This is difficult to say without sounding snarky, but will 'all disease' include the mental disorders (both discovered and undiscovered) that Facebook inflicts upon its users? Depression from seeing other people's perfect lives, obsessive compulsive dopamine-fueled update checking to maximize Zuck's ad revenue etc.
I'm glad he's spending his money this way but how about the way he makes it. Facebook is not a particularly benign product and when you throw in the rising privacy, censorship, and "Free Basics" concerns, I would argue it's creeping towards having a net negative impact on the world.
I would have much more respect for Zuckerberg if he took a profit hit to fix his product and how his company interacts with the world. It's worth noting that Bill stepped away from Microsoft before he got deeply into philanthropy, in part to avoid conflict of interest. He knew he had a checkered past and he made a break with it. Zuck has a checkered present. Curing diseases in the developing world while pushing your product on it at the same time is somewhat morally ambiguous in my view.
I'm pretty sure the majority of people disagree with you on the value of Facebook. I know I do. I certainly disagree with the claim that Facebook "inflicts" mental disorders on its users.
So I'm not sure how you expect Mark Zuckerberg to "fix" a problem with his product that he probably doesn't think exists.
And may I add that, if every time someone decides to donate money to charity, people "beat up" on them, it's a pretty big disincentive to donate to charity.
Do you always assume that people who have differing opinions from yours must be heartless monsters and insult them? That must be a serious impediment to constructive discussion.
To put my point succinctly Zuckerberg hasn't demonstrated a great deal of social responsibility in running his business. There are problems much closer to his influence (literally caused by his product) which he doesn't even discuss in public, let alone try to solve. So when he announces he and his wife are going to effectively end the greatest cause of human suffering, some skepticism about his motives is totally legitimate. For instance, what strings will be attached to the receipt of this money?
The guy's running a business. He has a responsibility to his shareholders to make it as valuable as he can. Sticky apps/web sites lead to more ad impressions and higher prices. His business does not give people cancer or HIV.
You may find life more rewarding to assume people are good and try to see the best in people. As Dale Carnegie says in How to Win Friends and Influence People, if you assume the best in people and encourage them, they're more likely to want to live up to that image.
Capitalism's an economic system, not a moral one. He's got his responsibility to make money at any cost. Civic society has its responsibility to draw a line past which the cost is too high. History makes it clear that "assuming the best" about the actions of the rich and powerful hardly keeps them accountable.
I agree, social media is creating new social disorders and providing a platform for people to knowingly or unknowingly destroy their lives. Facebook enables people to display a very skewed version of reality and enough of that in someone's social circle leads to feelings of failure, unworthiness, depression, rejection etc. So whilst this is not a disease to be cured, it is still a health issue.
I'm glad he's spending his money this way but how about the way he makes it. Facebook is not a particularly benign product and when you throw in the rising privacy, censorship, and "Free Basics" concerns, I would argue it's creeping towards having a net negative impact on the world.
I would have much more respect for Zuckerberg if he took a profit hit to fix his product and how his company interacts with the world. It's worth noting that Bill stepped away from Microsoft before he got deeply into philanthropy, in part to avoid conflict of interest. He knew he had a checkered past and he made a break with it. Zuck has a checkered present. Curing diseases in the developing world while pushing your product on it at the same time is somewhat morally ambiguous in my view.