image transcription:

big collage of people captioned, “the only people I wouldn’t have minded being billionaires”
names(and a bit of info, which is not included in the collage) of people in collage(from top left, row-wise):

  • Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub. perhaps the single-most important person in the scientific community regarding access to research papers.
  • Linus Torvalds, creator of linux kernel and git, courtesy of which we have GNU/Linux.
  • David Revoy, french artist famous for his pepper&carrot, a libre webcomic. inspiration for artists who are into free software movement
  • Richard Stallman, arch-hacker who started it all. founded the GNU project, free software movement, Emacs, GCC, GPL, concept of copyleft, among many other things. champions for free software to this day(is undergoing treatment for cancer at the moment).
  • Jean-Baptiste Kempf, president of VLC media player for 2 decades now
  • Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.
  • Alexis Kauffmann, creator of framasoft, a French nonprofit organisation that champions free software. known for providing alternatives to centralised services, notable one being framapad and peertube.
  • Aaron Swartz, a brilliant programmer who created RSS, markdown, creative commons, and is known for his involvement in creation of reddit. he also died too soon.
  • Bram Moolenaar, creator of vim, a charityware.

on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”

  • Cralder@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    304
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s nice to appreciate people who do good things, but keep in mind that the only way people become billionaires is by exploiting people. So I would not want any of these people to be billionaires because it would mean they got that wealth not by doing good things, but by owning ridiculous amounts of capital and exploiting people.

    Rant over, sorry.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well said. Thinking billionaires are assholes because they’re naturally shitty is like thinking they got rich by being naturally hard working.

      Take landlords for example. You can be the nicest person in the world. The kind of person who makes friends with the tenant. What do you think happens to you after you’ve evicted a few of your friends?

      Systems are a bitch.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I could see someone making something useful and selling it to billions of people at a fair price not being exploitative and also being a billionaire.

      I think it’s rare to the point of maybe happening once ever, but I’m not super upset about the behavior of the guy currently bankrolling the signal foundation.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        11 months ago

        The problem is if you aren’t exploitative then you aren’t being as “efficient” (in a capitalist sense) so you’ll be out-competed. The system is designed to incentivize exploitation. It’s mis-aligned to do anything else.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Oh, the system is totally pushing everyone to try to be the worst person possible.
          However, they might not actually be out competed if they’re not being as exploitative as possible. If they’re not charging as much as the market will tolerate they’re being inefficient but in the way costs profit but attracts consumers.
          I literally only have one billionaire who might not be a problem, but that’s what they did. $1 for a year of access sold to a few billion people, with something like 50 employees.

          It’s why the billionaires who shaft consumers and their workers are so gross. Reducing profit margins doesn’t impact efficiency, it only impacts money in their already overstuffed pockets.

    • Zangoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I choose to see this question as “If you could magically just make someone a billionaire, who deserves it,” or more specifically “who would actually do good things with the money if they had a billion dollars.”

      As you said, the reason these people aren’t billionaires already is because they haven’t been exploiting others. That being said, there are likely a few people that would use the money to better support a lot of great causes, like the Free Software Foundation, medical research, or climate change action

    • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ok, so who did Taylor Swift exploit? She literally is just a singer and the whole thing is odd, but it’s more she’s a billionaire because the currency is worthless.

    • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Paul McCartney is a billionaire. What people did he exploit?

      I think Taylor Swift is now worth a billion dollars, despite being the exploited

      • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Simply by having a billion dollars means they have decided to hoard that wealth. They could give away 90% of it, leaving them with $100 million, it wouldn’t impact their quality of life in any way, and still leave them with more wealth than 99.9% of the planet. Imagine the good that $900 million could do if it was put to good use rather than sitting in a bank account as a status symbol - having the capability to do that good with no impact on yourself or your family and choosing not to makes you an immoral person.

        Billionaires shouldn’t exist. At all.

        • hersh@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I doubt any billionaires have that much money “sitting in a bank”.

          Most wealth is non-liquid. For example, if you found a company that becomes massive, and you maintain a controlling share, then you could be a billionaire on paper while having no real money to spend – the only way to turn that into “real” money would be to sell shares in the company, and thus lose control of it. If the company is doing good work, it could be better to retain control and act through the company, by ensuring that it pays employees good wages to do good work for the benefit of society. This is not completely incompatible with profit in theory, though in practice…yeah. I’m not sure if there are any such billionaires in the world today.

          The real problem is more fundamental to the economy, in that it fairly consistently rewards bad behavior.

          Larry Page basically became a billionaire overnight when Google went public. I don’t recall Page or Google doing anything especially evil or exploitative before that, though their success was certainly built in an unsustainable economic bubble.

          If Amazon didn’t treat its employees like shit and poison the entire economy, then Bezos could probably still be a billionaire and I wouldn’t necessarily hold that against him.

        • aname@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          While I agree with your sentiment, the truth is, none of those billionaires have their billions sitting on their bank account, like I have my couple hundred dollars.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Let’s reformulate. No single individual gets to a billion dollars of net worth without someone getting fucked over in the process. The very concept of any one individual having a net worth of hundreds of times the one of the next 99.9% is fucking absurd, regardless of what they did. Nobody “deserves” multiple lifetimes worth of wealth while half of the world’s population is living with dollars a day. It would take collectively for this world’s billlionaires, the equivalent of us foregoing buying a gaming PC (in relative terms) to get rid of world hunger, yet they choose not to. So, yes, they are actively fucking people over by having so much wealth in the first place.

      • SpongyAneurism@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        McCartney and Swift ‘exploit’ tons of people as well. They might flagship their music artist operation themselves and kind of ‘be’ the product (or rather the brand), but there are lots and lots of people involved to make tours and shows possible, recording, production and especially distribution of music and merch involves labour as well.

        In addition to that: I don’t think they store all that money on a nice little heap in their backyard. It usually gets invested into some sorts of corporations, be it through the stock market, where it will accrue revenue, that comes as the result of more exploitation.

        That being said: the term ‘exploitation’ carries a much more negative connotation than would be beneficial for the conversation. It’s concept of marxist economics, and the term ‘Ausbeutung’ = exploitation was used by Marx himself to describe how capitalists benefit from the surplus that workers produce. I like the term ‘reaping the surplus’ better because it doesn’t carry as much of a negative connotation. The criticism of capitalism shouldn’t barely rely on the fact that surplus is being taken away from the workers, but from the consequences to society and the political system that inevitably follow when that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a minority.

    • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The point is, I think, if they were to become billionaires (say Bll Gtes leaves it to them in his will), then they wouldn’t be billionaires for long – their moral compasses (given they’ve spent their lives on non-profit causes) dictate that they’d likely put the money into other non-profit ventures.

  • puppy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think they aren’t billionaires precisely because they worked for the good of the internet/knowledge.

    If they indeed became billionaires that would imply that how they conduct themselves had completely been altered along with their core beliefs.

    • jeremyparker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 months ago

      You literally can’t be a billionaire without exploiting people. If you’re not sharing profits equitably, you’re exploiting your work force; if you ARE sharing profits, then there’s no way you’ll become a billionaire.

  • m13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    None of these people could ever be billionaires. Only a sociopathic, narcissistic mind could ever do what it takes to hoard a billion dollars. Capitalism rewards having a lack of empathy for other people.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Reminds me of this tweet from Merman_Melville: “Being a billionaire must be insane. You can buy new teeth, new skin. All your chairs cost 20,000 dollars and weigh 2,000 pounds. Your life is just a series of your own preferences. In terms of cognitive impairment it’s probably like being kicked in the head by a horse every day” The experience itself is probably harmful and changes the person.

    • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Studies have shown that people change at a certain amount of money, like they cross a line in the sand. When you can buy anything everything just becomes yours by default in your mind. And anyone who can’t do that are basically sheep dogs - useful but not worth your time. These studies were done in the twenty-tens and the number then was between 20 and 30 million for most people. Imagine your view on the world if you have 100 times that amount.

    • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire

      And to STAY a billionaire. If you have immense power to do good, and every single morning you wake and choose not to, you are an evil ghoul driven by greed, period.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I love how so many of them demand love and acclaim for claiming they will give their money away… when they die.

        You want me to sing your praises because you won’t use the money you made exploiting countless laborers and lobbying government to benefit yourself above society to anoint a handful of nepo babies to wield that power after you as some part of a new nepo dynasty? Gee thanks?

        Its like a serial killer promising not to train his children in the family business. Its not doing good, just doing slightly less bad. Except billionaires cause damage on a far greater scale.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      You need to be a horrible person to become a billionaire.

      Jeffrey Epstein supporter and pedophile Richard Stallman would qualify then?

        • s_s@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          All libertarians start and end at the same place.

          At least Stallman championed other liberties, too.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Probably the same people who claim that Threads is going to be toxic for the fediverse…

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        If he’s willing to trample all over people, exploit them, and have them die for his sake, then absolutely.

        Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human. To them workers are robots, a statistical means to an end. Who cares if someone dies in some factory/warehouse somewhere? There’ll be another to replace them before the end of the day.

        A billionaire gladly takes the effort of others and claims it as their own. They go out of their way to do it.

        That’s not to say that every evil person acting like this will automatically become a billionaire, but you need to be OK with doing these things in order to get there. A billion USD is such an insane sum you cannot legitimately accumulate that without hurting people in the process. Like there’s no logical way of actually earning that amount of money. That’s money you take.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Billionaires don’t care about people. They don’t view others as human.

          Whereas peophiles and forces sex labor apologists are super empathetic.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Or divorcing Jeff Bezos.

      Joke aside, apparently she has a hard time spending enough money to lower her net worth (currently at $40B). Which is an absolutely bonkers amount of money, no one ever should have that much.

        • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          She married him in 1993 way before Amazon happened, maybe he wasn’t a gigantic ass back then. I don’t know much about her, but she seems decent from what I can see, she has donated massive amounts of money to charitable causes.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    If they were billionaires, they likely wouldn’t be the people they are today.

      • NAXLAB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        That seems worse because it means they went out of the way to get so rich, rather than just having it handed to them.

        • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          I was thinking more along the lines of “if they had that much money, their projects could’ve received more impact.”
          like if free software would become mainstream.

          though now I realise that’s an idealistic view and with money, people will become corrupt.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            If they received a lot of money from their work and they used it to increase the impact of their projects, they wouldn’t be billionaires. The money would have been spent on the projects. If Linus headed a non-profit that received 10B a year revenue and spent most of it, leaving Linus with 0.5M-1M yearly salary, he wouldn’t be a billionaire and the billions spent on the Linux project would have had a significant impact. If on the other hand he pocketed 1B a year, there would be 1B less for the Linux project. And Linus would have been/become a different person.

          • NAXLAB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’d strongly disagree there too. Y’know basically the entire internet runs on Linux right? Our global communication system containing the sum of all human knowledge is like 99% Linux servers. And the reason a whole bunch of companies sponsor the hell out of Linux now is because it’s just that good and just that important on a global scale.

    • nixcamic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      IMO RMS already has the attitude of a billionaire. He’s a thoroughly weird man who says stuff he really shouldn’t then stands by it. He’s right about a lot of things when it comes to software, licensing, and open source in general but outside of that track he’s more than a little loopy.

      I think it might be because he’s had to fight society so long for things he knew he was right about that now he doesn’t know how to have people tell him “no Richard, that’s ducked up”.

      Anyhow, I don’t think him being a billionaire would be a good idea, him having enough funds to branch off into doing wherever strikes his fancy could be very bad.

      And Linus, I love Linus but look at how he’s grown as a person and listened and changed how he interacts with other kernel developers. Would he still have been as receptive if he was a billionaire? Something tells me no.

    • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      I understand your point, but those weren’t the words he said. though I don’t think that’s going to make a difference.

      I like RMS for what he did(and is doing) for the free software community. I can also talk about some uncanny things about Gandhi, but that doesn’t make his contribution to the independence movement and his views on nonviolence any less relevant.

      to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.

      • Nate Cox@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        People should indeed be seen in their entirety, the failure of this is why so many people get upset about Stallman.

        The guy is routinely portrayed as a bastion of righteous good will, championing the little guy against the evil corporations. The hero worship is real.

        Some of us see Stallman as a misogynistic asshole who routinely belittles people on mailing lists when they don’t agree with him and publicly defends people who sexually abuse children.

        For some of us, it feels like we need to go out of our way to point this out because we don’t want a guy like that as the public face of something we care about.

        • rodolfo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          what did it he say about women that makes him a misogynist?

          Edit ok found this

          https://www.arp242.net/rms.html

          a pretty much reasonable, reasoned and merciless account on the figure of rms. I very largely agree with it - spoiler he isn’t a misogynist, just a super massive weirdo

          • ReCursing@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            just a super massive weirdo

            I once heard him described as “The smartest man to ever throw a tantrum like a 4 year old”

            • rodolfo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              this thread is terrible… people reporting "I heard of"s as proofs. eh once I read, eeeh once someone told… once sjws bite, there’s no chance they let go. and the most important thing is that 99.999999% of the people bad mouthing rms have at best fifth hand reports about him.

              to all the superior etichs white knights: I’m not defending rms.

              I’m very worried about the lynching, with proof based on I once read, i heard of, and also straight out of jealousy and envy.

              rms, like suggested in the article I posted, could very well be a neuro divergent person. I wonder how many of all of these rabid dogs biting at him preach themselves as super supportive, super inclusive, 360° hexa-dimensional full rainbow, but then aren’t able to understand the person they have in front of them. let’s start by ruining someone. there’s always time to say “I was wrong, I’d like to apologize. At the time I didn’t know. I vow to be a better person.”

        • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          I agree with your point in spirit, but again, he didn’t say any such thing. I haven’t talked to him in person, so, I can only rely on internet to validate/refute those claims.

          he is the public face of free software because others have their own terminologies(e.g.: open source championed by bruce perens and eric raymond), with which the GNU project disagrees.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

            “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

            RMS on June 28th, 2003

            "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

            RMS on June 5th, 2006

            "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

            Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

            RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

        • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Honestly I cannot see any way one could interpret his words like that

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

            “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

            RMS on June 28th, 2003

            "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

            RMS on June 5th, 2006

            "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

            Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

            RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Aaron Schwartz too

      https://web.archive.org/web/20031229025933/http:/bits.are.notabug.com/

      I fight laws that restrict what bits I can put on my website.

      Unlike humans, computers see everything as bits (numbers). They can’t tell the difference between the random movement of a lava lamp and a copyrighted song. I believe that our technology should similarly make no distinction and that I have the right to transmit arbitrary bits.

      Here’s a list of laws that restrict this right, in order from least controvertial (i.e. most people agree this freedom shouldn’t be restricted) to most.

      In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.

      This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

        “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

        RMS on June 28th, 2003

        "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

        RMS on June 5th, 2006

        "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

        Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

        RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Since the other person hasn’t (surprise), here’s Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

          “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

          RMS on June 28th, 2003

          "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

          RMS on June 5th, 2006

          "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

          Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue. "

          RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

          • WldFyre@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah I’m not surprised either haha

            Thanks for the quotes, what an appalling man smh

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah. He had/has some great ideas when it comes to free software, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t a POS in other parts of his life.

              I’m tired of the Linux world literally worshipping him. It’s weird. Hilariously it’s no doubt the same people who would cringe at the cultish following of Steve Jobs. Another person with some good ideas but was an awful person.

  • hersh@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple.

    I don’t think he was ever a billionaire, though he’s certainly done quite well for himself. Since leaving Apple, he has founded several new companies and projects, focusing a lot on education and philanthropy. He was also involved in founding the EFF.

    He’s an engineer first and foremost, and several of his projects never achieved mainstream success, partly for being, IMHO, ahead of their time – for example, a programmable universal remote in the 80s, and a GPS-based item tracker in the early 2000s.

    As far as I know, he has never been involved in any notable scandals.

    • turbodrooler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      At Apple’s IPO, Woz gave $10 million of his stocks to Apple employees. Jobs didn’t want to give any to employees. Seems like a good guy.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 months ago

    on the bottom right is the text reading, “plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly.”

    We don’t work tirelessly. We get tired all the time, but keep at it as well as we can.

  • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Can we throw Steve Irwin in here. I bet that dude could have saved the Great Barrier Reef and a whole lot of wildlife if he had more means.

    • Camelbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is exactly why those people never become billionaires. You can’t make billions without screwing over people and the environment.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    No one should have that much power.

    I wouldn’t have trusted Fred Rogers with a billion dollars, and he’s practically the only famous stranger I could have seen trusting with my newborn alone.

    It’s a society warping level of wealth. No single, unelected, unaccountable person should possess that much uniltateral power.

    The global allowance encouragement of such an exploitative, reckless goal is why we are in our various bleak situations.

    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only exception I can think of is Dolly Parton. I read a report that suggested she’d be among the world’s wealthiest if she weren’t consistently giving away 90%+ of her income.

      The problem is that anyone with that much wealth has already proven their selfishness by not giving away most of it. It’s the classic issue of “Anyone who can be elected should never be elected.”

      • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Recently saw a post somewhere proposing a new style of Government, where we just give the money to Dolly Parton and just kinda let her do her thing with it.

    • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      that’s a good point. if i get it right, you mean that since wealth is a resource, it should always be in the hands of those who are accountable(like the government)?

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I mean when wealth reaches levels beyond material comfort, needs, and wants, when it becomes easy to warp society. Billionaire’s lifestyles doesn’t change AT ALL between 1 billion and 2, its about expanding power. That is what capital becomes at those levels.

        Politicians swoon over you for “donations” (bribes), you begin to see regulations over the industry you exploit your profit from as amendable through lobbyists you can hire to represent your interests over society. Meanwhile that billionaire’s factory workers, customers concerned with product safety, our shared commons, and our communal environment have no advocates with such massive influence to counter them, when the needs of the many shouldn’t just balance the needs of the interests of the wealthy few at the top, they should far outweigh them. As it is, its the other way around. The billionaires have the resources to take care of themselves and protect themselves, most of society does not.

        No one should have enough wealth to have more influence over society than your single vote allows. If you want more power, that should come by selling your ideas to society that votes on them by putting you into a political office, with ALL of the rules and accountability that comes with that office.

        The White House and Senate often invites the billionaires of industries to be the authority on how those industries should be regulated, and it’s perverse. The Foxes advising on hen house security.

        • Bipta@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No one should have enough wealth to have more influence over society than your single vote allows.

          That’s an implausible metric. As long as there is not communistic equality, there will always be discrepancies in influence.

          • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Which is why the absurdity of letting someone accumulate a billion dollar plus discrepancy is so glaring.

            There won’t be because the game is already rigged, over, captured, and hoplesss, but there needs to be a maximum net worth at which point the winners of the economy’s excess wealth is siphoned away to benefit the society that provided the conditions for that success in the first place. YOU WON! Now go enjoy having enough wealth to live 100 embarrassingly gluttonous lifetimes while we use the excess millions and billions to build Schools you can send your kids to and roads you can drive your collection of multimillion dollar supercars on. I know, I know, that would be eviiil and crueeel. A real victimization amirite? /s

            Why is it a tragedy if the maximum wealth one person can hold is half a billion? Or better 100 million? They won’t want to keep “excelling” and working? Awesome, makes room for people without that kind of money to succeed.

            There’s a damn good reason in game design why you NEED to have drains and hard limits and maximums in any multiplayer economy. The game would fucking break or leave players miserable. But not here irl where there are actual stakes. Nope.

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      No one should have that much power.

      How do you reconcile that with government leaders having that much power?

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        With elections that monied interests can no longer purchase and disproportionately propagandize with their essentially limitless power/capital.

        They have politicians work against the people, then buy enough ad propaganda to convince people that was a good decision in their interests without that, politicians would rise and fall moreso on what they do in office.

        We are the weird ones in the developed world for allowing unlimited private money to pollute our politics, elections, and even buy sitting politicians though legalized political bribery superpacs. It got this way because of the influence of the wealth class being allowed in the first place using that in to expand its own power and ability to bribe, culminating in Citizens United.

        I think our eventual collapse will be tied directly to that SCOTUS decision.

      • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because in countries with functioning democracies, political power is narrowly scoped (your electors give you a mandate to do certain things, and if you act contrary to those interests you loose your power) and fleeting (you only have power as long as your electors continue to entrust that power to you, and can remove that power if they decide you are no longer fit to wield it).

        Money, by contrast, is permanent (capital breeds capital) and unaccountable (you can choose to use the power your wealth grants without any regard for what others think - even if people disapprove, they can’t stop you spending it)

        • Murdoc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          "The government has a defect: it’s potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they’re pure tyrannies.”

          — Noam Chomsky
          (Not exactly the same, but very similar.)