I applaud the practical impact of this act, however I do not view it as charity. Acts of charity are anonymous. Charitable donations made in a highly public manner are publicity.

You bring up a good point about charity and anonymity. In general the act of making a wide public announcement about one's charitable acts is strong evidence that it's being done for publicity or is primarily self serving in some way.

In this specific case however, he is financing a public health initiative in a geographical area where many residents read his blog, therefore getting the word out that the shots are available through one's blog is not an unreasonable way to make sure the effort is effective and makes a difference. Many who read his blog will reblog and word gets out. Let's compare this to a nun who arranges for free flu shots at Target instead. If no one knows about it, then it doesn't do any good. Those who can't afford the shots are not going to go in and ask on the off chance a donor has provided them. One wants to get the word out. Is she being self-serving by announcing to people that the shots are available? It seems unfair to make that assumption.

He could have set the entire thing up and then said, "I found out there are free flu shots at Target."

And then he gets accused of astro-turfing. Basically, because of some ridiculous idea of anonymity in charity, you suggest he should deliberately mislead.

George Orwell would have been most proud.

Or he could make the statement more noteworthy by lending his celebrity to the cause like he did. The point is getting more kids flu shots. Is it so bad to spread word on this "obviously self-serving promotion"?

The man's point is simply that in his view charity is supposed to be an act of selflessness, and selflessness is supported by namelessness. He is allowed to have this view of what constitutes charity; many people do.

I disagree that "I paid for free flu shots at Target" is going to spread faster than "There are free flu shots at Target". Obviously I can't prove it, but even if you were right, I think the reduced amount of publicity might teach the man about the nature of humility and working quietly and diligently behind the scenes to effect change.

What's the big deal about an act of charity being 'selfless'? Doing good things in the world should make people feel proud of themselves. Sure, it's not as 'pure' if the actions are motivated by pride and ego, but what does it matter? Good things are being done regardless. We should be applauding the generosity and positive impact of the deed, not nitpicking over its altruistic imperfection.

You reasonably ask, "What's the big deal about an act of charity being 'selfless'?"

It comes from certain specific ancient theologies which adopt philosophical positions of endorsing anonymous giving.

In christian theology, for example, there is the principle "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing". Back in those days some almsgivers would carry a bell and ring it as they gave out money to the poor, calling attention to themselves. It's possibly the bell ringing practice originated in wanting to let the poor know that alms were available, but christian texts clearly indicate that it had become a way of calling attention to oneself for their charity works. To this end, some persons donated in order to receive admiration from others, not out of compassion for the less fortunate. It was thus mentioned "they have already received their reward". This was contrasted to anonymous giving and a future reward in heaven as an alternative. But note still the person is doing it in expectation of receiving a reward, and not out of a sense of compassion.

Unfortunately, in the modern times, these principles are not normally brought up by others that share one's religion, but rather as a debate tactic to make others look bad and put down those who are trying to make a difference, regardless of any faith issues.

This principle is often brought up, as we see here, in order to pass judgment against those who give charity. Those who pass this judgment sit in self-righteous judgment of others rather than "minding their own business" as these judeo-christian writings also implore. Thus those making such pronouncements are picking and choosing that which makes them happy. The judgers judge because it makes them feel good about themselves, not because they are members of the same church as Larry Page (who is actually atheist, according to various sources) or others who are merely concerned with them having the right motivation in alignment with their communal belief system. The judgers have received their reward - a smug feeling of superiority over others who work to help the less fortunate.

Yeah, but you're also not Larry Page (I assume) nor do you probably have 4.6 million followers on your G+ page.

Lots of companies and other organizations give out free or discounted flu shots every year, but they don't get the publicity this does. Raising awareness is a big part of maximizing the value of this effort, since the shots don't just benefit the individual getting them but their community as well (since it reduces transmission overall.)

Publicizing charity work does not necessarily mean that it's a selfish act. I think Larry Page's G+ post shows this fairly clearly. To say otherwise is a non sequitur.

Ironic that "georgeorwell" promotes manipulating the public through secret actions instead of transparently telling people about ones doings.

Teaching Larry Page humility is less important than getting the job done. The man has more money than god and he still goes to work every day, even after issues that forced him to stop doing his public CEO work for a while. How much humility does he need?

He didn't even use the word "I" in the announcement. It was a sentence fragment. He said "Personally providing", an neogrammatical construct whose only purpose is to downplay the subject of the sentence.

Charity definition in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29

Nowhere does the word anonymous appear. Words are not defined by your view of them, but by common usage (in English). And charity and publicity are not mutually exclusive.

What a terrible world it would be if society rewarded giving so much that wealthy people and corporations climbed over each other to give as much as possible, just for the publicity. There'd be no more charity!

No, charity is not defined by whether the donor is anonymous or not.

"Acts of charity are anonymous."

That's not how other people use the word. You should pick a different word if you're going to have your own private definition.

I don't know what a karamat is or why that would be more useful for this purpose than a dictionary.

I have a deep, abiding, and life long love for dictionaries, though I have found their use as a tool to find meaning more valuable than their use as a cudgel to silence comment.

You appear to be attempting a philosophical debate on the nature of giving, but have worded it as a definitional construct that's contradicted by common dictionaries and usage. That's all I'm after. If you want to argue that giving is best when anonymous, go wild, just don't frame it such that it looks like you're trying to use your own private definition of common words.

I truly apologize for responding to what I perceived to be your tone rather than to the substance of what you were saying. You are correct, and I should have given the initial comment more extensive and explicit context.

Civility on the internet! I appreciate it. I do think your greater point about the nature of giving is worth exploring... just perhaps with better words.

Disagreeing with you and trying to silence you are two very different things.

1. Some authorities recommend anonymity (I think Maimonides spoke well of it) or at least discretion, as in the various New Testament injunctions. However, some acts of charity cannot be accomplished anonymously (cf. the parable of the Good Samaritan). 2. Larry Ellison needs more publicity about as much as Kevin Durant needs elevator shoes. If he wishes to spend the money on providing flu shots rather than on yacht or spouse upgrades, I'm not going to blame him.

Um, this is Larry Page not Ellison. Very different men in many ways.

My bad.

How is 1 relevant? Christianity didn't invent charity.

No, and Maimonides was not Christian. However, a large portion of the body of at least European and American thought on charity comes out of the Christian tradition.

To all those downvoting vectorbunny's comment:

The downvote is not meant to say "I disagree", it is meant to be used to get rid of spam, trolls or comments not adding to the discussion. If you disagree, respond to the comment with your reasons for disagreeing, like all the quality responses to vectorbunny's comment.

Heck, you might even upvote comments you disagree with if you think they add value to the discussion.

I'd really like to agree with you but unfortunately, pg has previously stated that down voting was OK to express disagreement. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

I see that you disagreed with my comment. If you had silently downvoted me (as is "ok" to do), the discussion goes nowhere. Instead you did the noble thing and responded to my comment with an counterpoint.

So, I ask you, which makes for a better HN? One where people downvote to disagree, or where people respond explaining why they disagree?

In my mind it is the latter behavior that makes HN a good place to be.

So regardless of what pg has stated I will continue to believe that it is far better (for HN) to respond to comments I disagree with than to downvote them, for down-voting (aka punishing) someone for saying something I don't agree with doesn't help me, it doesn't help the commenter, it doesn't help HN. So what's the point?

I largely agree. If you're making a donation and you aren't anonymous to everyone but the people who have some control over the money being donated, your ego is involved somewhere. I wouldn't say that non-anonymous donations aren't charity, but rather that they are charity with strings attached. And this does look like a publicity stunt, despite whatever the man's intentions may be.

Also, vectorbunny has a deep philosophical and spiritual point here, as he later elaborates on, and I don't believe he deserves the downvotes simply for stating his view of true charity. Yes, in the United States, the word charity doesn't imply anonymous donations, but charity is an ancient concept going back to the dawn of civilization.

Kids get some flu shots, Larry Page gets some press. Who isn't a winner in this situation?

Truthfully, most charitable organizations or causes would like celebrities to no donate anonymously because celebrity giving often stimulates other people to give.

I very often get that feeling especially about corporate charity but I am somewhat torn as public examples can lead others to follow.

Please describe the mechanism by which Page could get a million people into [anonymous location, don't let Target advertise either] for flu shots without disclosing anyone's name.