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.