The government may be less efficient (also, citation needed there, as I don't
buy that at face value), but even if it is it has access to WAY more funds.

Sure, we have some nice billionaires like Zuckerberg and Gates who give their
money away, but if you required all the billionaires to give up some money,
you'd have a much larger pool to work with. So efficiency isn't the only part
of this argument. There is also volume.

~~~
tempestn
If you force rich people to give away a large enough percentage of their
money, perhaps you will remove any incentive for the non-philanthropic ones to
keep _earning_ more money. If they weren't inclined to give it away in the
first place, they probably won't be inclined to make more, knowing they'll be
required to give it away.

~~~
deathcakes
And therefore the people who end up making the most money are the people who
are the most philanthropic and that is worse than the current system how?

~~~
tempestn
Because those people are already giving most of their money away to causes
that benefit the world. The "other" rich people are still, on average,
creating wealth though, via the companies they start and run. If you
disincentivize them from doing those things, you eliminate that wealth,
leaving everyone worse off on average.

------
colmvp
I feel only on HN and Reddit can people find reason to criticize a guy who is
giving away billions of dollars for humanity. Talk about not seeing the forest
for the trees.

~~~
myth_buster
I think it's a good sign if people don't take words at face value and be
critical of it.

~~~
kansface
Their public pledge to donate 45 billion dollars to charity within their
lifetimes with an eye towards long term solutions deserves criticism?
Seriously, WTF?

~~~
myth_buster
If I may paraphrase the sentiment here:

Firstly,

    
    
      Their public pledge to donate 45 billion dollars
    

That number is based on current valuation of Fb and cannot be equated to
someone writing a check for $45B. If Fb goes the MySpace way, how much is that
donation worth?

Secondly there appears to be a duality between how the company operates and
what this post tries to rally for.

Finally, using the pretense of writing a letter to their newly born daughter
rubs some the wrong way.

~~~
twright0
> If Fb goes the MySpace way, how much is that donation worth?

If Fb goes the Google way and its value continues to go up, the donation will
be worth more. It's true that the donation is of unclear value. But calling it
$45 billion is a way to communicate the scope of the pledge that they've
committed to.

> Secondly there appears to be a duality between how the company operates and
> what this post tries to rally for.

It's important to distinguish between the behavior of a person and the
behavior of Facebook, Inc. Every time the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation does
something, we don't get dozens of people rising out of the woodwork harping on
Microsoft's unethical business practices - but Bill Gates' mid-90s Microsoft
was definitely on par with Facebook at its worst. It's _okay_ to celebrate
good things done, as long as we don't fully forget how we got there. We should
continue to criticize Facebook as a company even as we recognize that the
individual here is attempting something great.

> Finally, using the pretense of writing a letter to their newly born daughter
> rubs some the wrong way.

It's a pretty easy and effective rhetorical device. The letter is obviously
targeted at the world, or he wouldn't have published it. But it's a good way
to present some emotional framing - this is why he cares so much, why he's
invested in a better world. Not all attempts to inspire pathos in the reader
are rooted in evil, it's just a tool for effective writing.

------
dhcar
This seems more like PR than a genuine letter to a child. Which is fine, but I
wish they'd treat it as such.

They talk about facebook, donations, improving the world, their beliefs, etc.
but very little on how to be a better person or how to enjoy life. Maybe I'm
projecting, but what would you want to find in your pillow after moving in for
your first day of college?

I hope they wrote their daughter a real letter. One directed to her and not
something that will be tweeted by hundreds of news organizations.

~~~
DaveWalk
My brain hurts just reading through this letter. I'm trying to picture my
parents -- or anyone's parents! -- writing:

"Your mother and I don't yet have the words to describe the hope you give us
for the future... Our hopes for your generation focus on two ideas: advancing
human potential and promoting equality... We can do this work only because we
have a strong global community behind us. Building Facebook has created
resources to improve the world for the next generation. Every member of the
Facebook community is playing a part in this work... Love, Mom and Dad"

Philanthropy aside, doen's this "letter" read like a scene from the Silicon
Valley TV show?

------
cpursley
Why are the techno-barons so focused on human health? Not that there's
anything wrong with these efforts, but human disease is much less of a threat
to our species and planet than an ever-increasing human population. What I'm
saying is that humans have little difficulty reproducing; it's a solved
problem.

What's not a solved problem is our disappearing fisheries[1], rhinos going
extinct all over the place[2], farmland desertification[3], tropical
deforestation[4], ocean acidification[5]... From my back of the envelope math,
it seems that longer lives and a larger population will exacerbate our
environmental and resource issues.

I'd like to see billionaires purchase large tracks of land simply for
preservation. Cleaning up industrial waste from rivers. Foot the salaries of
anti-poaching efforts. Get clean fusion energy production up and running. That
sort of thing. Perhaps we should get our planet's shit together before
tackling immortality?

[1]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/03/t...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/03/the-
end-of-fish/)

[2] [http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/africa/kenya-northern-white-
rh...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/africa/kenya-northern-white-rhino/)

[3] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
africa-34790661](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34790661)

[4]
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indones...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia-
fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media)

[5] [http://fm.kuac.org/post/increasing-ocean-acidity-
threatens-m...](http://fm.kuac.org/post/increasing-ocean-acidity-threatens-
marine-food-web-circumpolar-waters)

~~~
the_economist
Bill Gates has teamed up with Mark Zuckerberg to form multi-billion-dollar
clean energy fund: [http://www.sciencealert.com/bill-gates-has-teamed-up-with-
ma...](http://www.sciencealert.com/bill-gates-has-teamed-up-with-mark-
zuckerberg-to-form-multi-billion-dollar-clean-energy-fund)

It sounds like they are doing exactly what you request.

~~~
fulafel
Investing in new energy technologies is not an effective way to address any of
the problems he mentioned.

~~~
ZenoArrow
So clean energy isn't beneficial in tackling 'farmland desertification[3]' and
'ocean acidification[5]'? You have heard of climate change, right?

~~~
bambax
Dirty energy isn't the (main) problem; intensive agriculture and aggressive
fishing is the main problem.

Humans need to eat less meat and fish. Much less. Like, in rich countries, at
least 95% less.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "aggressive fishing is the main problem."

That is a separate problem from ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is
directly linked to pollution from fossil fuel usage.

~~~
bambax
Yes, aggressive fishing is a different problem (but a problem nonetheless).

Ocean acidification however, is caused by the fact that the oceans absorb the
excess of CO2 present in the atmosphere; and livestock are responsible for
more CO2 production than all of transportation.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Ocean acidification however, is caused by the fact that the oceans absorb
> the excess of CO2 present in the atmosphere; and livestock are responsible
> for more CO2 production than all of transportation."

There's a common misconception that all CO2 is bad. CO2 is a natural part of
the bio cycles found on Earth, what's bad about using fossil fuels is the
rapid expansion of CO2 (and other gases) in the environment where life lives,
which causes instability and damage as the Earth adapts.

------
chegra
Sometimes, I think people on HN probably think they get points for being the
most cynical critic.

Can't we just say, "Dude we are happy for you, and thanks for the money."

And what happened to the rule about not saying stuff you wouldn't say to a
person's face. Would you be calling Mark a narcissist to his face? Keep it
civil people.

~~~
Mikushi
> Would you be calling Mark a narcissist to his face?

I definitely would. I'd call him a cunt too. He is one, and in my country you
call a cat a cat. None of that tippy toeing around you english people do, Zuck
is a horrible person as the last ten years has shown everyone, Facebook is a
despicable company with despicable ethics.

This letter is vomit inducing, and the comment section is rich people stroking
each other for "helping the world" after being major actors in destroying it,
fuck them all too.

------
djhn
Zuckerberg isn't planning on retiring.

He will rival Bill Gates in the magnitude of philanthropic contributions.

And in other news Facebook Notes is challenging Medium as the default one-
column publishing tool.

Note as well, that of all the immaterial goods that have the potential to
create immense value to people and humanity, education and health are the ones
strongly highlighted. Global equality is there, but to a critic this too will
be seen as another factor in building and supporting an ever-growing, and
long-living, consumerist middle class.

There is very little said about freedom, democracy, privacy, justice or self-
determination. Even if this reading is unfair, cynical or simply too demanding
of what this text and announcement is. Not to mention detracting from what is
otherwise a highly admirable act.

~~~
boxy310
According to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's financial declarations [0],
assets as of December 2014 read at a hair under $45 billion. This very much
rivals the size, even if it will take some time to build momentum and make as
much of a difference as the Gates Foundation has to date.

[0] [http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-
Informatio...](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-
Information/Financials)

------
hellofunk
I'm signed up for CNN's "Breaking News" emails that are sent out whenever some
earth-shattering crisis occurs or particularly important news that affects
everyone. I received one of these email alerts upon the arrival of their
daughter. This gave me a great sigh; good news for them, but how did it become
worthy of worldwide immediate news notification?

~~~
erikrothoff
You didn't read the article did you?

~~~
hellofunk
I did. What does that have to do with CNN Breaking News?

------
abalone
Couple problems with this otherwise well-intentioned effort:

1\. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what governments spend on a regular
basis trying to solve these problems. (Bill Gates has said as much.)

2\. Private charity by the billionaire class is not a scalable solution.
Historically most social advancement has happened through popular organization
and government programs, not charity.

Silicon Valley itself is a product of government spending. The Internet and
thus Facebook wouldn't exist without billions of taxpayer investment in early
stage high risk research and procurement via DARPA and other government
agencies. That continues today (just a couple examples: Siri and autonomous
vehicles).

If we are serious about accomplishing social change and "long term investments
over 25, 50 or even 100 years," the answers lie in greater government
investment in these areas. Just like Silicon Valley. And that means _all_
Silicon Valley companies should be paying back to the government just as they
would an early stage investor. Not as a "noble choice" but as an obligation.
(Currently they get the core tech pretty much for free.) That would drum up an
order of magnitude more funding for much-needed social projects.

I'd like to hear more Silicon Valley CEOs talk about that.

~~~
jnpatel
To quote the letter itself: "We know this is a small contribution compared to
all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we
want to do what we can, working alongside many others."

~~~
abalone
A far cry from "we know this is payback for public investment in tech
companies, and we call on all of silicon valley to support formal remuneration
to the federal government to give back to the public."

------
rrggrr
I'm not trolling, as much as it will seem the opposite, but I feel compelled
to wonder about postnatal mania (mild postpartum psychosis) as I read the
letter. I wonder how different (or private) the letter may have been had it
come four months from now. I wonder how many really significant acts of
charity and kindness by the super wealthy and influential occur in the days
following childbirth. Just wondering aloud here.

~~~
whatok
I'd imagine they had such a significant decision planned far before the kid
was born.

------
nbardy
Reading this is impossible to not to think of Bill Gates. Someone who realized
the impact his money can have. Many people in this industry have been
influenced by the actions of Gates, especially in the tech community. As a 20
something the money I make certainty pales in comparison to that of Gates or
Zuckerberg, but even at a low rate for the tech industry it is much above that
of my friends, many of who have worked much harder to get to where they are.
It is difficult to be in a position to give help and refuse. Perhaps the
effect Gates can have on the minds of the wealthy will be even greater than
the already vast contributions he has produced.

------
masterponomo
Just wow. I asked my parents how my birth changed their lives. They said they
had to invest in some good ear plugs (for themselves) as a sleep aid, and that
they lost a sock drawer until I graduated to the futon. While I did not spark
the solving of the world's problems, at least I did have some small impact.

------
webwanderings
Never much cared for Zuckerberg but this changes my perspective.

Off-topic: can Facebook please go ahead and literally kill the blogging
industry by giving the ability for everyone to use these updated Notes
section? As is, the majority of the referrer on the Internet is Facebook. They
might as well get the blogs out of the way.

~~~
shopkins
I agree, let's put the entire internet in Facebook. News like this just proves
Zuckerberg knows best. /s

------
uptown
"As you begin the next generation of the Chan Zuckerberg family, we also begin
the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to join people across the world to advance
human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation.
Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease,
connecting people and building strong communities.

We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion --
during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small contribution
compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these
issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others."

------
roymurdock
Mark has set some ambitious goals regarding poverty, disease, nutrition, and
equality, and connectivity. I hope for all of our sake that he is successful
in realigning many of the perverse short-term incentives through his and his
Priscilla's generous contributions and efforts.

I wish he had spoken more about luck and balance. This is something that Bill
& Melinda Gates, as well as Warren Buffet do very well. Understanding luck and
balance is the key to empathy, which is also a phrase that is missing from
this letter.

I also wish he had not marketed this press release as a letter to his
daughter. Perhaps he has another, private letter that is actually more
relevant and personal, but if I were Max, I probably wouldn't be thrilled to
read this 20 years down the road.

But I'm sure he had a reason to release this letter as he did, and that he
thought for a long, hard time before penning these words. Best of luck to the
new father, mother, and daughter.

~~~
rustynails77
Most of these things can be achieved, but I really don't understand what most
people expect from equality. For example, does equality mean that if I sit on
my ass and do nothing, I get the same as the person next to me who works their
butt off? Or does it mean that I get a fixed amount based on the effort I put
in? How is that effort measured?

When people talk about equality, I'm not sure if they mean equal opportunity
or equity or utopia (knowing that utopia depends on a slave class). Maybe it
means something else.

The reality is that humanity has empathy and greed (noting they are not
opposites). I can not imagine that I will ever see every person equally.

~~~
personomas
In this example, equality means that if you act in your best nature, you
deserve as much as any other person who acts in their best nature. If sitting
on your butt is the best thing, then yes you deserve as much as the next
person, likely though sitting on your butt is not the best thing.

------
seanhandley
I find it disgusting that he's just had his first child and is already
piggybacking a PR exercise off it.

In spite of the enormity of the announcement, to tie it up as "A letter to our
daughter" is deeply crass and makes me feel queasy.

------
YorkianTones
Applause to the Zuck for the public commitment to invest 99% of his fortune in
charitable causes.

Providing cheap, reliable internet to underserved areas of the planet seems
like an achievable goal. Much of the technology is present, and so this goal
can be attacked now given available funding. The technology should improve
further and become cheaper in the near horizon. Go for it Zuck. Make a dent.

"Curing disease", however, or "learning and experiencing 100x more than we do
today" \- these trite and nebulous platitudes seem line lines stolen from
HBO's Silicon Valley script. "Eradicating polio" is a concrete, well-scoped,
measurable, and realistic goal (regardless of whether its is the best
apportioning of resources). "Curing disease" is not. Does someone who's
married to a doctor really believe that all disease is eradicable in the next
100 years? Must we resort to impossible moonshots and unqualified invocations
like "Make the world a better place!"? Something like "colonize space!" is not
a helpful goal; "build a habitation on Mars which produces enough food, water,
and O2 to sustain 5 people for a year" begins to be.

This pedestrian rallying cry is a chaotic amalgam of cliches. I hope
Zuckerberg puts more thought, organization, and direction into how he will
invest his billions for the betterment of posterity.

------
zeofig
It astounds me that people are taken in by this. There are so many ways that
Zuckerberg can manipulate this to his self-worshiping benefit that I can't
even guess which ones he'll pick. Consider the type of charity Zuckerberg has
previously favoured: totally monopolistic internet infrastructure in India.
Sure, people get internet, but it'll Zuckernet from now until forever.
Philanthropy is a broken system, because powerful philanthropists never really
give away their money: they retain control of whatever the charity is used to
build. When you have everything and it's not enough, that kind of control is
worth a lot of dollars to you.

~~~
DanBC
Do you think your comments apply to Bill Gates?

~~~
zeofig
It's less clear cut with Gates because he has a quite different personality to
Zuckerberg. Gates has a genuine desire to understand and fix things, although
that is amongst his more positive traits. Zuckerberg/Facebook, on the other
hand, has well-documented antisocial and indeed malicious behaviour.

------
littletimmy
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, for some reason. Must one's private life
be this public? I get that Zuckerberg doesn't agree with privacy, but surely
putting his daughter in the public limelight as soon as she is born is an
imposition on her privacy.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

~~~
jay_kyburz
I see you have some downvotes but I came here to say the same thing. Zuck is
using the birth of his daughter to advertise a new venture.

You want to be generous? Great, do it!

Telling us in a letter to your daughter as a hook to attract eyeballs is kind
of weird and exploitative.

Update: I also thought I should say that this is no big deal, he has some
different ideas about what's ok and what's not and I see that every day, I'm
not mr perfect either.

I guess the reason it's interesting in this case is because he is head of
facebook and entrusted with a lot of people's personal information. If his
judgment is different to mine then I don't feel comfortable entrusting him
with my social life.

~~~
sjg007
Facebook is his thing, and he wants people to be public and share by default.
So he is leading by example.

~~~
grp
I hope he doesn't make a baby as a tool.

"Dear Max, we use you to make some PR. We won't give you the money we don't
have. Love, Mom and Dad."

------
mei0Iesh
Some thoughts:

* Addressing a public press release to your private child's name

* Naming the initiative with your family's name

* Calling for "change now" as if the world isn't already working very hard every day towards progress

* Looks like a move out of a strategic playbook some advisers gave for "how to be President someday"

* Looks like they're marketing themselves as the royal family, like Facebook is the new kingdom

* Looks like that smug thing that's hip today where people compete to be most charitable

* Reminds me of the Melinda and Bill Gates thing, and the Google medical research thing

Part of this is the perspective of engineers who believe everything is
solvable if you just build something to do it. If it isn't built yet, it must
be because we're not working hard and fast enough. That if someone has
billions of dollars, and are just willing to fund an initiative, they can take
credit for curing all disease.

Part of it is the fear that's faced by people who felt invincible when they
become old, or have a newborn infant. When you can purchase anything, the new
difficulties are things like bacteria, viruses, and entropy. When you are a
god in the eyes of the society and economy, yet a worm in the eyes of biology
and ecology, there's no longer a clear path towards how to solve your daily
concerns. If you're poor and need food, there's simple steps you can follow to
acquire what you need. But when you're wealthy, what do you do to get well
from illness, to escape the pains of aging?

These people, and much of the digital society today, need perspective and
psychological understanding beyond what they have. But you won't see an
initiative for that.

------
dpc_pw
Aren't this "foundations" essentially just tax loopholes for the rich?

[http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/10_tax_dodges_that_help_the_...](http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/10_tax_dodges_that_help_the_rich_get_richer_partner/)

read point 4.

~~~
dmix
The problems with these tax systems are far greater than just the wealthy
exploiting income tax. There are so many hidden costs in the endless
complexity of the tax and financial systems in nearly all of the modern
Western governments.

It's a shame people rarely protest the sytematic issues, preferring to attack
people or specific groups of people (often the wealthy or left vs right) -
which are positions that generate adversarial responses rather than rational
counter-arguments:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)

The surest way to minimize abuse/loopholes while being supported by rational
a-political benefits:

Flat tax + basic income.

Eliminating millions of hours of wasted time due to beaurocracy (and while
treating each social class with consistent dignity). These arguments are more
likely to be persuasive to politicians - both left and right. This is a lesson
I believe the general public missed after the whole Occupy movement failed to
result in much political change. The problem with the obsessive focus on "the
1%" was that it generated an us vs them response, further entrenching
positions on both sides and further distancing already strained
policial/social group relationships.

For example: the simplification of taxes would very likely increasing the
speed at which people file taxes and therefore signficantly increasing the
speed that tax revenue could be collected annually, while reducing the amount
of time they spend chasing down people who fail to do taxes. <\- These are the
types of a-political positive benefits I hope will eventually get attention
one day to make the previously mentioned policies less of a pipe dream.

------
jordigg
Hope many more will follow, my sincere admiration.

Here the SEC filling:
[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001326801150...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680115000035/form8kdec2015.htm)

------
rrego
First time I've heard of Facebook Notes, which apparently aren't new at all.
The notes that I do see aren't styled the same way as Zuckerberg's letter.

~~~
Cshelton
I mean, technically, Facebook has had notes since the early days. I know the
format and style has changed, but I remember writing 'notes' on my wall that
any friend could read in a dialogue box since around 2005/2006 ish?

To that note, very few people I know actually use Facebook notes compared to
other blogging platforms.

------
seanlinehan
> Can we truly empower everyone -- women, children, underrepresented
> minorities, immigrants and the _unconnected_?

Part of me thinks that Zuck means people without family or otherwise ties to
wealth and influence. But another part of me thinks that he means those that
aren't connected to the internet. If it's the latter, this is quite the bold
statement. The implication would be that people without access to the internet
are structurally disadvantaged. Which in a lot of ways are true. The internet
enables anybody to acquire knowledge, skills, and relationships with an ease
that is otherwise impossible. Thankfully, this bucket has a fairly clear
solution path.

------
andr3w321
I'm all for rich people giving their mass fortunes to charity but they sure do
seem to take a long time to do it. Bill Gates is STILL the richest person on
the planet in 2015 and his wealth GREW $3.2 billion last year. Can we save the
praise for giving away $44 billion until he actually gives it away?

Source: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/03/02/inside-
th...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/03/02/inside-
the-2015-forbes-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/)

~~~
petewailes
It's actually quite hard to give away money faster than you get it above a
certain level of wealth. I suspect this reflects more the performance of the
investments Bill has than the level of charitable investment.

------
awl130
from an evolutionary psychology standpoint, we are all driven to constantly
increase our social value (and indirectly that of our offspring). once you hit
a certain level of wealth, it is rational for you to shift your attention from
making more money. your social value is only increased by wealth up to a
certain amount, after which the marginal returns in social capital approach
zero for every additional dollar earned. to put it simply, how much more
social value do you have with $1 billion versus $2 billion? The world is
indifferent. At that point, you are simply a rich person.

once you reach such an inflection point of wealth, you must find an
alternative means of increasing your social capital. there are two common
ways: one is to demonstrate your evolutionary fitness in a field completely
unrelated to how you amassed your wealth: many rich get into movie production,
novel writing or other creative endeavor. These usually fail.

another alternative, the safer alternative, is to expend your remaining time
and resources advancing social causes (running for an elected office certainly
falls under this category). this is the simplest way for an adult, untrained
in anything other than their primary business, to increase their social
capital.

it's not a coincidence that zuck is still willing $450mm to his offspring--
more than enough to hit that inflection point. he knows that any additional
dollar beyond that inflection point provides marginal social value to his
offspring.

------
nemo44x
New money mistake. You don't change the world by putting your money into non-
profits but rather cultivating a dynasty that has tentacles in business,
government and thus policy.

You consolidate this kind of wealth into the proper channels to influence
public opinion and thus a much greater sum (measured in trillions) over a
greater time to get the real change you believe in.

It's a good gesture but a losing strategy. But it's his money to do as he
pleases so, cheers Zuck.

------
cup
"Medicine has only been a real science for less than 100 years, and we've
already seen complete cures for some diseases and good progress for others."

Thats a bit unfair. Scientists have been painfully working to advance the
field of medicine for centuries.

~~~
acchow
I think "real science" refers to reproducibly, experimentally driven science.

~~~
cup
Arab scientists were performing reproducible and successful removal of
cataracts 800 years ago. Surely thats 'real medicine'.

------
6stringmerc
Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting
through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the
"We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a
variation of _“a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just ‘eccentric.’”_

I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of
essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolutionary programming to craft
a utopia. What sane person would sit down and say "You know, when I die, I
want to leave the world a chaotic fireball of pain and suffering" in all
seriousness? Maybe I'm significantly jaded, but I hope I'm not the only one
who finds such a letter a little bit narcissitic, brought to you by the
originator of one of the most narcissitic platforms of the modern era, and
hosted on that very platform, naturally.

> _Our generation grew up in classrooms where we all learned the same things
> at the same pace regardless of our interests or needs._

This isn't true at all. "Our" generation grew up with having to work to
acquire knowledge. To spend time in the library. To sit down and read. To
think. It took time, effort, opportunity, and personal investment - so much of
which is no longer a priority now.

> _The internet is so important that for every 10 people who gain internet
> access, about one person is lifted out of poverty and about one new job is
> created._

Citation needed. Like, really.

~~~
ucha
Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter.

Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is
certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality
of their fortune to improve the well being of others.

If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a
great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch
Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are
more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back.

~~~
gist
Don't know about the Saudi princes however the Koch Brothers have given away
millions of dollars (and I am sure there also give away money anonymously as
well).

[http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp](http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp)

Also rest assured that Facebook also "evades taxes" in the same way that the
Koch brothers do, that is by taking advantage of the US Tax Code in a legal
way. And none of us have any idea what the Koch Brothers have in their wills
and have not publicly announced.

~~~
scoofy
David Koch, worth 44,200 million dollars, is donating literally millions?!?
How generous of him to give away approximately 0.002% of his fortune here and
there.

Please be serious. This comparison is laughable, the ≈ $300M listed on his
foundation is literally 0.7% of his net worth.

~~~
bobbles
..and who the hell are you to determine where someone donates their money??

~~~
scrollaway
GP wasn't determining where someone donates their money. GP was pointing out
that putting the Koch brothers in that comparison is ridiculous given their
net worth.

------
subdane
No pressure or anything. Love, Mom and Dad.

------
derefr
As far as I can tell, this is a speech directed at _other billionaires_ ,
attempting to 1. put them in an idealistic frame of mind and then 2. making
the suggestion that the natural outlet for that idealism is philanthropy,
while 3. Putting his own money where his mouth is for some peer-pressure.

If that _works_ , then this will singlehandedly be the highest-ROI
"evangelism" anyone has ever done. Unlikely, though.

------
lagudragu
Not to be cynical, but isn't this also just a method to ensure your company
will remain for a longer duration? As a decline in facebook stock will
indirectly hurt the philanthropic projects which are linked to it through his
foundation. I would take his "pledge" more serious if he would invest actual
capital (money, resources, ...) in such projects.

------
tmsh
"He has informed us that he plans to sell or gift no more than $1 billion of
Facebook stock each year for the next three years and that he intends to
retain his majority voting position in our stock for the foreseeable future."

[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001326801150...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680115000035/form8kdec2015.htm)

What an amazing donation! But not for the foreseeable future. I don't care how
multiplicative his voting shares are. If there is no plans to sell them in the
foreseeable future, this is a pledge spread out across a generation, decades,
while real problems are affecting us every year. Every year where he just
capped himself at 1 billion dollars in donations.

Why are you applauding this?

------
harryf
> right now, we don't always collectively direct our resources at the biggest
> opportunities and problems your generation will face.

One of the biggest problems facing kids in the west is digital addiction.
Society as a whole is still collectively in denial here as adults gain from
it, from parents who get some peace while the kids play with the iPad to game
developers pushing out endless FarmVille clones attempting to get kids hooked
enough to convince their parents to approve some in-app payments.

The problem is already there - just need to look at the amount of Ritalin
being subscribed - [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/06/ritalin-
adhd-...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/06/ritalin-adhd-shocks-
child-psychologists)

------
gabea
It is unfortunate that we cannot accept the kindness and generosity from those
who have been blessed with wealth and whom wishes to share it with others.
Rather we ridicule them and surmise that they have some hidden agenda behind
their desire to share.

------
7cupsoftea
This is very admirable. Hats off to Mark Zuckerberg. Very well done!

------
queryly
This is amazing. Money doesn't make us live longer, but does $45 billion help
bring the future sooner? I bet it does. It will widen our horizons on what's
possible. Everyone on earth will benefit from it.

------
aswanson
I have had some problems with the way his company operates sometimes but I
can't find a single thing he said I don't emphatically agree with here. Hat
tip, Mark Z.

~~~
rimantas
I find that I don't agree with the whole thing. It just seems like a PR stunt
to me :( Why the fuck are you posting a letter to your daughter across the
globe? Why do you have a letter at all, can you just say it to her sometime
when she is actually able to understand. I guess for him completely different
rules apply, but my wife and I don't even post any pictures of our daughter
online nor are we sharing anything about her. She should be able to decide
herself, what she wants to put there, when she is able to…

~~~
77ko
One good answer: It totally changed my perception of Facebook. If the guy at
the top is trying to save the world, that automatically makes facebook a lot
more appealing, not just to me and many other other I know who have
historically been quite suspicious of facebook and its overly invasive privacy
'features'.

~~~
rustynails77
I will never change my perspective about Facebook. They sell data to the
highest bidder and almost certainly use that data to exploit Facebook users.

(this contradicts my positive post about respecting Mark for posting the
letter).

It's similar to Standard Oil. Rockefeller screwed over many businesses and
jacked up the price of fuel to great detriment of society (at least in some
ways). Then, he donates the money to help society.

------
bikamonki
Dear Max, you are filthy rich. I accidentally created a very successful social
network. People mostly use it to post cat pics, drowned babies, whine about
everything and the best possible selfies they can take, or you know, post
stuff that is addictive to humans. We then sell ads and well, make tons of
cash. I say accidentally created because there where already social nets out
there but mine was just out at the right time and had the right funding and
coaching we needed. Well, honestly, I also had to screw a couple of guys to
get here. Anyway, Maxy, all this is ancient and boring stuff. The deal is that
since I have tons of cash and success people think I am smart, I think am
smart too, so I ought to know a thing or two about how to solve real world
problems. I mean it can't be that hard: it is just a matter of developing
tech. Billy is throwing 2B to energy research, I can do just the same, see
daddy will be a hero too! Anyway dear, this posting personal stuff on Facebook
fever just got me and I love you and it is so cool Shakira just likes this
post. Also, the post generated a billion views, we sold them ads at premium:
your first day on Earth Maxy and you are one million dollars richer! Ok, thats
it. Love. Dad.

------
canes2001
Many wealthy citizens have only used their wealth to enrich themselves and
their families. It is nice to see someone that is focused on making the world
a better place.

------
uhtred
I'm so glad I'm not on Facebook.

------
altonzheng
Okay yeah there might be a lot of flaws or criticisms about this, but at the
end of the day, this is a net win for society. Go Mark and Priscilla!

------
cJ0th
Alternative proposal: Use that money to turn Facebook into a self-sustaining
non profit that solely cares about maximizing its users experience and stop
breaching privacy so that data can be sold.

Perhaps that's not as fancy as investments in health, education or the
environment but at least it seems very doable and could solve one problem
(excellent means for human communication) for good.

------
Mark1999
Thanx Mark. Now that your CIA financed endeavour became a money making
machine, you find it is about time to contribute some sort of "philanthropy"
to the world. It is no wonder the millions of serfs don't waste any time to
congratulate you on this great action of yours. Please, a word from the world
to American based institutions: Please, stop saving the world. Really, look at
what your government is doing to Syria, etc supporting terrorists through CIA
controlled channels. And for God's sake! Read the reports from World Bank
before posting this "i will save the world" letter: Poverty and inequality
have risen during the last years, not decreased!

------
zobzu
When I read this stuff (as in the letter) I just think one thing:

You guys are so full of yourselves.

~~~
sp332
These opinions really are going to have an influence on the entire industry.

------
pgodzin
Interesting how internet connectivity is mentioned without a reference to
internet.org after that got a lot of net-neutrality heat. Regardless, great to
see so much money being invested in so many great causes.

------
fantasticsid
Reading some of the comments make me sad. This has happened so often lately..

------
ausjke
A great read indeed, plus a nice picture. I'm going to print out this and read
along with my next generation.

I'm thinking about starting to use facebook again, left it a few years ago.

~~~
tdkl
Seems that Zuck succeeded. So now all he has to do, to gain the old users who
didn't agree with Facebook policies, to post cute family notes.

------
throwaway999888
> Today your mother and I are committing to spend our lives doing our small
> part to help solve these challenges. I will continue to serve as Facebook's
> CEO for many, many years to come, but these issues are too important to wait
> until you or we are older to begin this work. By starting at a young age, we
> hope to see compounding benefits throughout our lives.

In other words, _I 'm getting in on this philanthropy thing at a much younger
age than Bill Gates_.

------
FussyZeus
When things like this pop up, as well intention-ed as they may be, I just
think to myself, if this were just a regular guy and not famous, would anyone
give a shit?

------
keane
Disappointed once again in the immediate cynicism here but by now I should
know not to be surprised by it in any community where nothing is sacred.

~~~
ionised
What should be considered sacred?

------
fijal
I think a bad sentiment here is mostly generated not about what Mark says on
his post, but what he does otherwise. We've seen a fair share of controversy
regarding facebook, privacy practices etc, we've seen a fair share of
controversy regarding internet.org.

I for one find it all skeptical - I don't see how his ideas would align with
facebook goals as a company

------
poub
I would have loved having parents writing such beautiful letter to me for my
birth. It’s an extraordinary beautiful welcoming.

------
jordigh
> Your generation will set goals for what you want to become -- like an
> engineer, health worker, writer or community leader.

Realistically, we can't all avoid being garbage collectors or street sweepers,
can we? Or will automation really replace all unsavoury jobs with high-paying
professions?

------
sakopov
Oh lovely. This is the same man who called his users dumb fucks in the infancy
of his company. Now he's worried about future generations and pushes his
corporate agenda innocently using his newborn. Facebook is like a goddamn cult
that acts like God's gift to humanity.

------
kafkaesq
_Can we truly empower everyone -- women, children, underrepresented
minorities, immigrants and the unconnected?_

Yes you can, Mark: Stop requiring people to use real names. And stop caving in
requests from authoritarian governments that want to do their dirty work for
them.

------
NN88
this melodramatic bs

------
DyslexicAtheist
I'm so excited about the trickle-down economics that I can hardly curb my
enthusiasm

------
astaroth360
Well, I'll say that I appreciate the effort on Zuck's part, but somehow I
still can't make myself like the guy :\

Oh well, I guess I don't have to like him to appreciate that kind of cash
going into worthy causes.

------
zurn
Wow, addressing climate change and unsustainable resource consumption are
absent from the list and "protecting the environment" is once mentioned in
passing.

------
tmsh
I think this letter and [http://givingpledge.org/](http://givingpledge.org/)
are good.

But we all give away wealth when we die. To someone or another.

The pledge is not necessarily one of generosity other than looking past one's
family. Which is something, but less impressive along the generosity dimension
than giving away more earlier (while that money has a very real opportunity
cost to you).

That said, if I had billions of dollars, I'd be investing in my own research
and not giving it away. But that's just me.

------
seansmccullough
His daughter is clearly not the intended audience of this post. In fact, the
fact he is having a kid has nothing to do with this post.

------
artur_makly
[https://imgflip.com/i/v2fo1](https://imgflip.com/i/v2fo1)

------
SCAQTony
He just put his baby into the public eye; now it's paparazzi bait like some
Prince's kid in England

------
breakyerself
Well I hope he learned something from the boondoggle his grant to Newark
schools turned out to be.

------
ForFreedom
Kayne and Kim named their son, North Mark and Priscilla named his daughter
MAX.

------
msoad
This is really cool. I kind of missed notes in Facebook. How do you create
one?

~~~
scott_karana
The "Notes" app in the sidebar.

------
dimdimdim
As I said in previous post --- if I were writing a letter to my son, it would
be a private affair and not posting it worldwide on FB.

Also, there is a huge difference between pledging to donate during our
lifetime and "donating". Anyone can make that pledge and then decide a
comfortable schedule.

------
salgernon
In the end, the only thing anyone has to give is their time.

How many billions of hours are spent daily on Facebook? His fortune is won on
the backs of those poor fools.

It ain't gonna happen, but shutting down Facebook now would be a greater
philanthropic act. (Yea and obviously OtherFacebook would come online.)

------
jordache
so you equate to internet monolopy as impactful as curing diseases?? So the
dude is doing something else you find objectionable, but it doesn't come close
to good stuff he is trying to accomplish.

------
o0-0o
This would have been a lot more genuine if he had just wrote the letter -
tucked it away - and then let his actions do the talking.

When a choice is between doing the right thing loudly, and doing the right
thing quietly, the amount of noise you make is the inverse of the size of your
dick.

~_^

------
charlie_vill
Thank you Mark.

------
saccrant
Time to short Facebook stock.

Given stock is the best way to motivate executives, when the guy on top is
giving all of it away you know where the stock price is going.

~~~
pjscott
Are you actually shorting their stock, or just blustering? You _sound_ very
confident.

------
melted
I like Zuck. He seems to have picked the right role model to follow (Bill
Gates). I just hope he cashes out before a credible competitor takes over.

------
frame_perfect
Actions speak louder than words.

------
anon4this1
I'm dismayed by the lack of focus on the environment here. Humans as a species
are doing just fine. Health gains just marginally improve that. We need to
focus on finding balance with nature that doesn't involve mass extinctions and
subjugation.

~~~
intjk
I suspect he looked at his daughter and saw the faces of billions. Not to say
you're incorrect.

------
orionblastar
It is a lot of promises that are hard to keep.

They think they can just throw money at a problem and it will eventually go
away given enough time.

They think people in communities will give up their bigotry against certain
groups without a fight. They think everyone in the future will adopt the same
worldview that they have. They think that they can solve poverty by giving
everyone an Internet connection on the planet and most people who are poor are
illiterate and can't read and write.

Like I said a lot of promises.

Some problems can't be solved with money, it takes innovation, it takes a new
way of thinking, it takes doing things in a way nobody thought of yet.

Students who are poor and have family problems have emotional and
psychological problems that hinder their learning. No matter how much money
you spend on their school, as Gates has learned, their test scores don't go
up. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-
sheet/wp/2014/06/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-
sheet/wp/2014/06/09/how-much-bill-gatess-disappointing-small-schools-effort-
really-cost/)

This effort by the Gates Foundation proves that building better schools does
not give the students a better education.

You see they made the mistake of throwing money at a problem in order to solve
it. Five years later and a disappointment in what they had created.

Parents of the students get by with low paying jobs, because there is a wealth
inequality in our nation. It leads to poverty, family issues, emotional and
psychological problems none of which building new schools could address. All
of which factor into having a hard time learning and getting better test
scores.

Why is there a wealth inequality and people have to settle for low paying
jobs?

Technology has automated most of the good paying jobs so they can be done with
computers for free. Microsoft and Facebook for example earn money from
technology that does work for others for free and earns money. Websites can
operate 24/7 and replace people who take phone calls or work at a desk to fill
out forms.

Also we used to have factory jobs until we shipped those jobs to China because
the labor cost less over there.

Getting a good education is only possible if you have a good enough credit
rating to get a student loan, if your family is poor and struggles and misses
paying bills, you will have a bad credit rating and not be able to get a
student loan for college. Not getting good enough grades will lead to a lack
of scholarships and other things.

People who can't get a college education face a life of hardship working low
paying jobs just to get by. Not everyone can become a computer programmer
after being a dropout, and then join a startup. Some have to work retail jobs
in the service industry and 2 or 3 of those jobs. Not having time to raise
their children properly. Not able to help with homework because they work
overtime to get enough money to pay the bills.

These factors have not been addressed in the future plans for fixing our
education system.

Sure you can learn a lot on the Internet and even use it to earn money, but
most people just use it for entertainment value and communication. So there
are distractions to learning on the Internet. But what happens when the
freelance market suddenly gets 3 billion more lower wage contractors in it all
competing for the limited amount of contracts?

I wish I knew how to solve these problems, but I learned from experience that
you can't just throw money at them and solve them.

You need the government to help out with some sort of basic income program to
lift people out of poverty as good paying jobs are scarce because of
automation or AI advances. I expect that to get worse in the future.

You need better mental health clinics to address the emotional and
psychological problems associated with poverty for the students to be able to
learn better. You need to find money for tutors to help them with homework
when their parents cannot. You need to teach poor students stress management
and test anxiety management so that they can o better in tests and learn
better study habits and score higher.

I've found at least with my son, that the Internet is a distraction for him.
Time he could have spent studying for tests, he instead watches Youtube videos
and plays video games. I've tried to help him as best as I can, but now he is
failing chemistry as a junior in high school but passing his other classes
because they are not as hard.

We are one of those poor families because I ended up on disability in 2003 and
don't earn as much as I used to as a programmer. There is only so much I can
help my son, he makes decisions for himself, but I cannot force him to study
more or do better on his tests. I feel as if I didn't go on disability we'd be
better off and I'd be able to hire a chemistry tutor for him to get his grades
up. I forgot as I took chemistry in 1985, and it was so long ago. It is harder
to raise a child than you think, esp if you are on a limited income. The
school he goes to is a good one with good teachers and modern equipment and
they use iPads for ebooks and learning, but it is not enough and still
students struggle with their classes.

No matter what you do there will still be problems as no system is perfect,
and students will still get low mtest grades no matter how good a personalized
system you develop. The Dewey System was developed for personalized learning
and it failed.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey)

Most of what they are trying to do has already been tried and failed. It is
like trying to go against human nature and change the way human beings behave
so they can learn better. But human beings cannot be reprogrammed like robots,
and almost all of these theories go with the case that human beings can be
reprogrammed like robots to create a better community for better learning.

It is like trying to solve a social problem using technology thinking, you
need to think in terms of society and the way people work, which is not the
same way technology works. You need to lead social reforms in communities in a
way that makes sense to everybody and not just people on a certain political
spectrum that leaves out all others. You will face a resistance to change, as
many won't want to change. People will come up with conspiracy theories over
the changes, etc.

It is a good start to build a different system of education and try to make
new communities for education for everyone, but money alone won't solve it,
you need the cooperation of everyone in the community to change the way their
human nature works and give up on the old ways of doing things. Some won't
want to give up on the old ways.

------
supergirl
Every rich guy thinks he knows what's good for the world. And why announce
this together with the birth? Should the world celebrate this miraculous event
that also led to our salvation?

------
jpeg_hero
Patrick Bateman -- World problems speech

[https://youtu.be/dZlK_ThjMk4](https://youtu.be/dZlK_ThjMk4)

------
hvis
[https://www.facebook.com/chanzuckerberginitiative/](https://www.facebook.com/chanzuckerberginitiative/)

"Please log in to continue."

Seriously? One might think they would prioritize raising awareness over
increasing Facebook userbase.

~~~
ymse
It works if you disable XHR on the page (yes, really).

------
wityak
Expensive shot at Bezos and his distate of charity. Well played, Zuck.

~~~
spicyj
How is this at all related to Bezos?

------
gesman
Adorable baby girl, welcome to the world.

PS: _stress_ and toxicity quite often are the real causes whereby the few
diseases Mark mentioned is a consequence.

------
bababouy33
Wow, that's a lot of pro-facebook comments for a "Hacker news" site. Shouldn't
you people be browsing reddit or better yet, facebook?

