which ones do you think I missed?

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.”

AllonzeeLV, (edited )

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.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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, (edited )

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.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

thanks for explaining

Bipta,

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, (edited )

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,

No one should have that much power.

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

AllonzeeLV, (edited )

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,
@RegalPotoo@lemmy.world avatar

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,

"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.)

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

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.”

HerbalGamer,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

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.

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

Wouldn’t be the worst option out there, but I wouldn’t wish that on the woman.

LesserAbe,

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. https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/18e0c77d-e341-4343-bbeb-80a0c47c8be9.png

Bishma,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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.

blujan,

Imagine 5 thousand times that amount, like bezos or musk

Professorozone,

Whew! Dodged that bullet.

SpongyAneurism,

Lucky you!

g33z,

Image of me is missing but I still agree.

Cannacheques,

Haha love your humour dude

Rozauhtuno,
@Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.

ACAB

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I never heard the acronym before.
also, you could say that in case of Aaron Swatrz too.

Mubelotix,
@Mubelotix@jlai.lu avatar

What do people shout when they are hurt by police then?

beSyl,

Why are you saying that in relation to Ian? What do cops have to do with him?

NAXLAB, (edited )

Idk man we just saw a week ago how atrociously Linus used to treat people. Imagine combining that with enough greed to hold onto a billion dollars. Imagine what any of these people would be like if they were the type to ruthlessly exploit others to get rich. I think a billionaire Linus would be worse than Bill Gates. At least Gates is a nice guy.

It is the act of holding onto that much wealth that is immoral, not who is doing it. This is just fantasizing from a painfully neoliberal perspective: OP is imagining the world would be better if the good guys hoarded inconceivable amounts of wealth and exploited the labor of others.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I have a question:
almost every single person that you know as a good guy may have a little but of an uncanny side. at which point does a person not remain an overall good person?

or do we take the person for who he/she is, and use(and learn from)his/her actions as an example, both good and bad ones?

I’m asking primarily because I don’t know an answer to it.

VubDapple,

I haven’t met gates and I agree these days he comes across pleasantly, but perhaps you are not old enough to remember stories of what he was like in his 30s and 40s when Microsoft was younger. He was a tyrant and viscously anticompetitive. As a husband my understanding is that he cheated on his wife (not uncommon I know but still hurtful). He might have become a somewhat better person, maybe, but he certainly wasn’t one when he was making his fortune.

NAXLAB,

Oh yeah I know how predatory of a businessman he was, I just assumed he did it politely.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I have an unfavourable view of gates despite his philanthropic actions. mainly because of his buying of large farmlands and his opposition to freely licence astra zeneca’s vaccine.

avidamoeba,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

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

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I meant billionaires for their actions and creations, and not by birth like most techbros are.

Cralder,

That’s worse. You see how that is worse right?

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

yeah, now I do see that.

NAXLAB,

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,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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.

avidamoeba,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

then the lore of Linyos Torvoltos would’ve been true :p

NAXLAB,

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.

youpie,
@youpie@lemmy.emphisia.nl avatar

I dont want anybody to be a billionaire, also they couldn’t because to be one you have to be exploitative and a bad person

tygerprints,

That's not necessarily true. My cousin is the nicest person you could meet, he was a programmer who tinkered around with a package delivery tracking system, and Fexex bought him out for almost 2 billion. He became one of our wealthiest citizens overnight. And he's amazing, he doesn't exploit people and he is not a bad person by any definition.

owenfromcanada,
@owenfromcanada@lemmy.world avatar

Did he keep the 2 billion for himself?

I think the point is that anyone who gets and keeps that much money is not a good person. A billion dollars is more than any person could ever need for themselves. Consider that having a meager 10 million in the bank at a pitiful 2% return of interest would provide $200,000 per year, which is a very comfortable life. Who can justify keeping 100x that? And how can you justify it when a tiny fraction of that would revolutionize thousands of people’s lives?

hersh,

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,

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.

Kecessa,

There’s a whole bunch of people that deserve to become billionaires a lot more than people in tech and that would have a much better impact on the world if they did. I would much rather have a bunch of billionaire physicists, immunologists, virologists, pediatricians and so on.

yum_burnt_toast,
@yum_burnt_toast@reddthat.com avatar

that is a nice conundrum. almost like it is impossible to become a billonaire if the desire to benefit society is too high on your priority list.

empireOfLove,

But of course, such based individuals will never be billionaires. Specifically because their basedness precludes them from being psychopathic enough to commit the kind of cutthroat, violent exploitation of tens of thousands of workers’ labor inherently necessary to amass such wealth.

lemmesay,
@lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

when you put it that way, I realise how being so rich is anti to what most of these people are known for.

speaking of which, here’s a to-scale representation of how rich some people are.

Resol,
@Resol@lemmy.world avatar

The year Aaron Swartz died is the year that everything started going to shit.

semnosao,

it’s precisely that they don’t build themselves up by exploring the less privileged and really create value to society that we view them as good people. No billionaire is self-made, no billionaire is good. Eat the rich, help your communities, be kind.

Gentoo1337,
@Gentoo1337@sh.itjust.works avatar

Rest in peace Bram Moolenaar

merthyr1831,

Fundamentally speaking, none of these people would’ve ended up as billionaires for long. Most FOSS heavyweights already gave up their chance at being much more wealthy for their current roles. That being said, I’m pretty sure Linus and a few others here aren’t exactly short on cash

rockettaco37,
@rockettaco37@lemmy.world avatar

I’m sorry, but Stallman is an asshole…

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • linuxmemes@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #