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
    145
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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.

    • lemmesayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s alright mate. your rant helped me see things in a different light. so thank you.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      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
      8
      ·
      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
        13
        ·
        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.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year 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
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      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
        12
        ·
        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

        • aname@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

        • hersh@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

      • 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
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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.

      • d00phy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thats a fair point, but money changes people. That kind of money is obscene because it effectively puts you above most laws. I, too, would like to believe that the folks on this list would do only good with the money; but the longer the list, the more likely you witness the “Bad Change!” At the end of the day, most folks have families and other concerns outside of their public pursuits. That kind of money, while bringing its own problems, can get rid of just about any “normal people” worries (obviously not something like inoperable cancer)!

    • lemmesayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • NAXLAB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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.

        • lemmesayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          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.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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.

    • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      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.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

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

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    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👍
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

  • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    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.

    • lemmesayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one should have that much power.

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

      • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year 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
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.)

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aspiring to becoming and staying a billionaire requires a certain amount of psychopathy because it takes a certain mentality to want to own so much wealth that you’ll never be able to enjoy all of it in a lifetime while at the same time denying or taking away the wealth of others who might need it.

    If I had a billion, I’d take a few million and live off the interest and give away the rest and not be bothered by anyone or anything ever again.

    • lemmesayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • lemmesayOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        you can read everything in great detail and with citations here if you have the bandwidth.

        but I’m not sure if the commenter is mixing two unrelated accusations towards him.

        stallman is known for his fixation on certain choice of words, which is the reason most people get him wrong. that’s why I shared the link to read his exact words and make up your mind by yourself.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As funny as the thought of Stallman becoming a billionaire is, ultimately, like all celebrities, these people are strangers to the overwhelming majority of you. Parasocial relationships are never healthy, and the result of being put on a pedastal is that they became idols and symbols and ceases being people.

    And I don’t think that’s what they would have wanted.

    After all, the only good billionaire is a Barbi-onaire.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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