7 ms·

Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing. I

by FLGMwt 9y ago

Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing. I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers. Don't immediately react and reply that this is gameable. Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable. Pause for a second and think about why this is necessarily coming from a game company that's small and makes a crude product. Think about why something like this shouldn't be coming from an entity with much more power to effect positive social or economical change. And if you're part of one of those powers, can you do something?

n0her0 9y ago
They offer their base product as a download for free on their main page right below the buy button and it is licensed under the Creative Commons... And they give you instructions on how to do it most easily. They are an exceptional company, and have earned fans instead of customers.
donohoe 9y ago
+100
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jquery 9y ago
Their whole schtick is that they did some private charity work and it went great so FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK CAPITALISM. And you’re asking people not to talk about the main point of their shtick? I won’t argue what they did isn’t good but literally thousands of charities do this every day.
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  I guess I'm coming from: I feel like we're in a relatively cushy bubble so maybe let's talk bubble-external impact? I think this is a good thing that a private company is doing. They're benefitting from PR, but they're also using their stance on the capital and renown front to make a statement that it's cool to help out people who need help. Oh and also they're using their own cash to do that. They didn't say fuck anyone and they didn't say fuck capitalism. If anything, they're optimizing for capitalism: "people who care about the emotional plight of individuals in need would probably react positively to us publicly helping them out... and be more likely to buy our product."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
electrograv 9y ago
> Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable. I agree that positivity is important. Certainly, let us take a moment to genuinely appreciate what they’ve done here to help 100 people! Now, since this is such a good thing they’ve done on a small scale, let’s scale this kind of help to EVERYONE who is in need! That would be truly awesome. Oh wait, sorry — it looks like we can’t actually have that problem-solving discussion here, because you shut down the dialog by banning the topic. What you did there — see, that is “objectively a bad thing”. Seriously though, you cannot really expect people to shut down productive problem-solving discussion, on a forum meant for exactly that. In fact, I believe inspiring discussion and problem solving towards scaling this concept is exactly what Cards Against Humanity wants to happen as a result of this!
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  Hi! Thanks for responding! I'll admit I was dismissive in my attempt at brevity so thank you for challenging me. I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic. On the topic of scalability, I might been too dismissive, but I'd rather focus on the positivity of the topic as a whole, lamoon its impact, even if localized, and then secondarily bring up the topic of scalability. I was intentionally stark because I recognize HN as being highly volatile. Top-level commentary often controls the conversation and I'd rather validate the topic than waste nuance in pessimistic challenges.
  - AlexandrB 9y ago
    > I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic. I interpreted GPs comment as an indictment of NH's policy of banning political news items, not as blaming you for shutting down the current discussion.
    - Can_Not 9y ago
      I interpreted it as "don't shut down discussion with low effort comments like 'it doesn't scale'".
lobotryas 9y ago
>objectively a Good Thing Could you please defend this assertion? They themselves admit that their redistribution method is flawed (see the FAQ). I see this as an empty publicity stunt and something that doesn't help in the least.
- dieterrams 9y ago
  Hey buddy. Flawed != bad or net negative.
- Nicksil 9y ago
  It helped at least 100 people.
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  Happy to! First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets. I think most businesses would have taken a flexible $100k USD and spent it on marketing or expansion or something. The fact that this was distributed freely to people who self-identified as having use of it is good. Second, flawed/unfair/biased/imperfect does not mean that something can't have net gains. Just because a company recognizes and discloses their faults, that shouldn't dismiss them from credibility. I'd rather a service that promises 99.5% availability than no service at all (or worse, a service that doesn't disclose their reliability). Third, I think that the public, publicized, monetary actions of a trendy business have an additional non-material benefit. On top of any fiscal commentary about this bit, CAH is quite popular, and they have enough financial leeway to make a statement. This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for.
  - edanm 9y ago
    You're making a few assumptions that I disagree with. 'First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets.' Well, I think most economists will tell you that almost every non-forced transaction in a consumeristic market is a win-win. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen! You have $x, but you want to have whatever I'm selling more than you want to have those $x, therefore we make the trade. I, alternatively, prefer the money. If there's no win-win here, then the transaction wouldn't happen in the first place. "This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for." That's sincerely very nice of them. It really is. They're giving up some of their own hard-earned money in order to give to others, and I applaud them for it. However, don't give up on all corporations just yet. Corporations are in a very different position, at least large, public ones, because they're not wholly owned by a few people who can decide to give some of their money to charity. They're owned by huge numbers of shareholders. (A lot of which are members of the public, investing through pensions funds and the like). Who exactly should be making the decision to e.g. donate money to charity, instead of making more money? The individual shareholders are completely free to do this with their own money, and many do - but why should the company itself do it? If I were a shareholder, I'd want the company to mostly maximize profit, then decide in private how I'd like to donate to charity. For many reasons, not least of which is that I'd probably donate to GiveWell or something similar, rather than to a few random people who happen to like CAH. Anyway, I really can't say it better than Milton Friedman, so if you're interested, I suggest you read his words on the subjcet: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...
nbanks 9y ago
This is definitely a good thing, especially when it's juxtaposed with Cards Against Humanity's Holiday Hole last year. It's as if they're not really against humanity after all. I wonder which publicity stunt is better for the company.

by FLGMwt 9y ago

n0her0 9y ago

They offer their base product as a download for free on their main page right below the buy button and it is licensed under the Creative Commons... And they give you instructions on how to do it most easily. They are an exceptional company, and have earned fans instead of customers.

donohoe 9y ago

+100

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jquery 9y ago

Their whole schtick is that they did some private charity work and it went great so FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK CAPITALISM. And you’re asking people not to talk about the main point of their shtick? I won’t argue what they did isn’t good but literally thousands of charities do this every day.

FLGMwt 9y ago
I guess I'm coming from: I feel like we're in a relatively cushy bubble so maybe let's talk bubble-external impact? I think this is a good thing that a private company is doing. They're benefitting from PR, but they're also using their stance on the capital and renown front to make a statement that it's cool to help out people who need help. Oh and also they're using their own cash to do that. They didn't say fuck anyone and they didn't say fuck capitalism. If anything, they're optimizing for capitalism: "people who care about the emotional plight of individuals in need would probably react positively to us publicly helping them out... and be more likely to buy our product."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

electrograv 9y ago

> Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable. I agree that positivity is important. Certainly, let us take a moment to genuinely appreciate what they’ve done here to help 100 people! Now, since this is such a good thing they’ve done on a small scale, let’s scale this kind of help to EVERYONE who is in need! That would be truly awesome. Oh wait, sorry — it looks like we can’t actually have that problem-solving discussion here, because you shut down the dialog by banning the topic. What you did there — see, that is “objectively a bad thing”. Seriously though, you cannot really expect people to shut down productive problem-solving discussion, on a forum meant for exactly that. In fact, I believe inspiring discussion and problem solving towards scaling this concept is exactly what Cards Against Humanity wants to happen as a result of this!

FLGMwt 9y ago
Hi! Thanks for responding! I'll admit I was dismissive in my attempt at brevity so thank you for challenging me. I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic. On the topic of scalability, I might been too dismissive, but I'd rather focus on the positivity of the topic as a whole, lamoon its impact, even if localized, and then secondarily bring up the topic of scalability. I was intentionally stark because I recognize HN as being highly volatile. Top-level commentary often controls the conversation and I'd rather validate the topic than waste nuance in pessimistic challenges.
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  > I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic. I interpreted GPs comment as an indictment of NH's policy of banning political news items, not as blaming you for shutting down the current discussion.
  - Can_Not 9y ago
    I interpreted it as "don't shut down discussion with low effort comments like 'it doesn't scale'".

lobotryas 9y ago

>objectively a Good Thing Could you please defend this assertion? They themselves admit that their redistribution method is flawed (see the FAQ). I see this as an empty publicity stunt and something that doesn't help in the least.

dieterrams 9y ago
Hey buddy. Flawed != bad or net negative.
Nicksil 9y ago
It helped at least 100 people.
FLGMwt 9y ago
Happy to! First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets. I think most businesses would have taken a flexible $100k USD and spent it on marketing or expansion or something. The fact that this was distributed freely to people who self-identified as having use of it is good. Second, flawed/unfair/biased/imperfect does not mean that something can't have net gains. Just because a company recognizes and discloses their faults, that shouldn't dismiss them from credibility. I'd rather a service that promises 99.5% availability than no service at all (or worse, a service that doesn't disclose their reliability). Third, I think that the public, publicized, monetary actions of a trendy business have an additional non-material benefit. On top of any fiscal commentary about this bit, CAH is quite popular, and they have enough financial leeway to make a statement. This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for.
- edanm 9y ago
  You're making a few assumptions that I disagree with. 'First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets.' Well, I think most economists will tell you that almost every non-forced transaction in a consumeristic market is a win-win. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen! You have $x, but you want to have whatever I'm selling more than you want to have those $x, therefore we make the trade. I, alternatively, prefer the money. If there's no win-win here, then the transaction wouldn't happen in the first place. "This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for." That's sincerely very nice of them. It really is. They're giving up some of their own hard-earned money in order to give to others, and I applaud them for it. However, don't give up on all corporations just yet. Corporations are in a very different position, at least large, public ones, because they're not wholly owned by a few people who can decide to give some of their money to charity. They're owned by huge numbers of shareholders. (A lot of which are members of the public, investing through pensions funds and the like). Who exactly should be making the decision to e.g. donate money to charity, instead of making more money? The individual shareholders are completely free to do this with their own money, and many do - but why should the company itself do it? If I were a shareholder, I'd want the company to mostly maximize profit, then decide in private how I'd like to donate to charity. For many reasons, not least of which is that I'd probably donate to GiveWell or something similar, rather than to a few random people who happen to like CAH. Anyway, I really can't say it better than Milton Friedman, so if you're interested, I suggest you read his words on the subjcet: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...

nbanks 9y ago

This is definitely a good thing, especially when it's juxtaposed with Cards Against Humanity's Holiday Hole last year. It's as if they're not really against humanity after all. I wonder which publicity stunt is better for the company.