Remove Zuckerberg's name from the hospital of our city, says a politician from San Francisco | Technology

Since he announced a staggering $ 100 million donation to the Newark public school system, Mark Zuckerberg's generous philanthropy has been one of his main defenses against criticism of himself and his company.

But as Zuckerberg's reputation has been spoiled by a seemingly endless series of scandals, some recipients of the billionaire's largesse are beginning to worry about what being financed by Facebook means.

On Tuesday, San Francisco supervisor, Aaron Peskin, announced at a meeting of the supervisory board that he had asked the city attorney to start drafting a bill to remove the name of Zuckerberg of what is now Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg of San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.

The change of name of the hospital where Chan was trained as a pediatrician follows the couple's $ 75 million donation in 2015, which has been hailed as "the largest private gift of individuals to a public hospital in the United States." United States". The same year, on the occasion of the birth of his first child, Zuckerberg announced his intention to sell 99% of his stock on Facebook (valued at the time at $ 45 billion) by the company. intermediary of a new organization, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI).

"Given the persistent scandals in which Facebook has been involved, including the latest horrendous behavior of companies that have adopted an anti-Semitic stance with George Soros, it's unworthy to have Mark Zuckerberg's name in the hospital," said Peskin to the Guardian by phone.

Peskin also seeks to reform the process by which San Francisco ceded naming rights to a public institution. The change of name of the "general" was controversial when it was announced, but it was approved unanimously by the board of supervisors of the time.

"It is not normal that this city awards a prize to the branding of institutions and spaces that fundamentally belong to its citizens," he said Tuesday, noting that Zuckerberg's contribution to the renovation of the public hospital was less than 10% of the contribution of the city's population, who voted for the approval of a bond measure of nearly $ 900 million to fund the project in 2008.

Zuckerberg's name will not be removed from the building any time soon: the announcement of Peskin is only the first step in a very uncertain process. The city attorney's office declined to comment on what would be required to effect the change, citing the solicitor-client privilege, but Peskin staff stated that some of the problems they asked the lawyer to answer were whether the city should give Zuckerberg's gift, or whether the naming rights could be revoked on the basis of "some betrayal of public trust".

But the Peskin movement was greeted by at least one hospital employee. Sasha Cuttler, a registered nurse, has long protested against the name of the hospital, which owes its name to the founder of a company that embarked on a widely criticized mood study. from users without obtaining "informed consent".

"It's really the most vulnerable people we deal with in San Francisco General, and having the hospital appointed to someone who does not care about ethics in research has always been a monstrosity," he said. Cuttler. "Mark Zuckerberg has continued to go fast and break things, but we are starting to repair the damage, and it will be a good start for that."

While Facebook has been facing criticism over privacy issues for years and has suffered greatly from its reputation due to the fallout from the 2016 presidential election and the Cambridge Analytica revelations, a recent report from The New York Times revealed how the company had employed a conservative public relations firm to attack its detractors. linking them to Soros was particularly damaging.

According to the Times, the public relations firm, which Facebook subsequently fired, tried to persuade reporters that an anti-Facebook coalition was "not a sincere movement of like-minded groups, but rather a campaign orchestrated by a rich and partisan adversary ". Coalition members received funding from the Soros philanthropic body, the Open Society Foundations (OSF).

This narrative plays in clbadic anti-Semitic tropes about Soros, who is Jewish and is often the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories, but it also reinforces the idea that nonprofit organizations are controlled by their backers, a impression that these groups often have to face. fight.

An employee of a non-profit organization said that he had recently fought to fight such perceptions, not because his organization was receiving funding from the Open Society Foundations (which she has available ), but because she was receiving funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

"There is this impression that if you receive funding from Facebook, you suddenly worry about it," said the employee, who requested anonymity. "It sort of comes with that feeling of mistrust of our work because we are taking money from them … I do not think CZI is considered a problem, but that is the connection of the money on Facebook that allows people to stumble. "

The employee stated that the group's work was totally independent of its funding and that Facebook's message that Soros funded groups were influenced by this funding was "a dangerous thing to do". He also congratulated CZI and its work.

The overlaps between CZI and OSF are indeed important. As CZI is a limited liability company and not a traditional foundation, it is not required to disclose its grants and expenses. But the organization's Justice & Opportunity initiative has publicly announced its support for nine non-profit organizations working on criminal justice reform.

Three of them (families against mandatory minimum, measures for justice and alliance for security and justice) are also recipients of subsidies from OSF. Two other projects (Public Prosecutor's Impact and Public Rights) were founded by members of the Open Government Leadership Government in Government. And the chairman of the board of a sixth group, Vivian Nixon of Just Leadership USA, is a former Soros Justice Fellow.

Nixon congratulated OSF and CZI during a phone interview and was satisfied that both men were demonstrating a strong "commitment to justice". She also expressed doubts about Facebook 's intention to attack OSF groups: "After what I read, there is no reason to believe it. There are not enough facts to accuse that there was a deliberate attempt to undermine organizations simply because they were badociated. with Soros. "

Nixon also affirmed the total independence of CZI from Facebook. "I do not see them as the same organization," she said. "In the same way that the Ford Foundation is not the Ford Car Company."

Neither Facebook nor CZI have answered Guardian's questions, any more than a spokesman for the hospital. John Bell, chairman of the board of directors of the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation – the hospital's fundraising branch – did not directly address Peskin's efforts, but said in a statement: "Donor recognition through the designation of physical spaces – a well-established approach and key element of essential fundraising – encourages continued participation, helps to attract additional resources and honors important contributions and donors give to the institutions they support. "

Cuttler said such recognition could come in another way: "It's worthy of a plaque."