this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
49 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4845 readers
223 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The list of ways they can actually help are endless, they just don’t want to actually do any of them - they just want you to think they want to help.

This part is absolutely correct. A social billionaire is a direct contradiction.

The idea of billionaires self-regulating is utopian - if they were willing to do this without external coercion, they would already be doing it. At least something like a tax can be enforced, but even then, like you said, politicians who make laws are in the pockets of the owning class. We'd need a radical overhaul of the whole rotten system to be able to enforce any seriously important financial law on them.

That said, creating charities and aid isn't a bad idea, it would be far better for them to support ones which already exist and are struggling. And it's particularly difficult to trust billionaire claims of being charitable when so many already perform investment and other financial activity under the guise of philanthropism. Supporting grassroots aid efforts rather than building charities from scratch would demonstrate legitimacy. And like you said, there is no legitimacy in these claims.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I’ve done lots of work for some big charities, and they’re rotten to the core in terms of how much money actually goes to the cause vs how much is spent on “administration” etc.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

I completely agree. In fact, some of the best work I see are from tiny volunteer groups like Food Not Bombs, who literally won't accept money (I've tried - my schedule doesn't align with volutneering).