There was an interesting skirmish in the headlines (the small ones on inner pages of the endangered papers) last week. Apparently, Mark Zuckerberg said connectivity was a human right--internet for all, world saved, yay!Gates said interconnectivity as a world savior was "a joke."
Apparently some unnamed entrepreneur echoed the latter in The New Yorker, saying that thinking Facebook was a panacea for the world's problems isn't cynicism, but arrogance and ignorance.
Gates, who is well known for, along with his wife, Melinda, for spending billions on eradicating malaria and polio, said, "What is more important, connectivity or malaria vaccine?"He went on to say that he loved IT, but when you want to improve lives you need to deal with basics like keeping kids alive and feeding them.
I read one story where the writer went on to say that everything Zuckerberg put into FB, he could have dedicated to curing TB.
Does expanding connectivity get Zuckerberg more FB users? Sure. But so would keeping more people alive.
I guess it comes down to your priorities. Theirs differ. And if more people use the internet, I am sure Gates get some of that, too.
So what do you think?
Or do you feel antsy when moguls fight?
