I'm inclined to think that Bill Gates has given up caring about what other people think of him. He can hold his head up knowing that he's doing what he can to make the world a better place. Trying to educate the unteachable is a lost cause, let it go
Ain't nobody unteachable. MAGAs and Marxists didn't come up with their ideologies on their own; someone taught them. If they were taught once, they can be taught again, if someone can just figure out how.
Even then, seems like there should be a way to provide counter-slop that validates their personal grievance and points it in more productive directions. Marxists and MAGA shouldn't have a monopoly on this tactic
How I wish that the other tech billionaires had decides to compete with Bill Gates on being the biggest philanthropist, rather than the opulent conspicuous-consumption/alpha-male dickishness they've actually decided are the status games that matter.
I didn’t know that grad students have their own jet and travel everywhere, and get movie cameos and date actresses and musicians, and get unflatteringly photographed on yachts, and keep impregnating different women?
Sure, there is that. But he doesn’t have big fancy houses, and he clearly doesn’t have a personal trainer. He sleeps in cots at his various business locations.
Possibly. I don’t particularly care. I’m not the one who is bothered by rich people spending their own money. If I were a billionaire, I’d have my own private submarine crewed by beautiful women in silver jumpsuits.
The world needs both philanthropists AND people who just keep founding new company after new company.
Gates has done sensational work on the health of poor children. And Musk has done sensational work creating the BEV industry, and private space launches, and neural implants, and humanoid robots, and...
Okay but these are not mutually exclusive categories.
Musk works 120 hours a week, so he says. That's enough time for entrepreneurship *and* philanthropy. In fact in Musk's case it's particularly galling because he has chosen to invest time and political capital taking support *away* from the global poor.
Is Musk treated unfairly? Because I think it’s pretty bizarre that the world’s richest man is 55 years old and calling historians cucks on social media because they liked a movie.
I'll be honest, I thought the allegation that he gave his wife an STD from an Epstein-supplied Russian hooker was accurate. Melinda seemed to all but confirm it in an interview, though I suppose embittered ex-wives aren't the best source. Also Buffett, his (one-time?) friend, just announced that he has stopped giving to the Gates Foundation.
This article really should have mentioned Buffett -- who, interestingly, isn't really hated, despite being a rich old man, and a Democrat at that. Bill might or might not care what we think of him, but Buffett has given Gates many tens of billions of dollars over the years. Maybe Buffett wasn't influenced by Gates' Epstein ties and this was just about deciding his children (ages 68-72) are now finally ready to manage charitable foundations, which I guess they weren't ready to do in their early 60s, but I don't buy it.
All that said, there's a valid point that the general practice of rich people buying a better rep through philanthropy is win-win for society, and we should probably go easy on the old boy. But amidst a widespread breakdown of trust in all institutions, I wouldn't bet on it happening.
EDIT: Mea culpa, I missed the Buffett reference in my first read, though I still think it's a bigger story.
As you scroll down, especially as you get to page 2 and beyond, you'll notice many names on the list you've never heard of. Presumably, in part because they prefer to keep a low profile.
Wealthy people inherently have a target on their back. Most of the billionaires with a big public profile are new money tech guys in the USA. Even some in that category, like Page and Brin, are relatively quiet.
In terms of the public reaction, leftists would much rather you quietly buy yourself a yacht than loudly announce a philanthropic initiative. Pretty bleak when doing the right thing gets you hate.
The early 2000s were a special time when it wasn't evil to be rich, and in return rich people were more interested in philanthropy, sharing their secrets for success, and so on.
Be serious, the left don't hate him for his philanthropic endeavors, this is nonsense. The ones with the theories on his vaccine stuff are on the right. The current ire against him on the left is because of the Epstein thing and like everyone mentioned even passingly on those files have been attacked justly and unjustly. His philanthropic endeavors is clearly why he had a favorable view on the left for years
It's not about Gates in particular. The broader point is, there is a common and well-articulated leftist critique of "billionaire philanthropy". Yet "billionaire consumption" is often ignored.
I still remember when Zuck announced he was donating 99%. The internet erupted with anger.
I'm tempted to argue that Anand Giridharadas is one of the worst people who ever lived--considering the number of billionaires who would've signed the Giving Pledge, and the number of lives that would've been saved, if it wasn't for Giridharadas and his smug "critiques".
It's not common anymore, Zuck philanthropy is not why he's hated on the left.
And it's not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored! What are you talking about. Taylor Swift got a bunch of flak for her wedding, Bezos as well, Ivanka and stuff. They have been mocking the billionaire bunkers and private islands and "yachts" for years now. This is just not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored.
>And it's not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored! What are you talking about. Taylor Swift got a bunch of flak for her wedding, Bezos as well, Ivanka and stuff. They have been mocking the billionaire bunkers and private islands and "yachts" for years now. This is just not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored.
I mean, I see more critiques of their philanthropy than anything, but sure maybe.
There's way more critiques of their consumption! Where are you seeing more critiques of their philanthropy on the left than of their consumption? Even Piker almost never talks of their "philanthropy" beyond they should be doing more or it's not effective enough.
Nope, Billionaire philanthropy is more common than ever. Don't know where you are getting these wrong info from
I agree with most of your points of how ridiculous it is to villanize the very wealthy, but...
I think this article misses the Microsoft business model in the 1980s and 1990s which was presumably established within the organization by Bill Gates himself.
Microsoft repeatedly:
1) purchased/copied/stole products from other companies,
2) leveraged those into virtual private monopolies often by bundling with their other products, and
3) then used those monopoly rents to purchase/copy/steal ideas from other companies in another market,
4) repeat endlessly until they were passed up by Apple, Google, and Amazon.
Ironically, all that has been forgotten in the rush to focus on vaccines and Jeffrey Epstein.
Usually your analysis is a lot better than the above, Michael.
Lumping “purchase/copy” - which you know well are perfectly legitimate, beneficial business tactics - together with “steal” is beneath you.
Almost as bad is the criticism of hardball business tactics, a few of which may indeed have been real abuses of “monopoly” power, but many were just EU and occasionally overzealous USG officials abusing *their* own monopoly positions on violence and lawfare.
Apple does plenty of “bundling” itself, of course. Even if we accept the premise that *some* of the time such bundling is a violation of law, it does not follow that most of the time it is, and surely does not follow that most of the time consumers are worse off because of such bundling.
There is a legit critique of Gates and Microsoft within what you wrote, but you vastly overstate it when you casually lump in purchase, copy and broad accusations of monopoly power abuse with stealing and narrower abuses of market power.
I use the term “purchased/copied/stole” to leave it up to the reader which one they thought was more accurate. I never claimed illegality, nor did I claim that Microsoft was unique.
My main point:
1) Microsoft rarely innovated new software types. Other companies did.
2)Microsoft used their near OS monopoly to get that software innovated by others.
3) Then Microsoft bundled the software and effectively forced PC purchaser to use it.
4) This created a network effect that gave them a new near monopoly.
5) Then they often stifled innovation in that domain internally and bought up potential competitors before they got big enough to compete.
Here some examples:
Digital Research (CP/M) > MS-DOS
IBM giving Microsoft a monopoly of PC OS even though Microsoft did not even have an OS at the time of agreement.
Xerox and Apple > Windows
WordPerfect > Word
Lotus > Excel
Netscape > Internet Explorer
They each achieved 90+% global market share, so that is clearly a private near monopoly.
I am sure that there a plenty of examples that I do not know about.
I used to work for Microsoft, so I stand by my claim. And it was not narrow. It was clearly their business model.
I think Gates has had a little more time to launder his wealth into philanthropy than Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg. Which, of course, is what Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc. did before *him*, so it's not like he's uniquely evil or good as far as greedy rich guys go.
I'm old enough to remember the 'Billgatus of Borg' webpage from the 90s.
They were playing hardball and basically breaking antitrust rules, but that’s not why he’s hated today. Today it’s because he pays for vaccines and clean water infrastructure for poor people and tells the world to eat more plant based foods.
Gates had a nearly 20 year long run as the richest man in America. During that time he became a target for the Democratic establishment (for not giving them enough money). He was the first of his type to become a celebrity billionaire. Importantly, he was the reigning wealthiest man at the end of the monoculture. That legacy status makes him a much more popular target for conspiracy theorists. He decided to use his fortune helping the world worst off people, who by definition are people who nobody else cares about. That's commendable, but it doesn't make you any friends in Washington or the media (either legacy or social). That hurt his causes when the Democrats/legacy media establishment decide to use him in their Epstein psy-op. But that'll blow over. I doubt he cares much about idiots on Twitter at all.
It very much was until 10 years ago. The GOP's populist turn is one of the more interesting political developments for those of us who have been around a while.
There’s nothing surprising about the GOP’s conspiracist turn because they’ve been doing that for 70+ years now, and it increased after they crushed their moderate wing. Barack Obama being born in Africa; the Clintons apparently having some absurd body count, Michelle Obama being a man, etc. It goes on and on.
I think on the Left Gates is still somewhat popular but there was no way he was escaping the Epstein fallout even amongst them. I think the hate for him on the right is partly driven by his perceived liberal alignment.
But Bill Gates actually did try to defend himself, he explained the whole thing to his Gates foundation members and it was all reported by WSJ directly.
Think you should always hold off on the "it's because he's rich shit", Elon was not very unpopular till he started talking Politics, same with Sergey Brin, Bezos hasn't been talking politics much but he's been talking more. Warren is not unpopular and he's not really quiet about politics historically, Larry Page is not unpopular.
Much less richer people had huge negative hits on their career over similar filmsy accusations of Epstein link here.
He definitely had sex with prostitutes on Epstein’s island, though I genuinely wonder why guys like him don’t have discreet sexual encounters with women and make them sign NDAs. Why go to some creep’s island when said creep’s source of wealth is suspect? I’m shocked all these rich guys allowed themselves to get honeypotted.
Based on those files, they aligned more with his explanation that he had two affairs and Epstein found out through a close adviser he fired and tried to blackmail him with it. No need to speculate on more stuff with no evidence
So Gates’ assistant blabbed to Epstein? That’s actually more impressive than the island prostitution allegation because Epstein could get close to anyone in a person’s inner circle, if true.
Bill Gates was clearly a high brain power individual, but his real talent was as a ruthless businessman. Back when computers came with DOS, he had contracts with manufacturers that paid him for DOS on every computer they sold whether they included DOS or not. He kept these contracts secret for as long as he could. Back when Microsoft and Lotus were the main big software rivals, there was a saying, "Windows ain't done till Lotus won't run." The legacy lives on at Microsoft. Note how hard it is to dual boot Windows and Linux.
Sure, everything written here is true - Gates should not be despised because of his world-improving philanthropic work, his tenuous connection to Epstein, or his status as a wealthy man. However, there are plenty of reasons why he is generally not thought well of by non-stupid, non-conspiratorial people, which are omitted in this piece.
Among them:
- His terrible, Steve Jobs-like reputation as a business professional - venal, abusive, and credibly sexually predatory
- The impact of his stewardship of Microsoft during the era when truly superior OSes were forestalled by anti-competitive practices. Windows was truly the worst among alternatives, yet we're still saddled with it decades later, because Microsoft choked the other babies in the crib, not because it made good software.
So like everyone, he has done good things and bad things in life. On balance, more good than bad, but we shouldn't completely whitewash him because bad actors have misrepresented some of his efforts.
I was broke and went to work for Gates at 53 years old. I retired a multi-millionaire 8 years later. However laudable his charitable work, my story and tens of thousands similar show just how much wealth he created. Then think about how beneficial personal computers and all that followed have been.
"Gates is at the other end of the spectrum, simply refusing to stand up for himself, regardless of how much the facts are on his side." I think that Gates has long ago learned that each of us only holds so much energy. And I believe that he simply doesn't want to spend his personal energy fighting a cause that is basically out of his hands and, honestly, meaningless. He's going to just keep on keeping on, doing the good altruistic work he's been doing, and attempting to leave the drama behind. People are going to believe what they choose to believe. Thank you for this article; it's important, and I'm glad you wrote it.
Gates' vaccine philanthropy is pure eugenics. He is doing the world a favor only if looked at through a Malthusian lense: cull the African population through vaccination (and earn big bucks by being invested in Big Pharma). I guess Hanania and friends never met a plutocrat who didn't prove their pet IQ elitist theories; posts like this read like job applications addressed to the wealthy "geniuses" who they suck up to. Gates can't stand up for himself, because the facts are not in his favor.
“Here is the extent of the relationship: Gates had a private foundation with a focus on global health. Epstein presented himself as someone who could persuade extremely wealthy clients to direct billions toward charity, in addition to being wealthy himself, so between 2011 and 2014, they met numerous times, with Gates hoping to get funding for his work.”
This claim that that was the “extent” of the relationship ignores the obvious evidence that this is not what Melinda believes.
If your gonna cite a People Magazine interview obviously done for PR purposes, perhaps you should also site the piece linked with in about Melinda not being happy with that Epstein relationship.
Gee, maybe the rest of us aren’t as stupid as you are trying to make us out as on this subject because we judge based on Melinda’s actions and not PR words.
To be clear, on all of the substantive non-Epstein parts of this piece - at least, other than the ones where he takes his regular gratuitous shots at Trump and MAGA - I think Richard is probably correct in his analysis and commentary in defense of Gates.
But the Epstein part?
Richard is the one acting on misinformation and doing low information motivated reasoning.
I'm inclined to think that Bill Gates has given up caring about what other people think of him. He can hold his head up knowing that he's doing what he can to make the world a better place. Trying to educate the unteachable is a lost cause, let it go
People have hated Bill Gates since the ’80s.
For different reasons.
Ain't nobody unteachable. MAGAs and Marxists didn't come up with their ideologies on their own; someone taught them. If they were taught once, they can be taught again, if someone can just figure out how.
That's closer to "gave a slop framework to validate a personal grievance" than to education.
Even then, seems like there should be a way to provide counter-slop that validates their personal grievance and points it in more productive directions. Marxists and MAGA shouldn't have a monopoly on this tactic
How I wish that the other tech billionaires had decides to compete with Bill Gates on being the biggest philanthropist, rather than the opulent conspicuous-consumption/alpha-male dickishness they've actually decided are the status games that matter.
Say what you want about Musk, he lives like a grad student.
I didn’t know that grad students have their own jet and travel everywhere, and get movie cameos and date actresses and musicians, and get unflatteringly photographed on yachts, and keep impregnating different women?
Sure, there is that. But he doesn’t have big fancy houses, and he clearly doesn’t have a personal trainer. He sleeps in cots at his various business locations.
He did have a big mansion in L.A. and I suspect that his accommodations are a lot less Spartan than he wants you to believe.
Possibly. I don’t particularly care. I’m not the one who is bothered by rich people spending their own money. If I were a billionaire, I’d have my own private submarine crewed by beautiful women in silver jumpsuits.
I guess that's fair about Musk. It's Bezos and Zuckerberg who are really leading the bullshit parade on that score.
I hold many things against Zuck.
But his decision to spend still tiny amounts of his net worth for his own personal consumption ain’t one of them.
Envy is a destructive emotion, and robs one of their credibility.
Unless, perhaps, you are a confirmed leftist, in which case it’s to be expected…
Zuck announced he was donating 99%
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-giving-away-99-of-his-facebook-shares-2015-12
As a grad student, I protest :D But yeah, I guess I know what you mean.
The world needs both philanthropists AND people who just keep founding new company after new company.
Gates has done sensational work on the health of poor children. And Musk has done sensational work creating the BEV industry, and private space launches, and neural implants, and humanoid robots, and...
Okay but these are not mutually exclusive categories.
Musk works 120 hours a week, so he says. That's enough time for entrepreneurship *and* philanthropy. In fact in Musk's case it's particularly galling because he has chosen to invest time and political capital taking support *away* from the global poor.
If one is investing billions of dollars in companies in new industries, those are billions of dollars that can't be invested in philanthropy.
Is Musk treated unfairly? Because I think it’s pretty bizarre that the world’s richest man is 55 years old and calling historians cucks on social media because they liked a movie.
I don't think bad tweets are worse than Tesla and SpaceX are good.
On the other hand, he did orchestrate the defining of USAID.
Tesla doesn’t even make the best electric cars anymore and if there weren’t tariffs on BYD they’d probably have been sold off by now.
I have no idea how good or bad BYD is. Do MT, C&D, have copies to play with them?
They’re said to be superior in build quality but Tesla gives more computing features.
I'll be honest, I thought the allegation that he gave his wife an STD from an Epstein-supplied Russian hooker was accurate. Melinda seemed to all but confirm it in an interview, though I suppose embittered ex-wives aren't the best source. Also Buffett, his (one-time?) friend, just announced that he has stopped giving to the Gates Foundation.
This article really should have mentioned Buffett -- who, interestingly, isn't really hated, despite being a rich old man, and a Democrat at that. Bill might or might not care what we think of him, but Buffett has given Gates many tens of billions of dollars over the years. Maybe Buffett wasn't influenced by Gates' Epstein ties and this was just about deciding his children (ages 68-72) are now finally ready to manage charitable foundations, which I guess they weren't ready to do in their early 60s, but I don't buy it.
All that said, there's a valid point that the general practice of rich people buying a better rep through philanthropy is win-win for society, and we should probably go easy on the old boy. But amidst a widespread breakdown of trust in all institutions, I wouldn't bet on it happening.
EDIT: Mea culpa, I missed the Buffett reference in my first read, though I still think it's a bigger story.
"I thought the allegation that he gave his wife an STD from an Epstein-supplied Russian hooker was accurate"
Of course you did, you're probably willing to believe the worst about anyone even if the source is the devil himself, Jeffrey Epstein.
And the article does mention Buffet.
Good catch on Buffett, though I'm not going to engage with you, given your tone.
Here is the Forbes billionaire list:
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
As you scroll down, especially as you get to page 2 and beyond, you'll notice many names on the list you've never heard of. Presumably, in part because they prefer to keep a low profile.
Wealthy people inherently have a target on their back. Most of the billionaires with a big public profile are new money tech guys in the USA. Even some in that category, like Page and Brin, are relatively quiet.
In terms of the public reaction, leftists would much rather you quietly buy yourself a yacht than loudly announce a philanthropic initiative. Pretty bleak when doing the right thing gets you hate.
The early 2000s were a special time when it wasn't evil to be rich, and in return rich people were more interested in philanthropy, sharing their secrets for success, and so on.
Be serious, the left don't hate him for his philanthropic endeavors, this is nonsense. The ones with the theories on his vaccine stuff are on the right. The current ire against him on the left is because of the Epstein thing and like everyone mentioned even passingly on those files have been attacked justly and unjustly. His philanthropic endeavors is clearly why he had a favorable view on the left for years
It's not about Gates in particular. The broader point is, there is a common and well-articulated leftist critique of "billionaire philanthropy". Yet "billionaire consumption" is often ignored.
I still remember when Zuck announced he was donating 99%. The internet erupted with anger.
I'm tempted to argue that Anand Giridharadas is one of the worst people who ever lived--considering the number of billionaires who would've signed the Giving Pledge, and the number of lives that would've been saved, if it wasn't for Giridharadas and his smug "critiques".
It's not common anymore, Zuck philanthropy is not why he's hated on the left.
And it's not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored! What are you talking about. Taylor Swift got a bunch of flak for her wedding, Bezos as well, Ivanka and stuff. They have been mocking the billionaire bunkers and private islands and "yachts" for years now. This is just not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored.
>It's not common anymore
Giridharadas and friends made billionaire philanthropy less common, yes.
>Zuck philanthropy is not why he's hated on the left.
People got really mad in 2015 when he announced his big giving plans. https://qz.com/564805/5-criticisms-of-billionaire-mega-philanthropy-debunked
>And it's not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored! What are you talking about. Taylor Swift got a bunch of flak for her wedding, Bezos as well, Ivanka and stuff. They have been mocking the billionaire bunkers and private islands and "yachts" for years now. This is just not true that billionaire consumption is often ignored.
I mean, I see more critiques of their philanthropy than anything, but sure maybe.
There's way more critiques of their consumption! Where are you seeing more critiques of their philanthropy on the left than of their consumption? Even Piker almost never talks of their "philanthropy" beyond they should be doing more or it's not effective enough.
Nope, Billionaire philanthropy is more common than ever. Don't know where you are getting these wrong info from
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/business/the-billionaire-backlash-against-a-philanthropic-dream.html
I agree with most of your points of how ridiculous it is to villanize the very wealthy, but...
I think this article misses the Microsoft business model in the 1980s and 1990s which was presumably established within the organization by Bill Gates himself.
Microsoft repeatedly:
1) purchased/copied/stole products from other companies,
2) leveraged those into virtual private monopolies often by bundling with their other products, and
3) then used those monopoly rents to purchase/copy/steal ideas from other companies in another market,
4) repeat endlessly until they were passed up by Apple, Google, and Amazon.
Ironically, all that has been forgotten in the rush to focus on vaccines and Jeffrey Epstein.
Hmmmm…
Usually your analysis is a lot better than the above, Michael.
Lumping “purchase/copy” - which you know well are perfectly legitimate, beneficial business tactics - together with “steal” is beneath you.
Almost as bad is the criticism of hardball business tactics, a few of which may indeed have been real abuses of “monopoly” power, but many were just EU and occasionally overzealous USG officials abusing *their* own monopoly positions on violence and lawfare.
Apple does plenty of “bundling” itself, of course. Even if we accept the premise that *some* of the time such bundling is a violation of law, it does not follow that most of the time it is, and surely does not follow that most of the time consumers are worse off because of such bundling.
There is a legit critique of Gates and Microsoft within what you wrote, but you vastly overstate it when you casually lump in purchase, copy and broad accusations of monopoly power abuse with stealing and narrower abuses of market power.
I use the term “purchased/copied/stole” to leave it up to the reader which one they thought was more accurate. I never claimed illegality, nor did I claim that Microsoft was unique.
My main point:
1) Microsoft rarely innovated new software types. Other companies did.
2)Microsoft used their near OS monopoly to get that software innovated by others.
3) Then Microsoft bundled the software and effectively forced PC purchaser to use it.
4) This created a network effect that gave them a new near monopoly.
5) Then they often stifled innovation in that domain internally and bought up potential competitors before they got big enough to compete.
Here some examples:
Digital Research (CP/M) > MS-DOS
IBM giving Microsoft a monopoly of PC OS even though Microsoft did not even have an OS at the time of agreement.
Xerox and Apple > Windows
WordPerfect > Word
Lotus > Excel
Netscape > Internet Explorer
They each achieved 90+% global market share, so that is clearly a private near monopoly.
I am sure that there a plenty of examples that I do not know about.
I used to work for Microsoft, so I stand by my claim. And it was not narrow. It was clearly their business model.
I think Gates has had a little more time to launder his wealth into philanthropy than Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg. Which, of course, is what Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc. did before *him*, so it's not like he's uniquely evil or good as far as greedy rich guys go.
I'm old enough to remember the 'Billgatus of Borg' webpage from the 90s.
They were playing hardball and basically breaking antitrust rules, but that’s not why he’s hated today. Today it’s because he pays for vaccines and clean water infrastructure for poor people and tells the world to eat more plant based foods.
Yes, that is why I wrote “ Ironically, all that has been forgotten in the rush to focus on vaccines and Jeffrey Epstein.”
Me old Linux nerd, still what I hate him for. (I'm not actually old, but old enough to remember it.)
(As for the microchips in my vaccines: how do I program them?)
Gates had a nearly 20 year long run as the richest man in America. During that time he became a target for the Democratic establishment (for not giving them enough money). He was the first of his type to become a celebrity billionaire. Importantly, he was the reigning wealthiest man at the end of the monoculture. That legacy status makes him a much more popular target for conspiracy theorists. He decided to use his fortune helping the world worst off people, who by definition are people who nobody else cares about. That's commendable, but it doesn't make you any friends in Washington or the media (either legacy or social). That hurt his causes when the Democrats/legacy media establishment decide to use him in their Epstein psy-op. But that'll blow over. I doubt he cares much about idiots on Twitter at all.
It ain't the Democrats who believe this shit, dummy.
It very much was until 10 years ago. The GOP's populist turn is one of the more interesting political developments for those of us who have been around a while.
There’s nothing surprising about the GOP’s conspiracist turn because they’ve been doing that for 70+ years now, and it increased after they crushed their moderate wing. Barack Obama being born in Africa; the Clintons apparently having some absurd body count, Michelle Obama being a man, etc. It goes on and on.
I think on the Left Gates is still somewhat popular but there was no way he was escaping the Epstein fallout even amongst them. I think the hate for him on the right is partly driven by his perceived liberal alignment.
But Bill Gates actually did try to defend himself, he explained the whole thing to his Gates foundation members and it was all reported by WSJ directly.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-apologizes-to-foundation-staff-over-epstein-ties-67f39ef5
Think you should always hold off on the "it's because he's rich shit", Elon was not very unpopular till he started talking Politics, same with Sergey Brin, Bezos hasn't been talking politics much but he's been talking more. Warren is not unpopular and he's not really quiet about politics historically, Larry Page is not unpopular.
Much less richer people had huge negative hits on their career over similar filmsy accusations of Epstein link here.
He definitely had sex with prostitutes on Epstein’s island, though I genuinely wonder why guys like him don’t have discreet sexual encounters with women and make them sign NDAs. Why go to some creep’s island when said creep’s source of wealth is suspect? I’m shocked all these rich guys allowed themselves to get honeypotted.
There's no indication of that in those files so not "definitely".
Ok, but still highly likely. Not the worst crime in the world but still something he could be blackmailed over.
Based on those files, they aligned more with his explanation that he had two affairs and Epstein found out through a close adviser he fired and tried to blackmail him with it. No need to speculate on more stuff with no evidence
So Gates’ assistant blabbed to Epstein? That’s actually more impressive than the island prostitution allegation because Epstein could get close to anyone in a person’s inner circle, if true.
Bill Gates was clearly a high brain power individual, but his real talent was as a ruthless businessman. Back when computers came with DOS, he had contracts with manufacturers that paid him for DOS on every computer they sold whether they included DOS or not. He kept these contracts secret for as long as he could. Back when Microsoft and Lotus were the main big software rivals, there was a saying, "Windows ain't done till Lotus won't run." The legacy lives on at Microsoft. Note how hard it is to dual boot Windows and Linux.
Sure, everything written here is true - Gates should not be despised because of his world-improving philanthropic work, his tenuous connection to Epstein, or his status as a wealthy man. However, there are plenty of reasons why he is generally not thought well of by non-stupid, non-conspiratorial people, which are omitted in this piece.
Among them:
- His terrible, Steve Jobs-like reputation as a business professional - venal, abusive, and credibly sexually predatory
- The impact of his stewardship of Microsoft during the era when truly superior OSes were forestalled by anti-competitive practices. Windows was truly the worst among alternatives, yet we're still saddled with it decades later, because Microsoft choked the other babies in the crib, not because it made good software.
So like everyone, he has done good things and bad things in life. On balance, more good than bad, but we shouldn't completely whitewash him because bad actors have misrepresented some of his efforts.
As a daily Linux user and formerly kind of intense about it I can't believe that I'm now a fan of Bill Gates. College me would have slapped myself.
Any Rand idea of “hatred of the good for being the good” is also relevant here.
I would pay to see Bill Gates quote Ayn Rand. Not a lot, but some.
I was broke and went to work for Gates at 53 years old. I retired a multi-millionaire 8 years later. However laudable his charitable work, my story and tens of thousands similar show just how much wealth he created. Then think about how beneficial personal computers and all that followed have been.
"Gates is at the other end of the spectrum, simply refusing to stand up for himself, regardless of how much the facts are on his side." I think that Gates has long ago learned that each of us only holds so much energy. And I believe that he simply doesn't want to spend his personal energy fighting a cause that is basically out of his hands and, honestly, meaningless. He's going to just keep on keeping on, doing the good altruistic work he's been doing, and attempting to leave the drama behind. People are going to believe what they choose to believe. Thank you for this article; it's important, and I'm glad you wrote it.
Gates' vaccine philanthropy is pure eugenics. He is doing the world a favor only if looked at through a Malthusian lense: cull the African population through vaccination (and earn big bucks by being invested in Big Pharma). I guess Hanania and friends never met a plutocrat who didn't prove their pet IQ elitist theories; posts like this read like job applications addressed to the wealthy "geniuses" who they suck up to. Gates can't stand up for himself, because the facts are not in his favor.
I think it's good when small children don't die of preventable illnesses, and bad when they do. If this makes me a "eugenicist," then so be it.
Based!
eugenics is when you don't die of measles age 3 apparently
So True. Thank you. Greetings from Denmark.
“Here is the extent of the relationship: Gates had a private foundation with a focus on global health. Epstein presented himself as someone who could persuade extremely wealthy clients to direct billions toward charity, in addition to being wealthy himself, so between 2011 and 2014, they met numerous times, with Gates hoping to get funding for his work.”
This claim that that was the “extent” of the relationship ignores the obvious evidence that this is not what Melinda believes.
If your gonna cite a People Magazine interview obviously done for PR purposes, perhaps you should also site the piece linked with in about Melinda not being happy with that Epstein relationship.
Gee, maybe the rest of us aren’t as stupid as you are trying to make us out as on this subject because we judge based on Melinda’s actions and not PR words.
To be clear, on all of the substantive non-Epstein parts of this piece - at least, other than the ones where he takes his regular gratuitous shots at Trump and MAGA - I think Richard is probably correct in his analysis and commentary in defense of Gates.
But the Epstein part?
Richard is the one acting on misinformation and doing low information motivated reasoning.