扎克伯格成不了比尔•盖茨二世

    这两家公司的统治风格也不一样。它们都会公然拷贝其他公司的成功之处，但微软会复制合作伙伴的做法，哪怕这意味让这些伙伴在业内失去立足之地。而在这个“并购招才”（acqi-hire，通过并购直接把收购公司的人才招于麾下，而对其产品或服务置之不顾——译注）的时代，Facebook则挥舞着拷贝威胁这个大棒直接收购对手。因此微软时期的盖茨才那么招人嫉恨，而扎克伯格则不会这么惹人恨（不过有些人还是不想和扎克伯格共事，比如Twitter和Snapchat都断然拒绝了Facebook出手大方的收购条件）。

    原因可能是因为盖茨根本不在乎人家对他有没有好感。他统御全球的盛名就算不能赢得别人的敬重，也足以让人敬畏了。相比之下，扎克伯格想赢得全世界的抱负就显得软弱无力得多了。他总喜欢在公开场合夸夸其谈，说什么他在Facebook是多么不想让公司赚钱（对一个公众公司的首席执行官来说，这番话简直就像鲨鱼发誓要吃素一样不靠谱）。或者什么想当年在哈佛时，他和室友曾做过充满理想主义色彩的长谈，讨论互联网如何能让这个世界增加透明度。

    这番话可能是真的，不过当年在哈佛校园里Facebook的几个前身似乎并不是这么回事。其中既有名声不好听的Facemash，也有他更早时候创办的一个网站。这个网站就是要吸引学生来吐槽他翘的一门课。这两个社交网络雏形都粗暴地利用了用户所做的贡献——而这后来在Facebook的隐私政策里又一再重演。

    所以这就是英雄和他的追随者之间的一大区别：比尔•盖茨可能是埋下一把刀看着你受伤流血，而扎克伯格则是做了一千张会割人的纸，却装得好像你早就知道它们的存在。

    这两种方式都有助于打造科技巨头，不过却都得不到消费者的好感。但当它们用于慈善领域时，却出现了一些有意思的情况。当比尔•盖茨把自己的财富用于解决历史上一直被认为难以解决的问题时，他再次展现出那种世人所熟知的冷酷无情。同时，迄今为止，扎克伯格那些似乎是为他的私利服务的捐献也体现出了实际价值。

    说到捐钱，盖茨和扎克伯格都以自己的方式表现得慷慨大方，同时（借用扎克伯格的说法）“充满使命感”。盖茨基金会（Gates Foundation）的资产高达400亿美元，而且对盖茨在微软期间结下的许多怨恨来说，这个基金会的所作所为虽不能让它们完全平息，但已有所缓和。

    而扎克伯格则在事业发展的很早期就开始高调进军慈善了。他是最早那批号称要把自己的绝大部分财富捐给慈善事业的人，这种表态也推动了其他有钱人纷纷跟进。2012年，他向新泽西的公立学校捐了一亿美元，去年又把价值近十亿美元的Facebook股票捐给了硅谷的非营利组织。他还和盖茨联手教授编程，同时改善学校的宽带设施。

    所以，盖茨和扎克伯格是在慈善事业非常需要捐助的时期捐给它亿万财富的。他俩都值得褒扬。在慈善领域——这是个总得去争取稀缺资源的紧缺经济体，大家长期以来一直就如何有效分配资源这个问题争论不休。也正是在这个问题上，年轻的扎克伯格和盖茨再次出现了分歧。

    Styles of dominance are different. Both companies blatantly copied successful features of others, but Microsoft would copy from partners, even if it meant putting them out of business. Facebook, in the age of the acqi-hire, used threats of copying as a cudgel to drive rivals into acquisition. So Gates at Microsoft was hated, while Zuckerberg really isn't. (Some don't want to work with Zuckerberg, however, as Twitter (TWTR) and Snapchat both rebuffed generous offers from Facebook.)

    That may be because Gates didn't care whether anyone liked him or not. His brand of world domination is content to inspire fear, if not respect. By comparison, Zuckerberg's attempt to win the world feels more wishy-washy. He likes to talk publicly about how reluctant he was to generate revenue at Facebook (any such claim from the CEO of a public company is as credible as a shark swearing to a vegan diet). Or how, back at Harvard, he and his roommates used to have long, idealistic talks about how the Internet could add transparency to the world.

    Maybe, but the early iterations of Facebook at Harvard suggest otherwise. There's the infamous Facemash, as well as an earlier site he created to entice students to share insights on a course he failed to attend. Both were primitive social networks that crudely exploited the contributions of their users – a template that would play out again and again in Facebook's privacy policies.

    So here's one difference between the hero and his follower: Bill Gates might plant a knife and watch you suffer. Mark Zuckerberg would make a thousand paper cuts and pretend you imagined them all.

    Both of these approaches can help build a technology colossus, and yet neither will be beloved by consumers. But something interesting happens when these two approaches are translated to the world of philanthropy. There is a familiar ruthlessness that Bill Gates has brought to the application of his wealth to solving problems that have historically proven tough to solve. And, so far, there is a practicality to Zuckerberg's donations that have a self-serving feel to them.

    When it comes to giving money, both Gates and Zuckerberg have been, in their ways, both generous and (to borrow Zuckerberg's term) "mission-driven." The Gates Foundation has $40 billion in assets, and its work has taken the edge off a lot of bitter resentment Gates built up at Microsoft, if not silenced them completely.

    Zuckerberg has moved aggressively into philanthropy much earlier in his career. He was one of the first to pledge to give the bulk of one's wealth to charity, a gesture prompting others to follow. He pledged $100 million to New Jersey public schools in 2012 and nearly a billion dollars worth of Facebook shares to a Silicon Valley non-profit last year. He's also worked with Gates to teach coding and improve broadband in schools.

    So Gates and Zuckerberg are giving billions to charities in a period where such donations are sorely needed. They both deserve praise. Within the world of philanthropy -- itself a tight economy competing for scarce resources -- there has long been a debate over how to allocate resources efficiently. And it's here that a distinction again emerges between young Zuckerberg and old Gates.