Those are not &#x27;debunked&#x27; but rather &#x27;addressed.&#x27; Some of the criticisms are still valid, but the author chose a different reference frame.<p>Consider “Mega-philanthropy is non-democratic, because it involves a few individuals shaping the future”. The re-framing is &#x27;as far as we can tell from his statement at least, they plan to use the money to alleviate disease, improve education, and fight poverty&#x27; which are &#x27;unequivocally good&#x27;.<p>I reject this reference frame. Consider the move towards charter schools, which is funded in part by the mega-philanthropy of Gates. Set aside even the question of if charter schools &#x27;improve education&#x27;. Charter schools are anti-democratic.<p>Public schools for the most part are run by local schoolboards. Remember, education isn&#x27;t only important for the student, it&#x27;s also important for businesses who want to hire new graduates, infrastructure which assumes a basic level of literacy, and a political system at least nominally based on the idea that educated citizens are better than uneducated ones. So even if I have no children, I should still have some say in how the school is run, because the results of the schooling will affect me.<p>A charter school, on the other hand, limits that decision to the owners of the school and (indirectly through parental choice) to the parents.<p>This is anti-democratic, because it removes political power from most citizens.<p>Now, we can talk about balance - should we remove some democracy in the name of better education? But to do that, what is &quot;better education&quot;? Is it test scores? Is it the local school board which gets to decide which is best for the community, or the state? How much influence should mega-philanthropists have on getting to decide what constitutes &quot;improvement&quot;?<p>If billionaires have a bigger voice than tens of thousands of citizens who have a different view of what is &#x27;good&#x27;, then that too is clearly anti-democratic.