扎克伯格成不了比尔•盖茨二世

    去年扎克伯格创建了FWD.us，这是一个致力于推动移民和教育改革的游说团体。他宣称自己是在为让那些非法入境的工人融入美国社会而奋斗，但也从未否认过其中一些人可能会让Facebook变得更强大。就算FWD.us在为了他公开谋求的移民改革开展游说时，他也是这么表态的：“我真不能跟任何人明说怎么才能让这些人的身份合法化。”盖茨的大名也赫然出现在FWD.us的支持者名单里，不过他很少就这个组织的目标表态。

    去年扎克伯格还开始大谈什么让50亿人都上网是何等重要，但他却忘了，不管有没有扎克伯格，手机和互联网都会让50亿人中的大多数保持联系。实际上他是自己想在这个过程中分一杯羹——有了这样的投资，Facebook塞满广告的新闻就能直达全世界的中产阶级。

    正是在这个问题上，扎克伯格愤世嫉俗、聪明圆滑的实用主义与他鼓吹的英雄的“让我们干脆挑明”的直截了当发生了正面冲突。比尔•盖茨本来跟扎克伯格的慈善事业没什么矛盾，但如果说上网比他心爱的慈善项目——疾病、贫穷、培训被剥夺公民权的人——还重要时，他就要坚决跟扎克伯格划清界线了。

    《金融时报》（Financial Times）采访盖茨时，谈及扎克伯格让全球人口都上网的计划，他说：“这算头等大事？它只是个玩笑罢了。呃，到底哪个更重要，是上网还是疟疾疫苗？如果你觉得上网很重要，这也不错。但我不这么想。”

    这就是比尔•盖茨，还有他自封的随从马克•扎克伯格。盖茨说话绝对口无遮拦。扎克呢？却是深藏不露、毫无诚意、粉饰做作的兜圈子。盖茨为了推动自己的理想会不惜代价，哪怕这个代价是要牺牲更好的技术，或是要迂回绕开僵化的社会政策。

    与此同时，扎克却还是一副公司高管的心态，好像自己的所作所为和高谈阔论都是为了帮助这个世界，但实际上只是为了进一步给自己的公司牟利。今后20多年里，扎克伯格的慈善事业要么可能会变得无比宏伟，以至于比尔•盖茨也只能沦为配角，作为当年曾启发过他的人出现；要么他可能也就是另一个曾敛财无数最后照样被世人遗忘的商业领袖。

    盖茨让千家万户和无数企业用上的操作系统可能在品质上不如扎克伯格吸引十亿多芸芸众生使用的服务。但扎克伯格的成就很大程度上要归功于互联网，正因为有了网络，技术才能更大范围地惠及世界各地的人。如果置身于盖茨那个时代，扎克伯格会有什么作为呢？或者说盖茨（作为技术公司的首席执行官）处于扎克伯格这个时代他又能取得什么成就呢？

    如果用政治术语来形容他俩，那么扎克伯格奉行的是现实政治，而盖茨则是地地道道的理论家。在商业领域中，纯粹的实用主义能让你稳妥地度过一个又一个财季，而理想主义则能推动更广阔、更持久的变革。扎克伯格的事业才刚开始，而盖茨可能对我们这个世界影响更大，不光是在商业领域，在这两位都自称全力以赴的慈善事业领域恐怕也是如此。（财富中文网）

    译者：清远   

    Last year, Zuckerberg founded FWD.us, a lobbying group to push immigration and education reform. He claimed he was fighting to bring undocumented workers into the U.S., but never denied some would help make Facebook stronger. Zuckerberg actually said, "I can't really tell anyone how to legislate," even as FWD.us was lobbying for the immigration reform he was publicly seeking. Gates was listed as supporter of FWD.us in name, although he was less vocal about its goals.

    Last year, Zuckerberg also began to talk about how important it would be to bring 5 billion people online. Forget that mobile phones and the Internet would connect much of that population in time, with or without Zuckerberg. He wanted a personal stake in that process -- an investment that would make Facebook's ad-clogged news feed a rite of passage into the global middle class.

    And that's when the cynical, slick practicality of Mark Zuckerberg ran afoul of the let's-cut-through-this-shit directness of his stated hero. Bill Gates had no issue with Zuckerberg's philanthropy, but when it came to connectivity over his pet projects -- disease, poverty, educating the disenfranchised -- he drew the line.

    "As a priority? It's a joke," Gates said to the Financial Times when asked of Zuckerberg's plans to connect the world's population. "Hmm, which is more important, connectivity or malaria vaccine? If you think connectivity is the key thing, that's great. I don't."

    And there you have Bill Gates, and there you have his self-appointed acolyte Mark Zuckerberg. Gates is brutally direct. Zuck is insidiously, disingenuously, sugar-coatedly indirect. Gates will push his vision at any cost, even if that cost is extinguishing better technologies, or hacking around rigid social policies.

    Zuck, meanwhile, is still stuck in that executive mindset where you act and talk like you're helping the world, but you do it just to further the interests of your company. In 20 or so years, the philanthropy of Mark Zuckerberg may be so great that Bill Gates is just the footnote as the guy who inspired him. Or it could be that he's just another business leader who amassed a great fortune and was forgotten.

    The operating software Gates forced into hundreds of millions of homes and businesses may have been inferior in quality to what Zuckerberg enticed a billion-plus lives into. But much of what Zuckerberg won has to do with the fact that, thanks to the Internet, technology has scaled up to more of the world's population. What would Zuckerberg be in the age of Gates? Or Gates (as tech CEO) in the age of Zuckerberg?

    Put in political terms, Zuckerberg practices the realpolitik, while Gates is a die-hard ideologue. In the business world, pure practicality can carry you from quarter to quarter, while the ideologues can be the ones who engineer broadening and more lasting change. Zuckerberg's career is just getting started, but it may be Gates who has the bigger impact on the world, not just in business but in the philanthropy both men have pledged themselves to.