SPEAKER_00 0:15

Okay, I guess. Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rod Davis, and this week we have a conversation with Teddy Schleifer. Now Teddy is a senior reporter at Puck News, which is a relatively new news outlet uh based in the US that covers the kind of lives and dealings of the elite in America, and particularly uh Teddy focuses on the sort of philanthropy of the very wealthy and people coming out of Silicon Valley. So it's great to have a chance to sit down and talk to Teddy. We talked uh about reporting on philanthropy and sort of you know why that was important and what the challenges were, particularly when people you know at that level of wealth aren't always that keen to have their dealings known, um, and sort of how hard it is to sort of penetrate that world of the super rich. Um we talked also about the balance in reporting on philanthropy between telling sort of individual stories that that are kind of gossipy and interesting and making it relatable for people and trying to cover systemic issues or sort of things that are more fundamentally about kind of how philanthropy works. Um we then talked about a series of particular philanthropists who are kind of of interest, and so we chatted inevitably about Mackenzie Scott and what she's been doing over the last few years and kind of uh how it might have shaken up philanthropy and whether it'll have an impact more broadly. Um we talked about Bill and Melinda Gates um and the sort of uh travails that have happened around their divorce and what's happened subsequently with uh Melinda Frenchgates striking out in her own uh philanthropic direction. Um we talked uh a bit about Mark Zuckerberg as well and what he's doing these days. Um we talked about Elon Musk and his emergence as a major philanthropist and sort of whether his uh his uh somewhat divisive persona that he has in other areas of his life would also come uh into his philanthropy and what that might mean more broadly. Um we then talked about who else, you know, that we don't currently hear so much about, we should be aware of um operating uh in philanthropy at the moment. Uh in particular we talked uh a bit about Sam Backman-Fried, who is a crypto uh sort of millionaire, billionaire, I think, um that uh Teddy has interviewed and written about before. Uh and that led us on to a bit of a discussion of sort of crypto wealth and crypto philanthropy more broadly, uh, and also the crossover between that and effective altruism. Um so without further ado, let's get into the conversation. Uh I hope you enjoy it. I certainly did. Um I should say that the audio quality is perhaps not as good as I would have hoped, slightly suboptimal. I didn't notice at the time I was having the conversation, but there were evidently some sort of technical problems with it. Um I've cleaned it up as best I can. Um it de it starts out a little bit shaky uh in the the first answer Teddy gives and then gets better. Um but hopefully I've made it so that it's manageable for everyone. So I hope you enjoy it. Uh and I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping and tidying up. Okay, great. I'm here with Teddy Schleifer. Hi, Teddy. Hi, thanks for having me. Um and Teddy uh is a founding partner uh and a reporter at Puck, um, which is a new news outfit that some of you may well be aware of. Um and some eagle-eyed listeners might notice that uh Teddy and I have actually had a previous conversation on an earlier incarnation of a podcast um when I was doing the Calf Giving Thought podcast. Um but I thought it'd be great to get uh Teddy back on to have another conversation, uh catch up on what's been going on in uh philanthropy in the US, particularly and kind of around Silicon Valley in the last couple of years. Um, but maybe the best place to start, Teddy, is for you just to tell people a little bit about what you do and kind of what Puck is.

SPEAKER_01 4:29

Um so Puck is a new publication that started uh mid-last year, focused intensely uh in part on this very topic of philanthropy. Um so the website is Puck.news for my uh quick sales pitch, uh P-U-C-K. Uh and the idea uh it's it's a nod to Shakespeare or Puck that we're sort of mischievous, um, you know, very interested in the inside conversation, um, and always, always ready to kind of rumble uh like Puck in a Midsummer Night's Dream. Um so Puck launched, and my beat is still the same as it was when I was at Recode, which is uh obsessively, hopefully smartly, hopefully uh in a way that brings some delight to people, uh, covering the moves of the super rich. Um, so that means what are their philanthropic investments, what are their political investments, you know, how much do they pay in taxes? And I'm I'm very I'm a very curious person. Like I'm you know, I'm I'm not really that ideological, I often feel. Um, I'm not out here saying all philanthropy is a scam or all philanthropy is, you know, uh hero, heroic work. I'm very curious in just what the story actually is. So here at Puck, you know, we write a lot about sort of the personalities and the powers that be. And that's how what guides my work in covering the ultra-rich is these people are not just philanthropists, they're not just you know billionaire celebrities, they're almost cultural icons and and touchstones. You know, Elon Musk is hosting SNL. That didn't happen with you know Bill Gates a decade ago. Um, so the amount of power that these people have and influence that they have for good, for bad, for something in between, it is an obsession of mine, an obsession of Pucks. And I think if you're listening to this podcast, um, you know, you may enjoy it. And I have a uh a free newsletter that we send out every week, um, which you can find. I guess probably the easiest place to find it maybe is in the show notes or on my Twitter feed. But um I think it would be really interesting to people who love kind of inside gossip and inside news on the philanthropy sector, like I do.

SPEAKER_00 6:47

Yeah, definitely. And I'll I'll definitely put links in the show notes to places where people can can find and and sign up. And yeah, it's really interesting there you were saying, you know, kind of about the the fascination with um the the kind of the the individuals and the personalities and the fact that it's you know it's not just about their philanthropy and actually kind of can't disentangle that from some of these characters. Um it's interesting, I guess, because for people who study philanthropy, it's uh you know, it's always about the individual at the end of the day, because it has to be kind of about individual decisions and what drives people to give. But then often people are trying to understand what that then means at a more systemic level. Do you how do you kind of manage that balance in the stories you're telling? A kind of shifting between focusing on the individual and the more sort of gossipy side of it, and then relating that to something that kind of gives people a sense of what some of these wider issues are, maybe about philanthropy.

SPEAKER_01 7:38

It's a great question. I don't I don't know if I have the uh the perfect answer. I mean, the uh to some extent, look, there is a part of the job of journalism, right, is to make this stuff interesting to a broad audience. Um, and even though we are a subscription publication, um, you know, I often think about full, you know, philanthropy journalism and how to make it more accessible. Um, and I do think there is almost a voyeuristic, uh maybe, maybe a little strange fascination that we all have with the ultra-rich that dates back, you know, centuries, really millennia. Um so, so there is there is sort of the gossip that I think, even if you're not interested in, you know, the differences between 501c4s and donor advised funds and you know, all the other arcana that you and I could uh give give lectures on. Uh, you might just find Melinda Gates fascinating. And like that's okay. Um, so there's that. But look, I mean, obviously, this is uh an important topic, and I don't want to get on too high a horse here, but what wealthy people do with their money, uh, I think matters for democracy. I think it matters for debates over the power of the wealthy, it matters for debates over tax policy. And so I do want to offer not just kind of the inside dish on, you know, who Lorraine Powell Jobs is having brunch with, but also, you know, I want to break serious news about say, uh, you know, what is the Elon Musk Foundation doing with the six billion dollar gift? Or, you know, is the donor-advised fund bill that's moving through the US Congress, is that gonna have real teeth, or are people gonna avoid it? And I think we can do a mix of both. We can do a mix of of provocative, thoughtful journalism, and we can do just some fun stuff as well. Uh, I think we're, you know, like like Pocket and Midsummer Night Stream, we're we're trying to mix it up.

SPEAKER_00 9:38

Yeah, absolutely. And I think you're you're right that that mixture of giving you know people sort of individual stories and trying to then kind of lead them to the issues is maybe what is you know is going to be a key part of uh bringing this stuff to a wider audience that could be interested, but is unlikely to sort of dig into specialist media about philanthropy.

SPEAKER_01 9:56

I mean, I mean t tell me, I mean, for I mean, for you as someone who's just been in media, you know, has been watching this for a while, I mean, uh, it's just hard to find. I mean, do you agree? It just seems hard to find uh stuff that really breaks through outside of our little uh our little giving circle here.

SPEAKER_00 10:12

Yeah, absolutely. And I and I guess particularly when it comes to writing about the sort of you know elite philanthropy, one of the challenges, I guess, is for most journalists traditionally who might have been covering stories about non-profits um, you know, constantly, they might have been uh in a relatively niche part of the media. And so actually getting access to those people is pretty difficult. I mean, in terms of the work you're trying to do, how hard is it to penetrate that world of of the super rich? Because I assume they're not, you know, all necessarily that that open or just kind of hanging around and you can go up and and uh and collar them.

SPEAKER_01 10:46

Yeah, um it it is difficult. Um, to some extent, uh like to me, I've always seen this as a beat about inequality, right? There's a beat about uh there's a way to cover philanthropy for from a lot of different angles, but to me, fundamentally, this is about tracing the contours of the American economy through the lens of inequality. And that means to cover inequality well, you have to cover the super poor and you have to cover the super rich. And to some extent, you know, it feels I don't mean to break out of violin here for me. Uh, but like with covering poverty, there are nonprofits and individuals who want to talk about the work because they want to have exposure for you know just kind of what it's like to be struggling in American society. And like I love reporters who expose that and and shine a light on it. With with the super rich, uh I often I know they wouldn't say this publicly, but I'm sure that if some of them could never be cover ever, they'd be totally fine with it. And um there's obviously been, you know, this backlash to megaphilanthropy over the last five years. Um and I talk with some philanthropists who seem to think that the backlash to kind of charitable giving has almost overtaken the positive glow that people used to get from from donations. And now announcing anything is is a net negative. I don't know if I really agree with that. Like I think the backlash is still very much a linked narrative that is only understood by like journalists and academics and people on Twitter. And I think the average person still thinks of philanthropy as a you know coded, inherently good thing. Um, but but look, lots of wealthy people are are uh believers that they can't get a fair shake in the media. And uh it's my job to honestly like let them know that I I just know how this world works. Like I understand the interplay between charitable giving and estate planning, I understand the interplay between politics and philanthropy. Um I I I know who the players are, I know who the consultants are, I know who's who's uh can I cursing this podcast? I don't know who's who's full of shit and who's not. Um and and part of uh part of philanthropy journalism uh that takes philanthropy seriously, it means critiquing it seriously and it not being all sunshine and rainbows. And um, I think savvy sources understand that this is not like covering sports where it's some silly little thing, and you know, you hope the team wins. This is like covering democracy and politics and the economy, and um to some extent there needs to be an expectation readjustment, I believe, around what philanthropy journalism should look like.

SPEAKER_00 13:41

Yeah, definitely. And I I mean I I think uh, you know, being able to tell who's full of shit and the world of philanthropy is a key skill as well. Um I was just wondering um when you were saying that, because obviously one of the things about what you're doing now through PUC is that it's um it's kind of in some ways fits into that new ecosystem of non-traditional media outlets. So so it's kind of a startup, it's not not an established brand, you're not kind of working for a for a big legacy media outfit or kind of newspaper or something like that. Do you, you know, does that in any way make it easier to kind of navigate that world or to find those stories, or does it raise different challenges? You know, just it's a good question.

SPEAKER_01 14:23

Um, I I I honestly don't know, uh, I think is the answer. Like we were six months in, like, we have a lot of subscribers, things are going very well. Um, and there is this inside audience of kind of philanthropy nerds and uh, you know, people who I talk to and you talk to every day, who tell me they love it and that they feel that it makes them better at their job. You know, like if you're a nonprofit, you know, a fundraiser and you're going into a meeting with uh Sam Bankman-Fried, who's sort of a new it kid in silicon product philanthropy, um, you know, we've reported on how Sam's operation works, right? And to some extent, this is a B2B expense that uh makes people better at their jobs. Um, so so I'm we're also I also don't feel like conscripted to the maybe the same um approach to the news that I might have to if I work for the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal, where you have to cover everything. Like I feel I'm only gonna cover what's interesting to me and what I find important. And I feel zero uh compulsion to how I we have to cover this. Like I think everything we do at Puck is genuinely interesting. And that's like I know that's a duh thing to say, right? Of course things are interesting, but you'd be surprised in media. Like there's lots of stuff, you know. I have friends who work at every important place ever. Um, and like lots of they even they'll admit it candidly that some of what they do is kind of boring. They have to do it. Editor makes them do it. Um, they feel like they, you know, have a august responsibility to do it. And at Pac, we just want to have fun and write things that are genuinely interesting and not do the same uh kind of pablum that I think lots of legacy media feels they have to do.

SPEAKER_00 16:12

Yeah, it's really interesting that that point about the the freedom to to sort of follow your nose a bit. And I guess with with philanthropy, I mean maybe that that helps because it is true that there's a lot of sort of stuff about philanthropy that's maybe necessary and a bit worthy, but even I, you know, I kind of probably find quite boring. I'm I'm very much the target audience for this stuff.

SPEAKER_01 16:30

You know, we all tell people we read the story, but we don't read the story.

SPEAKER_00 16:33

Yeah. Um yeah, we we sort of obviously talk there about, you know, uh kind of highlighting the the individual characters at play in in philanthropy. And it really feels you know, particularly around this world of of elite uh philanthropy focused around Silicon Valley that that you're very much sort of focusing on. There really is kind of a cast of characters that's that's emerging, and anybody who sort of watches philanthropy will probably be familiar with them. Um but I just wanted to kind of pick up on a few of them because there, you know, certainly over the last few years there have been some really interesting things going on, for better or worse, and just kind of get your your take on them. Um, I mean, I think contractually we're obliged we're obliged to start by discussing Mackenzie Scott. So let's let's do that. Um I just wondered, yeah, what you know, there McKenzie Scott, I mean, she didn't come out of nowhere, but certainly in the last few years, she kind of uh, you know, maybe until the last sort of six months or so really dominated the narrative about big money uh giving with her sort of the scale of what she was doing and also the the way in which she was doing it. And then there have been some more kind of questions coming up. You know, what to you at this point's the most interesting thing about Scott's emergence as a sort of major force in philanthropy?

SPEAKER_01 17:39

So so we've been reporting a lot on Mackenzie here at Puck. I totally agree with you that she is uh in some ways the story, not just because of what she has done, but also more symbolically, what she represents about trust-based giving, about uh you know, low overhead, kind of the about the power of the consultant class, which is very underappreciated. Um uh I think the most interesting question to me is a very basic one, which is is this gonna work? Um I I'm not trying to be like a contrarian here and you know just be kind of uh a negative Nancy for the for the sake of it. But I I feel like some of the narrative around Mackenzie has gone over its skis. Um and here's why I say that it is possible, like possible that this like backfires or is a you know massive uh catastrophe, maybe not a massive catastrophe, but like it is possible the money does not succeed in you know enacting change in in various ways, in which case this would be a cautionary tale for the uh class of people who want to do it quick and on the cheap, and you know, uh and and like I'm just like saying raising that as a possibility, and and I often feel like the media narrative around McKenzie has been so gushing and so uh almost taking it as a given that this is gonna be successful. And she's certainly been successful at getting money out the door. Um, so that's that but that's that that's one thing. I would say the other question I have is almost a meta question about Mackenzie in the public eye. Um so for decades, you know, Mackenzie actually played a key role in you know starting Amazon, you know, much more than is kind of probably publicly appreciated. Um and she was just sort of a private person. Remember when I talked to in her in her orbit, she's never liked the spotlight. You know, she was a novelist who got some kind of fame for fixed pieces of fiction she had written, but she was very happy to kind of let Jeff Bezos be the you know celebrity wonderkind uh CEO of a small bookstore retailer in Seattle. Um and over the last two years, as she's become uh, you know, the queen of the world of philanthropy, she has been stepping more and more into the public eye, but I would say somewhat unevenly or uncertainly is probably a better way to put it. You know, she will make uh a big statement about the giving pledge, but she hasn't really done any interviews about it. She discloses all these big gifts early on, and then decides she doesn't really like the media attention and is now not going to disclose gifts. And look to some extent, I I I I sympathize with her. Like, how do you be uh a savvy uh philanthropist who draws other donors to your cause um without being a showgo? I don't know the answer. You know, how do you be transparent and inspiring without like feeling the need to you know spill your guts to you know the New York Post? Uh these are hard questions to balance. And and so I do sympathize with the position she's in. Um I guess my my my my my big plan her is like she's gonna be a public figure, kind of regardless of whether or not she wants to be. And I think she honestly needs to step up even more into the spotlight. And I I know that could be uncomfortable, and I know that you know she didn't really sign up for this life of having 70 billion dollars. Um, but it sort of comes with the territory when you're that important in this world.

SPEAKER_00 21:25

Yeah, it's it's a really interesting point and um something I talked to Ben Soskis about actually, and uh this this whole question of kind of it might be that it's done for reasons of humility, and she genuinely doesn't really want to sort of center herself in all of this. But actually, if you're doing giving at that scale, as you say, maybe you kind of don't have that much of a choice about being a public figure and actually by choosing to craft your own narrative via medium posts that people like me, you know, read and find very interesting, uh, but avoiding more traditional media scrutiny or kind of engaging with that actually. are you are you sort of being less transparent than perhaps you you should be it i mean it's a really interesting point as you say it's not necessarily because she's she's kind of got some Machiavellian motive it just might be she generally doesn't really want that that scrutiny but but I guess you know I get I get it I get it that's it's horrible yeah um it I wanted to ask about another uh figure who's kind of been around for for a long time and well known but has kind of taken on a new persona recently which is uh melinda French Gates um and obviously you know there's been a lot going on at the Gates Foundation and with the divorce of of Bill and Melinda Gates and and now French Gates. I guess you know starting um just linking it to Mackenzie Scott there's something you said there you know it's really interesting about Mackenzie Scott and the the sort of new paradigm that she seems to have established around you know very big money uh philanthropy that's based on sort of trust trust rather than you know some of the kind of rigorous um strategic uh approaches and metrics that that we've seen over the last 20 years or so and there seem to be signs that Melinda Frenchgates is is going down a similar route as well which maybe marks a bit of a shift away from from what she was doing when when her and Bill were working together at the Gates Foundation. Do you get the sense that she is sort of striding out on her own and trying to kind of you know distance herself from maybe what what she's done before with him?

SPEAKER_01 23:20

Yeah it's interesting part of part of our story uh McKenzie Scott actually reported um that Melinda has played a key role in helping McKenzie set up her her operation especially on the early days McKenzie's one of Melinda's uh uh former aides now works at McKenzie's operation these are the sort of kind of inside details that we obsess over at Pock at Pock that you know five people five people care about but you're the right five people um uh yes uh I I I I guess we'll have two lines here like uh on one hand um I wonder not to again not to sound like a contrarian who just you know rose against stream here but um uh I'm a skeptic that that that the Gates Foundation is going to change that much. Um you know I know that so there's now this clause in I believe the bylaws where McKenzie sorry where Melinda will step down as a co-chair um uh if things start kind of irreparably broken with Bill and things cannot work out as well as they as they uh hope they will um you know and some and you know divorces can take weird turns and you know I guess it's possible. I I would bet that Melinda stays the Gates Foundation and that they kind of keep humming along with the same focus that they've done for the last 30 years. People forget I mean like I know people always want to use like oh the Seattle uh you know spouses to you know tech bros are sticking it to the man of uh a narrative but look I mean Melinda and Bill had are different than Mackenzie and Jeff where Melinda and Bill had done this together for three decades Jeff and Mackenzie had zero real kind of joint philanthropic history together. Melinda has basically been doing this full time um for for a while and she's you know a powerhouse and is good at it and um I think there's probably more alignment on these issues than we want to give them credit for. So that's point one. I mean the the other thing is like yes there's clearly going to be some money that goes to Pivotal Ventures, which is Melinda's sort of own women focused philanthropic entity um technically an investment firm. And I'm sure they'll get more money than it would have in the alternative universe where they stayed together. But I do not think this is like gonna seriously affect the charitable world. Maybe I'll eat those words but um I'm a skeptic I'm a skeptic.

SPEAKER_00 25:58

No it's good to have a bold prediction on that. Well I just wanted to to ask actually about something that you said before and made me think you were saying there about actually there being a link between um Melinda Frenchgates's work and advising Mackenzie Scott and actually her you know chief of staff or one of the people who work for her going to work for uh for McKenzie Scott it made me think actually you know we're talking a lot here about the the donors because they're obviously you know the ones with the money and they're the kind of big characters everybody wants to know about but how much attention do you do you find yourself putting or do you think you would like to put on the kind of you know the philanthropoids the people who are administering a lot of that wealth and actually making a lot of decisions about what happens but often you know we we barely know who these people are totally totally and and um uh you know I don't think these people necessarily signed up to be celebrities right um uh but but I you know these people have you have a ton of power um and I know this is a very self-serving explanation you know I'm obviously in the business of disclosing information um but uh like if you're like the head of Mackenzie Scott's family office and McKenzie Scott is as powerful as she is like you're a public figure.

SPEAKER_01 27:11

And you know part of our McKenzie story was naming names about who runs the McKenzie operation. Like yeah yes everyone knows that BridgeSpan is sort of the uh the uh foundation in exile over there but like who at Bridge span does it like that that to me matters um as someone who cares about the sector and thinks the work is important because look these these are not robots we are not uh handing out money based purely on on spreadsheet and you know expected value calculations at least most of us are not like these these are these are uh individuals who have their own biases obviously there's like a race and gender component to this where um you know the sector is very white uh and somewhat dominated by men though not as much as uh the the main issue is I would say race um and and I believe it's in the public interest not just on the philanthropic side of my B but on the political side of my B. You know there's this world of sort of donor advisors right people who um serve as the aides de camp of you know political heavyweights and they're the ones often doing most of the work. It's not like you know Reed Hoffman is sitting in every meeting with every nonprofit. It's the donor advisors and I think greater transparency in that world how they operate how they're paid how they who has beef with whom you know who's trending up trending down this isn't like idle uh you know water cooler conversation this like matters for funding decisions so I totally believe it matters though I don't know whether or not they think they matter um you know I'm sure they bristle at some of the coverage but um I don't like work for them so I sleep easy at night.

SPEAKER_00 29:03

No and I I think you're right these people have a lot of influence but it's and it's and it's funny isn't it to pick out who who it is you're talking about here because there's I guess there's a difference between you know kind of people who just work for big legacy foundations you know some of whom if they're the directors of those foundations have a reason you know quite a large amount of power but probably are relatively well known and prominent but then the people who work for these much more streamlined smaller organizations and family offices and these kinds of things that that are centered around people of extraordinary wealth, you know, often they they they have very large amounts of money uh at their disposal but because of the nature of what they do very little transparency or scrutiny often and and unless you'll move in those circles you'll have no idea who those people uh are um and you know I've I for one would be fascinated to know more about them uh and you know certainly about the the gossip and the beefs between them um I just I'm gonna take a a bit of a a left turn here but go to another uh figure who's who's pretty different to both Mackenzie Scott and Melinda French Gates but has has become sort of big news in philanthropy recently and that's Elon Musk um I guess my my question about Elon Musk is is he serious about philanthropy? I mean it's sort of hard to tell he seems he seems to be upping his game in it but in a way that suggests that he still kind of finds the whole enterprise you know faintly ridiculous.

SPEAKER_01 30:24

So let me give you the the bull case and the bear case does that work um the bull case is um I know Elon is the world's wealthiest person um he is an unusual financial creature um you know almost all of his his equ you know his worth to date he's described himself as very cash poor even when he was worth very little obviously this the run-up in Tesla stock has been you know absurd for for reasons we don't have time to get into in on this podcast but like he has a lot of money but he's not like Bill Gates who's been you know had a lot of money for a long time like his net worth is has has skyrocketed in a way that like the philanthropic ambitions can't really keep up even if he had massive philanthropic ambitions. That's point one. Point two is he does think a lot about impact here. Like I mean I think uh for all the Elon haters out there Tesla and SpaceX I think are I'd you know rather live in a world where those exist than those do not um and Elon does believe in kind of social driven enterprise. You know one of his uh big investors is like you know an impact investing firm um you know Tesla has made lots of uh you know traditional Detroit automakers take you know EVs more seriously uh SpaceX has accomplished incredible things clearly could play a key role in kind of the coming apocalypse um um so so you know I I I say that to maybe cast philanthropy in a little bit broader of a term than so maybe you know nonprofit folks would like which is Elon sees private enterprise and value creation through socially driven companies as impact. Now you're correct that his his his philanthropic work to date has been minimal um it's been a couple I think I reported last year it's been a couple hundred million probably um he he has primarily used donor advised funds um even his foundation which he set up uh I think a while ago basically just funnels cash donor advised funds it makes a couple of small grants a year like you know five 10 million bucks it moves a bunch over to the DAF to meet the 5% threshold we don't know what happens out of the DAF but there's no not much public reporting that much happens out of it. Elon has said publicly that he doesn't plan to really make major charitable contributions until like 10 or 20 years from now. But I mean like you know he recently did hire this person uh it's been publicly reported that he uh hired someone with kind of ties to effective altruism to run his foundation um he is is publicly tweeting about his interest in this stuff more than he has in the past um so like is he is he is this all troll and I know Ben Saskis has said that he you know feels this is troll philanthropy um I don't know maybe I'm feeling charitable right now I'm I'm feeling that like Elon is uh I'm gonna say in a tough situation which will get me in trouble but like he's not in a tough situation this is a very small violin but like he clearly has had the assets under management so to speak appreciate at a far faster rate than anybody reasonably could and uh I think he will make major charitable gifts down the line um but for now he's just you know running two companies as CEO and hasn't really prioritized it which is kind of maybe galling given just how wealthy he is but it's also where lots of tech leaders are which is you know punting and saving the money for another day.

SPEAKER_00 34:20

Yeah no I I can certainly understand that argument. I guess I guess the other thing that's interesting apart from how much money he's given at this point is he seems quite particular it as a figure and as someone I mean obviously just in terms of his sheer scale of his wealth but also the the kind of the following that he has I mean as you said there are definitely Elon haters but there are also many many people you know who absolutely love him and and you go along with anything he says and think think he can't he can do no wrong and and I guess it'd be interesting to see how that is reflected in his approach to philanthropy because in a way unlike almost any donor I can think of he actually has the power to to to to bring pretty significant shifts in sort of public views about philanthropy with him maybe just through that following um and I guess that whole thing that that Ben says about troll philanthropy I wonder whether it's sort of less about what he's doing and more about how he stayed because he might you know he might he might he might still do great things but if he decides to be a dick online about it that's still kind of you know uh a problem. But um I guess I I wanted to ask um as well you know going through the the cast list of of people that that you know kind of there in in and around Silicon Valley um you know one figure that I mean he he hasn't taken a back seat in in many senses and in many senses he's been at the forefront is Mark Zuckerberg but actually it seems as though there's been less talk about his his philanthropy of of late and maybe that's just because he's been quietly getting on with things and other people have been have been stealing the limelight. But do you do you get any sense that the last few years and the kind of the the challenges he've he's faced and the whole focus on evolving Facebook into meta has had an impact on philanthropy for his philanthropy for sort of better or worse?

SPEAKER_01 36:03

So I have not been writing about Mark a ton recently I was writing about him a lot last year. Yes like I mean the the you know we did a story when I was over at Rico it about just the ways in which Mark's troubles and Facebook have sort of ricochet onto the work at at the Shannon Zuckerberg initiative. You know some nonprofits don't even want to take his money people are you know on the left who who see this as all as greenwashing for Facebook's misdeeds. Yes Mark clearly is you know on another planet right now uh maybe more than Elon is you know focused on kind of the next generation of of technology and you know he spends about a day a week at CZI you know speaks occasionally at all hands they have um you know the the the the the biggest uh news out of uh kind of the Facebook meta CZI world recently had was it's kind of funny that so the name CZ the name meta uh was actually a CZI project and CZI uh I believe privately sold the meta trademark to Facebook um which was how the name Meta came about now to some extent like who cares uh you know I'm sure if if Facebook wanted the name Meta they could have made a deal with anybody who owned the trademark meta um but it was notable that you know CZI didn't disclose terms for the deal um clearly you know when you are in charge of Facebook and also the the co-CEO of C of CZI like you could probably work out a pretty quick arrangement uh to sell uh one property of the left hand to uh to the right hand um so in some ways it just sort of showed how these worlds are much more uh commingled than I think the Zuckerberg world would like to admit and that Facebook and CZI I although they are indeed legally distinct operations um you know this is not Coke and Pepsi here these are these are uh different different parts of kind of the same orbit um and and the meta the meta name sort of showed that pretty clearly yeah absolutely um yeah no I remembered when you're talking about that that whole that thing about them biometra and as you say it's kind of even if it's you know actually legitimate in one sense it just it gives that sense of lines that are blurred to an extent that maybe people hadn't quite figured out and just just leaves a slightly odd taste in the mouth. Yeah and and and not to rag on Mark I mean look that that's something that every every you know whether it's the Bezos Hart fund and Amazon like there's just an inherent uh not conflict but an inherent relationship to manage between kind of the corporation and the philanthropy like like I take Salesforce for instance like um it's very hard to tell where Salesforce begins where Salesforce like philanthropy begins and Mark Benny on philanthropy begins. Like um uh the corporate you know in that situation it's like I honestly don't even really can't really really uh explain it uh what what is which is what um I've asked people around that world a lot um um and and that's this is this is just kind of the reality of this world as much as people would like to make it seem like these are separate institutions uh it's a relationship and that's just kind of table sticks.

SPEAKER_00 39:28

Yeah and I guess when when the model for both the company and and the philanthropy is the sort of individual founder of entrepreneur philanthropist the line it's inevitable the lines get blurry because it's the same person, you know, and if their identity is reflected both in the company and in in the foundation or whatever structure they choose to use it's from their point of view it probably doesn't seem especially separate or like it's that necessary to have you know particularly strong kind of Chinese walls between them. Another thing I I wanted to to just ask if you kind of talk there about some of the you know the big figures that people will probably you know very much have heard of but but there must be others I mean there's so much money sloshing around in Silicon Valley in the tech industry and you're kind of working this beat. So I wanted to ask you like who are the big tech donors that most of us haven't even heard of yet and you know what what are they doing? What should we keep our eyes out for?

SPEAKER_01 40:17

Sure a couple a couple names I'll I'll throw out um um one uh person who I've been writing a lot about over the last uh couple months and I mentioned earlier in the podcast is is Sam Bankman Free who um is the uh youngest I I forget what the the the correct uh phrasing of the honorific here is but like the youngest richest person ever or something like that. He's he's 29 years old um and it's worth uh like 20 30 40 ungodly amounts of money um and he's the founder of FTX which is kind of a crypto exchange that has ridden the crypto boom uh people have heard of it today partially because of my stuff but partially because like he's sort of everywhere now like uh for for NBA fans uh the Miami Heat arena is now called the FTX arena like Tom Brady is a big booster of FTX like they're all in the sports world fashion world like Sam is suddenly everywhere in democratic politics people are asking me and texting me about Sam like daily uh so uh Sam I I think typifies you know sort of the new the new generation of effective altruist uh crypto donors and there's definitely um a a crossover between EA and crypto like lots of people are you know uh share interests in both of those um so I find Sam fascinating and he's just kind of beginning his philanthropic journey um I find um you know who's interesting these days we don't talk about on a ton of podcasts is is Connie Ballmer. So so Connie is uh you know people may recognize the last name is the wife of Steve Ballmer but Connie kind of runs the philanthropy and Connie has started doing more and more in politics too which is interesting like the Ballmers have funded lots of California political work. You know Ballmer speaking of the NBA you know is the owner of the Clippers they spent a lot of time in LA uh Connie is doing a lot politically and philanthropically um speaking of kind of uh women who kind of call the shots really at tech philanthropies uh Patty Quillen who's the wife of Reed Hastings um Patty recently hired uh a well-regarded foundation exec um to run her charitable giving um so very interested in sort of in sort of the uh the spouses who actually kind of make the trains run in time and really run the charitable world um who often are low profile don't really get their due um those are people I've written about both of the clock so if people are interested in sort of the undercover players we try to we'll try to give some of that too.

SPEAKER_00 43:02

Yeah absolutely and I I think it it is yeah really interesting because as I say again actually you know maybe it's not quite as eye-catching or well known as some of these really big figures but actually in terms of what's being done on the philanthropy side it's it's of the same scale and often you know just as as interesting. So people should definitely make themselves aware um and certainly I mean not necessarily to pick up on on him as an individual but but kind of some of the things that he represents. You mentioned Sam Bankman Fried there and I I was fascinated the other day somebody um flagged up to me that um the FDX foundation have just launched their future fund and I sort of trawled through the the website for that and it's I mean it's a lot of a lot of sort of standard defective altruism stuff and you know interest in long termism and you know AI breakout and that kind of thing. But loads of really interesting other things in there and a kind of you know really intriguing approach. But but in terms of both the sort of crypto side and and the EA side you know on the crypto side he's obviously you know just made vast amounts of of real genuine money in there. But do you Get a sense of how much other wealth there is kind of bubbling around that world and how seriously we should take the kind of idea of crypto philanthropy as a sort of standalone subset of philanthropy.

SPEAKER_01 44:12

Yeah. Um this is this is this is changing by the day. So um, you know, actually, like the crisis right now in Ukraine, for instance, is um, you know, Ukraine is in a very crypto-friendly country. Um, there's lots of uh I'm by too clear not an expert on on the crypto economy, but like there is tons of innovative kind of crypto um funding models that are flowing into the country, people donating, you know, random assets that I've never heard of. Um uh Vitalik Buterin, who's kind of the founder of Ethereum, has been very interesting donor to watch. Um, he's been very vocal about Ukraine. Um, so so clearly there's gonna be uh this generation is gonna do it differently. Like how differently um TBD. Um, but there's enormous amounts of money. Like I often wonder, you know, we obsess over the Forbes list or the Bloomberg list, like some of these crypto gazillionaires, you know, who the hell knows how much money they have or you know what denomination it's in and where it's going. So the crypto money is definitely gonna be a big part of my beat going forward. I'm always open to ideas for people who I can actually explain a uh a DAO and uh how NFTs are gonna revolutionize philanthropy. Uh please, please let me know because I'm I'm pretending at this point.

SPEAKER_00 45:35

Oh no, definitely something we could uh I've done various bits of work on DAOs and things before. I think NFTs are still, you know, I I get my head around what they are. I think uh crafting a case for why they're gonna change philanthropy. I I find it hard to come up with a credible one. Um, but I guess the the other side of that as well is the is the effective altruism bit, which you you sort of you said, there's a lot of people in the the crypto world for sure who are really into EA when they when they come to do philanthropy, but also more broadly, kind of in the in the tech world. And I guess it's sort of understandable that there's a a match of you know worldviews and mindsets between people who've made their money in tech and the kind of rigorous data-focused approach that you get in in effective altruism. You know, do you think, given how much of the overall wealth is being generated through the tech industry now, that actually, you know, we should really be taking EA very seriously if we aren't already as a kind of quite a dominant force that's going to shape philanthropy in the years to come? It's it's unclear, honestly.

SPEAKER_01 46:32

I mean, I mean, to some extent, this is uh probably overrepresented in media because of how uh like they're very they're very uh EAs are very hot online, uh with all due respect. Um so so so they they you know and I'm I've described myself as um I'm EA sympathetic, I would say. Um I don't, you know, I'm a journalist first and foremost, but like I definitely understand the rationale, I think it's very interesting. I'm super interested in like the intersection of EA and partisan politics specifically in ways in which EAs are uh making political donations and trying to kind of bring the uh malaria bed net equations to like you know cost per cost per vote calculations in you know Iowa's second district. Um uh easier said than done. But that's been I would say that's like a sub-interest of mine, um, even with an EA. But look, I mean, like most most donors are not EAs. Most donors are giving $30 million to Stanford and to the opera and to the you know hospital and like calling it a day. This is uh this is almost overrepresented in elite discourse because it's interesting. Um and maybe maybe I've played a part in that uh problem because I find it interesting and write about it a lot. Um, but but um clearly the EA mindset is is has taken hold in Silicon Valley, even for people who like don't call themselves EAs, like there's this sort of new field called progress studies that has been uh making more headway in Silicon Valley philanthropy, which is kind of similarly right-brained, similarly data-driven, uh pro-progress, pro-scientific innovation, pro like supply side, uh abundance economics. It's it's sort of an interesting mishmash of EA and fiscal conservatism and stuff like that. Um, but uh it's it's uh another rationalist um uh mindset. So I think this is also very correlated with age. Um younger people tend to be more EA aligned than older people. Um it's definitely also a more male-dominated uh philanthropic uh community. Um, I think people people would probably admit that even who are in it. Um and it's gonna be a force. Is it gonna be a dominant force? I don't know.

SPEAKER_00 48:56

Yeah, uh interesting. And it yeah, interesting as you say, it's always worth checking whether the the sample that you're drawing from is sort of self-selecting, particularly one that that is um likely to be more online and in the same sort of forums that you yourself frequent, because it's easy to lose sight. Yeah, lose sight of that. Yeah, sure.

SPEAKER_01 49:15

I mean you you know that everybody in EA is going to be talking about what they're doing on uh you know the forum, which everyone puts on. Um I'd say this with all due respect. I I I love I love people on EA because I'm just smart, passionate people.

SPEAKER_00 49:30

Yeah, and I I feel similarly, I'm uh you know, I'm I'm kind of I'm as I say, I mean, like you, I'm sort of sympathetic to a lot of the aims, and I think to the the rigor and the willingness to kind of engage at a pretty deep philosophical level with questions about you know where society's going and what you know what how social change works and what philanthropy's for. I I guess I kind of the the bits of it that that I find maybe off-putting are maybe the bits that that make it fascinating for people and make people latch onto it, which is a sort of slightly cultish aspect to it as well, which there definitely is, you know, people I know who are involved in it would probably really adopt it. Yeah, right. Um but it's yeah, it's really interesting you raised as well the whole that question of the the intersection with EA and and politics as well. Because I know traditionally one of the sort of critiques of EA would be that it was only good at working within sort of existing systems and and wasn't very good at measuring the value of sort of longer-term change through campaigning and and stuff. And as the the A communities faced up to that, as you say, it does seem as though there that's led to them actually kind of applying that mindset of theirs and and the kind of you know data-driven, outcomes-focused approach to politics and funding political battles, which is you know, rightly or wrongly fascinating. Um, so it'll be really interesting to see how that develops. Um, I'm I'm aware that I'm in danger of taking up far too much of your time, Teddy. Uh, and there's a whole other thing I was going to go off on there, down about sort of philanthropy and the intersection of politics, but we'll have to leave that for another time. Um, but before I let you go, I just you know wanted to ask whether you've got anything particular coming up that you wanted to flag up to people, anything that you wanted to plug.

SPEAKER_01 51:09

Sure. I'm I mean the the biggest help if you've enjoyed the uh the hour uh that we spent together uh in the in your AirPods or wherever you are. The biggest help that I always tell people they can do is to be another set of eyes and ears um on my behalf. So um, you know, I'm not asking people to uh you know disclose uh confidential information or anything like that. But like uh I I though if you want to feel free. Um but but I I like my my job is to try to bring uh maybe some of that EA-inspired rigor to this work and um to really understand what's actually happening, there's just so much fluff and so much cynicism often too about um about this world. And I I see myself on team transparency here, I see myself as trying to uh bring bring to light what's actually happening behind closed doors. Um so if you like what we're doing and want to support us, um you know, basically if you go to puck.news, puc.news, you can find information. You can subscribe to receive free emails, you can do a free trial for our subscription offering. Um it's about a hundred bucks a year. And I know that sounds like a lot, but if you work in philanthropy, definitely can be the business expense. Like I know tons of people would just throw this on the Amex. Um, and if you don't work in philanthropy, um, you know, I think this is still uh an important beat, and you can kind of support our work and uh I'd appreciate it.

SPEAKER_00 52:42

Definitely. Um and as I say, I'll definitely put links in the show notes to where people can can sign up and a few links to kind of examples of articles to to wet their appetite as well. Um just remains to say thanks ever so much for finding time to come on the podcast. It's been been great to to talk and to to gossip about some of this stuff. Um and you know, I might uh attempt to bend your arm uh again further down the line and get you to to come back on in 18 months or a couple of years' time and and see where some of these stories have got to. You bet. Thanks so much. Great. Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Teddy for coming on the programme. Um as I said, I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can find uh Puck and sign up for the free newsletter, and then you know if you like what you read, you can uh sign up for the paid version and get all of those uh stories and more. Um I'll also put some links to some things that I've said and written that you might be interested in as well about kind of similar subjects. If you're interested in uh stuff around philanthropy and civil society more broadly, do follow me on Twitter at Rodery underscore h underscore Davis or at philiteracy. Um check out the website for this podcast, philanthropisms.com, if you want to find all the back episodes. Uh, and also there's an email address there where if you want to get in touch with ideas for topics we could cover or people that I could interview, do do that. Other than that, uh just like, subscribe, leave us a nice review on iTunes or wherever else you get your podcasts, and I will see you next time. Bye, yes, yes, yes.