Good as far as we know until they get Cosby’d

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1727 days ago

      Mark Cuban is the closest I can think of. Most of his wealth came from stocks he received when he sold his dot com business to Yahoo. He’s invested a bunch after that. Now he does some decent things like his at cost prescriptions. He definitely seems personable and understands that he is extremely lucky.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3027 days ago

    Being that powerful and wealthy doesn’t happen without doing horrible things. Then, once a person achieves that status, the pressures change and they just become worse.

  • Samus Crankpork
    link
    fedilink
    325 days ago

    If you have enough money to be in the 1% and choose to keep it to remain in the 1% instead of using it to right the many many wrongs in the world, you can’t be a good person.

    Just having that much money, and not using it is a moral failing.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1427 days ago

    Closest I can think of is post-Microsoft Bill Gates, with the humanitarian/healthcare stuff he’s been involved in. He was a total piece of shit as Microsoft’s CEO, though, what with the aggressive anti-trust practices and all. Not that the ones that came after were much better (especially Ballmer).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5327 days ago

      What Gates is doing right now is a massive publicity stunt to make people believe he’s actually a “good person”. He is not. He is still a disgusting billionaire that contradicts everything he preaches.

      • He is constantly buying farmland, to the point where he’s the biggest land owner in the whole US. This is seriously harming small farmers.

      • He preaches about climate change and using cardboard straws while in his massive ($650M!) mega yacht

      • The “humanitarian/healthcare” stuff he did, while helpful, was only done because he could use it as a tax writeoff. He wouldn’t have done it if it wasn’t the case.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1927 days ago

        Also introduced voucher schools because he didn’t want teachers telling him laptops won’t solve education

      • console.log(bathing_in_bismuth)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        • That’s good for climate change?

        • He has unimaginable influence. Doesn’t the change he makes outweight his mega yacht? (Yes I now how ridiculously expensive these monster ships are) I doubt he is only committing to netto his yacht.

        • Oh you know him well, could you make a meeting happen? I have an idea

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          225 days ago
          • How is that good for climate change?

          • Nobody listens to this guy. Have you been recycling just cuz Gates told you to? Also these kinds of yachts pollute so much with a single trip that it outweighs any good that he could have done by convincing millions to save electricity or water.

          • I don’t need to know him well. It’s not rocket science.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        18 days ago

        He is constantly buying farmland, to the point where he’s the biggest land owner in the whole US. This is seriously harming small farmers.

        The “buying farmland” part is just a product of him being a billionaire tbf, it’s what he does with it that could be concerning.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      When people say “climbing the corporate ladder” the only image that comes to mind is a ladder shape made of coworkers and whoever is capable of stepping on more heads is declared the winner

    • Christian
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      The Gates foundation explicitly lobbied against Oxford’s initial plan to open source their covid vaccine. Gates’ worship of intellectual propery law is responsible for the patent on the astrazeneca vaccine. The project was initially started under the hope that the third world being able to manufacture their own vaccines without owing royalties would be important in limiting the spread of covid.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        18 days ago

        I remember reading about that at the time but couldn’t find a reliable source to back that claim. Fascists and anti-vaxxers love to scapegoat Gates along with George Soros (and jews in general) so I kind of dismissed it as far-right misinfo. Sucks if actually true, though.

        • Christian
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          A lot of us were genuinely cheering on the announcement that the Oxford vaccine would be opensourced, it was the reason people were actually following updates on that vaccine specifically. It waa a big point of discussion here on lemmy at that time and when the decision was reversed the focal point of every criticism was that it would very obviously limit vaccine accessibility at a time when we desperately needed the population vaccinated as quickly as possible. People were angry over his justifications because even if we assumed the best-case scenario where he was somehow correct and it wouldn’t restrict vaccine access at all, it still would not be an improvement over not having a patent at all. The absolute best case scenario for that reversal would have been vaccination rates being just as high as if it stayed open-source.

          I don’t doubt some morons found those headlines after-the-fact and did their own spin without reading, but the idea that antivaccine sentiments and blind Gates-hatred were the motivators for people being upset with him when that happened is wrong.

  • Roguelazer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1627 days ago

    Jeff Atwood (stack overflow and discourse cofounder) seems pretty cool for someone who made a shitton of money in tech. Everyone I know who’s met him says he’s a nice and normal human being, and he’s currently funding a UBI program as well as giving copiously to high-quality charities.

  • secretspecter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 days ago

    There are no good 1%ers. Doing philanthropy with your excessive fortune isn’t worthy of applause, it’s simply the easiest way to give. And more often than not they still do not. Using your influence (acquired through fortune) is hollow as hell too like why should we listen to you? Because you’re loaded?? Nah but thanks for the dono.

    There are good rich people but they are rich in other resources, usually immaterial.

    Also Cosby Cosby’d himself…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    it’s not a moral problem per se. it doesn’t matter if members of the so called 1% are personally good or bad. if they reached those positions then they are performing roles that are prejudicial for the society.

    politics is less about people’s morality or intentions. it’s about what they effectively do.

  • davel [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4727 days ago

    Bourgeois class traitors are a rare breed, and bourgeois class traitors in powerful positions are a pipe dream. The capitalist class—which owns the means of production and gets its wealth by expropriating surplus value from the working class’ wages or by rent-seeking—are not going to save us.