This makes me believe there's some kind of definable relationship between money extracted, business size, business lifecycle, and benefit to society. A startup with ambitions of being very big, profitable and influential is declaring that it wants to lead civilization in a certain way. But if it achieves size and profit by simply decreasing benefits and increasing extraction, it's actually a corrupting force; post-hoc charity can't change that.
And in technology, every wave of new possibilities pulls a few corruptors along for the ride, in part because we don't always know at the outset whether they're ultimately a good or bad force. As well, the really long-term influences often appear to lie dormant for a long time... ideas from academia take forever to be used in industry, and broad demographic changes in usage can take a decade.