[Kydlaw]

Same here... except maybe in the opposite direction? Does it implies that their other philanthropy would not benefit from more public support? So what are they in this case?

Anyway, they do whatever they want with their philanthropy in the end, but I found that was an odd phrasing.

[Etheryte]

A lot of people use philanthropy as a means to ego boost and raise their public image. This is a phenomenon as old as time, to the point where even the bible has tales about it. The (modern?) countermovement to that is to keep your donations secret, often to the point where it's one of the strings attached to the money, that you can't publicly disclose who made the donation. This is a way to support a cause just for the sake of supporting it. I read the above statement as them usually following this ethos, but making an exception this time around since they believe being public about it will bring more visibility to the cause.

[graemep]

> to the point where even the bible has tales about it.

The Bible tells you not to talk about your donations!

> This is a way to support a cause just for the sake of supporting it.

For many causes the money matters, but the publicity does not. In this case Zig gains from it being better funded makes people more likely to have the confidence in its future to adopt it, and from the PR benefit (e.g. getting one more mention here).

On the other hand for something like a charity that helps the poor, we all know of the need already. Publicity does not help much - in fact I would be more likely to give to a small charity that does not get big donations than to one I know is getting big donations.

[JoshTriplett]

There are two main reasons to make a lot of noise about philanthropy: to draw attention to the cause or to draw attention to themselves. You can often tell the difference, based on whether someone's primarily talking about how the cause is important, or whether they seem to be primarily aggrandizing themselves for supporting it.

That said, while the former is more obviously laudable, the latter does serve the purpose of raising the status of being charitable, which can lead to more people being charitable.

[Kydlaw]

>> often to the point where it's one of the strings attached to the money, that you can't publicly disclose who made the donation.

TIL. Philanthropy is not big where I live so I don't know the ins and outs of it.

[lieks]

It's not modern. Jesus recommends it in one of his sermons. It's just unfortunately rare, like most good things about christianity tend to be.

[FireBeyond]

Empire of Pain goes into this with the Sackler family, where everything was not just about the money, but having their name on things.

Which backfired when their "connection" to Purdue Pharma (which they went to great lengths to not make a big noise about) became more well-known.

And then you have others who do it, so often that it is referred to as reputation-washing.

[ithkuil]

perhaps his other philanthropy donations are not technical and he believes that supporting them publicly would feel like bragging and he personally doesn't like that?

[flumpcakes]

This is my reading of it too.

[alemanek]

No it is clearly that as the main technical founder of Hashicorp his endorsement means something here. Where as other causes are outside of the area of his expertise.

[dfxm12]

It is understood as a generally good thing for the average person to donate to a long standing public institution, like your local art museum or food bank. Hashimoto donating publicly to such a place wouldn't sway anyone's understanding around that.

[owaislone]

Maybe other philanthropy they do is not part of the tech scene where they are most recognized. Maybe in those circles they are seen as just another rich couple.

[nurettin]

> So what are they in this case?

You wouldn't want to go public with donations to churches (it would be ideological) or orphanages (that would just be bragging).