Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
On Tuesday, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a powerful announcement — not only did he reveal the birth of his daughter, Max, but he shared plans to give up 99% of his personal Facebook shares over the course of his lifetime and use them to fund causes through a newly formed entity called Chan Zuckerberg LLC. 
  
 The revelation generated a lot of attention, much of it due to the sheer volume of Zuckerberg’s net worth — $45 billion! While many people, including Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, praised him for his generosity, others expressed confusion and even questioned his motives for giving his money away. 
  
 Looking to alleviate some of those concerns, in a post Thursday, Zuckerberg clarified how he and his wife Priscilla Chan, plan to delineate their funds. 
  
 “Our initial focus areas are personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities. We’ve already made many investments over the past five years in these areas — education, science, health, internet access and inclusion — and you can see a summary of our investments on the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative page timeline.” 
  
 Zuckerberg addressed the allegations that forming this organization was a way to avoid taxes — he explained that by structuring the Chan Zuckerberg entity as an LLC, that their shares will still be taxed. 
  
 “By using an LLC instead of a traditional foundation, we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively. In fact, if we transferred our shares to a traditional foundation, then we would have received an immediate tax benefit, but by using an LLC we do not. And just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC.” 
  
 He also says that this “for profit” structure allows them to make investments that will continue to fuel their objectives. 
  
 “This enables us to pursue our mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates — in each case with the goal of generating a positive impact in areas of great need. Any net profits from investments will also be used to advance this mission….For example, our education work has been funded through a non-profit organization,Startup:Education, the recently announced Breakthrough Energy Coalition will make private investments in clean energy, and we also fund public government efforts, like the CDC Ebola response and San Francisco General Hospital.” 
  
 Some of Zuckerberg’s early attempts at philanthropy were also met with controversy, particularly his $100 million gift to Newark schools, which faced challenges in its execution. But with $45 billion to experiment with, let’s hope that much of this money ends up doing some good. 
  
 Zuckerberg previously signed The Giving Pledge, promising to give away over half his fortune, along with Richard Branson, Warren Buffett and other billionaires. 
  
 By timing the latest announcement with the birth of his baby, it seems that Zuckerberg is trying to send a message that he’s not hoarding his personal fortune for the next 100 generations of Zucks. 
  
 Welcome to the world, baby Max. ||||| Earlier this week, Mark Zuckerberg made the surprise announcement that he, along with his wife Priscilla Chan, would be donating 99 percent of their Facebook shares — worth around $45 billion — to the causes of "advancing human potential" and "promoting equality." The gesture appeared altruistic, but some have criticized the way Zuckerberg is using the money, giving it to a limited liability company rather than a charitable foundation. Now Zuckerberg has responded to those complaints, posting another message that attempts to explain why he set up the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and what he and his wife want to do with the money. 
  
 "The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is structured as an LLC rather than a traditional foundation," he writes. "This enables us to pursue our mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates." Unlike limited liability companies, charitable foundations are restricted from investing in for-profit businesses and cannot engage in political lobbying, activities that the Facebook founder said the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative was designed to do in order to further the development of humanity. 
  
 Charitable foundations can't lobby politically or invest in for-profit companies 
  
 Others have suggested that the Initiative is a giant tax avoidance scheme, specifying that by gifting shares rather than cash, Zuckerberg avoids paying higher costs in capital gains tax. He addressed this concern too, stating that "by using an LLC instead of a traditional foundation, we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively." Zuckerberg said that if his intentions were to avoid tax, he could've simply set up a charity. "If we transferred our shares to a traditional foundation," he wrote, "then we would have received an immediate tax benefit, but by using an LLC we do not. And just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC." 
  
 Zuckerberg specified where the money would go first 
  
 Tougher to address was criticism that Zuckerberg was being wasteful with the money — specifically, that Facebook's billions would be used to further his own Silicon Valley-shaped worldview rather than donated to a charity that already has operations in place in the developing world. At the moment of its foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's intentions were woolly — advancing humanity and promoting equality without a specific roadmap for either goal — but they're already starting to take shape. Zuckerberg used his most recent post to call out initial areas of focus for the Initiative, choosing "personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people, and building strong communities" as places it will first spend its money. 
  
 These four areas are again broad, but Zuckerberg picked out specific examples of where he has spent money before, listing accomplishments. "Our education work has been funded through a non-profit organization, Startup:Education, the recently announced Breakthrough Energy Coalition will make private investments in clean energy, and we also fund public government efforts, like the CDC Ebola response and San Francisco General Hospital." Again justifying the decision to use an LLC rather than a charitable foundation, Zuckerberg said "what's most important to us is the flexibility to give to the organizations that will do the best work — regardless of how they're structured." ||||| Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong. 
  
 Here’s what happened instead: Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle. 
  
 Sorry for the slightly less sexy headline. 
  
 Zuckerberg is a co-founder of Facebook and a youthful mega-billionaire. In announcing the birth of his daughter, he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, declared they would donate 99 percent of their worth, the vast majority of which is tied up in Facebook stock valued at $45 billion today. 
  
 In doing so, Zuckerberg and Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His PR return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other. 
  
 An LLC can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An LLC can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money. That’s what America is all about. But as a society, we don’t generally call these types of activities “charity.” 
  
 What’s more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements. 
  
 In covering the event, many commentators praised the size and percentage of the gift and pointed out that Zuckerberg is relatively young to be planning to give his wealth away. “Mark Zuckerberg Philanthropy Pledge Sets New Giving Standard,” Bloomberg glowed. Few news outlets initially considered the tax implications of Zuckerberg’s plan. A Wall Street Journal article didn’t mention taxes at all. 
  
 Nor did they grapple with the societal implications of the would-be donations. 
  
 So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the LLC sold stock, Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing. 
  
 If the LLC donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the LLC probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the LLC donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax. 
  
 Zuckerberg didn’t create these tax laws and cannot be criticized for minimizing his tax bills. If he had created a foundation, he would have accrued similar tax benefits. But what this means is that he amassed one of the greatest fortunes in the world — and is likely never to pay any taxes on it. Any time a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes. 
  
 Instead of lavishing praise on Zuckerberg for having issued a news release with a promise, this should be an occasion to mull what kind of society we want to live in. Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money. 
  
 In this case, it is different. One person will be making these decisions. 
  
 Of course, nobody thinks our government representatives do a good job of allocating resources. Politicians — a bunch of bums! Maybe Zuckerberg will make wonderful decisions, ones I would personally be happy with. Maybe not. He blew his $100 million donation to the Newark school system, as Dale Russakoff detailed in her recent book, “The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?” Zuckerberg has said he has learned from his mistakes. We don’t know whether that’s true because he hasn’t made any decisions with the money he plans to put into his investment vehicle. 
  
 But I think I might do a good job allocating $45 billion. Maybe even better than Zuckerberg. I am self-aware enough to realize many people would disagree with my choices. Those who like how Zuckerberg is lavishing his funds might not like how the Koch brothers do so. Or George Soros. 
  
 Mega-donations, assuming Zuckerberg makes good on his pledge, are explicit acknowledgments that the money should be plowed back into society. They are tacit acknowledgments that no one could ever possibly spend $45 billion on himself or his family, and that the money isn’t really “his,” in a fundamental sense. Because that is the case, society can’t rely on the beneficence and enlightenment of the superwealthy to realize this individually. We need to take a portion uniformly — some kind of tax on wealth. 
  
 The point is that we are turning into a society of oligarchs. And I am not as excited as some to welcome the new Silicon Valley overlords. |||||
A:
Mark Zuckerberg announced the birth of his baby daughter and a $45 billion giveaway on the same day this week, and he's had to do a little more explaining about the latter. In a Facebook post on Thursday, Zuckerberg explains that Chan Zuckerberg Initiative LLC, the entity he's donating 99% of his Facebook shares to, is being set up as a limited liability company instead of a traditional foundation so it can engage in actions like "funding non-profit organizations, making private investments, and participating in policy debates," reports TechCrunch, which notes that some critics accused Zuckerberg of having ulterior motives or said the move could be "a big waste." The initiative will focus on "personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities," building on previous investments in "education, science, health, Internet access, and inclusion," Zuckerberg explained. He also addressed concerns that the donation—equivalent to the GDP of Serbia, or around $38 for every Facebook user—could be some kind of tax dodge, explaining that "we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively" and that if he wanted to avoid tax, it would have been far more effective to set up a traditional charity, the Verge reports. (A ProPublica piece calls the initiative a "tax vehicle.")