????去年扎克伯格創建了FWD.us，這是一個致力于推動移民和教育改革的游說團體。他宣稱自己是在為讓那些非法入境的工人融入美國社會而奮斗，但也從未否認過其中一些人可能會讓Facebook變得更強大。就算FWD.us在為了他公開謀求的移民改革開展游說時，他也是這么表態的：“我真不能跟任何人明說怎么才能讓這些人的身份合法化?！鄙w茨的大名也赫然出現在FWD.us的支持者名單里，不過他很少就這個組織的目標表態。

????去年扎克伯格還開始大談什么讓50億人都上網是何等重要，但他卻忘了，不管有沒有扎克伯格，手機和互聯網都會讓50億人中的大多數保持聯系。實際上他是自己想在這個過程中分一杯羹——有了這樣的投資，Facebook塞滿廣告的新聞就能直達全世界的中產階級。

????正是在這個問題上，扎克伯格憤世嫉俗、聰明圓滑的實用主義與他鼓吹的英雄的“讓我們干脆挑明”的直截了當發生了正面沖突。比爾?蓋茨本來跟扎克伯格的慈善事業沒什么矛盾，但如果說上網比他心愛的慈善項目——疾病、貧窮、培訓被剝奪公民權的人——還重要時，他就要堅決跟扎克伯格劃清界線了。

????《金融時報》（Financial Times）采訪蓋茨時，談及扎克伯格讓全球人口都上網的計劃，他說：“這算頭等大事？它只是個玩笑罷了。呃，到底哪個更重要，是上網還是瘧疾疫苗？如果你覺得上網很重要，這也不錯。但我不這么想。”

????這就是比爾?蓋茨，還有他自封的隨從馬克?扎克伯格。蓋茨說話絕對口無遮攔。扎克呢？卻是深藏不露、毫無誠意、粉飾做作的兜圈子。蓋茨為了推動自己的理想會不惜代價，哪怕這個代價是要犧牲更好的技術，或是要迂回繞開僵化的社會政策。

????與此同時，扎克卻還是一副公司高管的心態，好像自己的所作所為和高談闊論都是為了幫助這個世界，但實際上只是為了進一步給自己的公司牟利。今后20多年里，扎克伯格的慈善事業要么可能會變得無比宏偉，以至于比爾?蓋茨也只能淪為配角，作為當年曾啟發過他的人出現；要么他可能也就是另一個曾斂財無數最后照樣被世人遺忘的商業領袖。

????蓋茨讓千家萬戶和無數企業用上的操作系統可能在品質上不如扎克伯格吸引十億多蕓蕓眾生使用的服務。但扎克伯格的成就很大程度上要歸功于互聯網，正因為有了網絡，技術才能更大范圍地惠及世界各地的人。如果置身于蓋茨那個時代，扎克伯格會有什么作為呢？或者說蓋茨（作為技術公司的首席執行官）處于扎克伯格這個時代他又能取得什么成就呢？

????如果用政治術語來形容他倆，那么扎克伯格奉行的是現實政治，而蓋茨則是地地道道的理論家。在商業領域中，純粹的實用主義能讓你穩妥地度過一個又一個財季，而理想主義則能推動更廣闊、更持久的變革。扎克伯格的事業才剛開始，而蓋茨可能對我們這個世界影響更大，不光是在商業領域，在這兩位都自稱全力以赴的慈善事業領域恐怕也是如此。（財富中文網）

????譯者：清遠???

????Last year, Zuckerberg founded FWD.us, a lobbying group to push immigration and education reform. He claimed he was fighting to bring undocumented workers into the U.S., but never denied some would help make Facebook stronger. Zuckerberg actually said, "I can't really tell anyone how to legislate," even as FWD.us was lobbying for the immigration reform he was publicly seeking. Gates was listed as supporter of FWD.us in name, although he was less vocal about its goals.

????Last year, Zuckerberg also began to talk about how important it would be to bring 5 billion people online. Forget that mobile phones and the Internet would connect much of that population in time, with or without Zuckerberg. He wanted a personal stake in that process -- an investment that would make Facebook's ad-clogged news feed a rite of passage into the global middle class.

????And that's when the cynical, slick practicality of Mark Zuckerberg ran afoul of the let's-cut-through-this-shit directness of his stated hero. Bill Gates had no issue with Zuckerberg's philanthropy, but when it came to connectivity over his pet projects -- disease, poverty, educating the disenfranchised -- he drew the line.

????"As a priority? It's a joke," Gates said to the Financial Times when asked of Zuckerberg's plans to connect the world's population. "Hmm, which is more important, connectivity or malaria vaccine? If you think connectivity is the key thing, that's great. I don't."

????And there you have Bill Gates, and there you have his self-appointed acolyte Mark Zuckerberg. Gates is brutally direct. Zuck is insidiously, disingenuously, sugar-coatedly indirect. Gates will push his vision at any cost, even if that cost is extinguishing better technologies, or hacking around rigid social policies.

????Zuck, meanwhile, is still stuck in that executive mindset where you act and talk like you're helping the world, but you do it just to further the interests of your company. In 20 or so years, the philanthropy of Mark Zuckerberg may be so great that Bill Gates is just the footnote as the guy who inspired him. Or it could be that he's just another business leader who amassed a great fortune and was forgotten.

????The operating software Gates forced into hundreds of millions of homes and businesses may have been inferior in quality to what Zuckerberg enticed a billion-plus lives into. But much of what Zuckerberg won has to do with the fact that, thanks to the Internet, technology has scaled up to more of the world's population. What would Zuckerberg be in the age of Gates? Or Gates (as tech CEO) in the age of Zuckerberg?

????Put in political terms, Zuckerberg practices the realpolitik, while Gates is a die-hard ideologue. In the business world, pure practicality can carry you from quarter to quarter, while the ideologues can be the ones who engineer broadening and more lasting change. Zuckerberg's career is just getting started, but it may be Gates who has the bigger impact on the world, not just in business but in the philanthropy both men have pledged themselves to.