No, it wasn't "just a leading question". Bill Gates has said something similar before, and quite recently, about Google's Loons:
> Bill Gates: Google's Project Loon Doesn't 'Uplift the Poor'
Which is a pretty stupid statement to make considering technology does in fact "uplift the poor", since it leads to better economic environment, jobs, and better living conditions.
His exact words were a bit different than the article and you are assuming:
"Google started out saying they were going to do a broad set of things. They hired Larry Brilliant, and they got fantastic publicity. And then they shut it all down. Now they're just doing their core thing. Fine. But the actors who just do their core thing are not going to uplift the poor,"
But seriously, this is HN, do I really need to explain to you why the internet creates job? Why it helps spread information and education? Is this 1997?
I'll give you a first hand experience though, I've lived for 5 years in Peru. There, students told me that Google and the internet has literally changed their life. Before they had to buy expensive books, cross the city or travel to get that book and be able to do copies. Now they just go to the net cafe next door, search on google, get their answer, print it and they're done. For less than half a dollar. A gain in time, money and information and a gain in what these newly educated students will bring to society. I can't even begin to imagine the impact that http://duolingo.com and http://khanacademy.org will have on humanity and the poorest.
Show me the (at the very least) the correlation between internet access and social mobility.
You may help educate some people, though the data says educational outcome is more correlated with socio-economic status. And education is correlated with social mobility, but now we are two correlative (at best) steps away from the conclusion you are drawing. We've yet to show any causation...
Your outrage of having to explain this, is misplaced. This is not an obvious fact, nor is it backed by any evidence.
> Your outrage of having to explain this, is misplaced. This is not an obvious fact, nor is it backed by any evidence.
I'm not outraged at all, just surprised. I don't have enough time to explain something like that on HN (especially to someone who may just be trolling or acting in bad faith, not saying you are but you could be) and I don't feel the need to because the evidence that the internet has a positive effect on society and the economy are so overwhelming and just a few google searches away anyway. That's like asking why science or education are a good thing for the economy. Have a nice day :)
... you moved the goal posts significantly. We aren't talking about whether the internet has a positive effect on society or the economy.
We are talking about uplifting the poor. Which is more formally known as "increasing social mobility". The internet doesn't do that... Social mobility in the US did not change significantly with the introduction and growth of the internet... what more evidence do you need against your point?
When the economy improves, the poor live better and there are less of them living in the worst conditions. Otherwise, the economy wouldn't be improving. Call that uplifting, or social mobility or any other hip buzz word if you like. Doesn't change the fact that by helping the economy and creating jobs, the internet helps the poor by default. I witnessed it myself when living for years in the third world but it's a well known fact too that the internet helps the economy and creates jobs (and therefor helps the poor). Maybe you need to live in the third world for a while to see the direct positive impact the internet has on the poor and get out of your bubble.
Yeah giving internet to people who barely have running water and electricity is REALLY going to help uplift the poor. Solve health issues so people can work rather than spread disease. Introduce agriculture and self sustaining society. Then maybe you can introduce technology...
You might be surprised at the priorities of the poor themselves. Internet access means knowing the market price rather than being ripped off by a middleman for your crop. Getting the market price might mean being able to afford indoor plumbing, but maybe a scooter comes first so grandma can be taken to a doctor when needed.
Curing malaria is inherently a top down priority. Acquiring communications is bottom up.
To take another example, providing a robot chauffeur maybe a solution to a first world problem, but cars kill twice as many people as malaria, so don't knock the robot chauffeur if he cuts traffic accidents by half or better.
"Internet access means knowing the market price rather than being ripped off by a middleman for your crop."
This is a classic tale that got retold over and over again for the positive impact of communication. Farmers know the market price - that's not a problem. The problem is they might not be able to sell their crops at market prices due to logistical choices and availability.
If there are only a few trucks today to deliver your produce to the faraway market, you take whatever price the middle man gives you - regardless of the market price - because the other choice is leaving them rotten on the field.
> While at the conference, the young Malawian saw the internet for the first time and within hours began Google-searching for "windmill" and "solar energy" and was amazed with how many hits were returned for each search.
> Kamkwamba was particularly impressed with the speed at which he could achieve things using the internet. "I was very excited when I saw the internet for the first time," he said. "The internet makes transfer of information very instant."
Now imagine a billion people with the same access to information on useful things like good sanitation and building windmills.
Bill Gates has spent a lot of time among the world's poorest poor. When you do that, your perspective changes completely and he seems to be talking from that perspective.
Also, did you read the linked article? He clearly addresses your point.
>Innovation is a good thing. The human condition – put aside bioterrorism and a few footnotes – is improving because of innovation,” he says. But while “technology’s amazing, it doesn’t get down to the people most in need in anything near the timeframe we should want it to”.
Well, what Google and Gates' are doing is still better than Jobs' take on charity from his biography that demeans it:
"“Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.”"
"Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything"
Which is a funny statement coming from Jobs, since he didn't invent anything either. Ripping off is fine when you add value, like the original Mac which borrowed a lot from Xerox labs prototypes.
I agree with you that Jobs was never a brilliant engineer, but I don't think Gates was particularly brilliant either and to say Jobs lacked imagination is ludicrous and to say he never invented anything is simply untrue. It may even be true he never invented a circuit (such as the Disk II controller) or never built a prototype himself, but that's not the whole of inventing something.
BTW, it was the Lisa that built upon the Alto (and added quite a bit of very clever ideas that never made it into the Mac).
> Bill Gates: Google's Project Loon Doesn't 'Uplift the Poor'
Which is a pretty stupid statement to make considering technology does in fact "uplift the poor", since it leads to better economic environment, jobs, and better living conditions.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422884,00.asp