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
    12
    ·
    1 year 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
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

          • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know, but there probably should be a line somewhere. More wealth than 99.9% of the rest of the planet sounds like a good place to start

        • hersh@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
    3
    ·
    1 year 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
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
    2
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • NAXLAB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • idk837384@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

  • Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have a standing theory that once a person is no longer concerned about their welfare or the welfare of their descendants, they go crazy.

    Like, once you reach a point where survival is no longer a problem, that part of your brain goes nuts. It’s not a flawless theory, since philanthropy is a thing and people like Dean Kamen exist, but it’s a thing that seems to happen an awful lot.