2 ms·
So, you think these businesses took an existential risk with their reputation for the ephemeral benefit of looking cool? You are seriously underestimating the
by evrydayhustling 8y ago
So, you think these businesses took an existential risk with their reputation for the ephemeral benefit of looking cool? You are seriously underestimating the acumen of the folks who each went from zero to critically central providers in a cutthroat industry in less than 10 years.
Stripe/Paypal's constituents include their employees, businesses, and end users, all of whom have lots of choices about which network to align with. Their job is to project both a service and identity that align those folks to maximize the value of their network effects. They decided that the wedge of people who are worried about deplatforming (either Gab specifically or in some holistic way) is smaller than the wedge of people who would rather not be in the same ecosystem as Gab. I seriously doubt you know those audiences better than them, but if you're right then you have a great idea for your own fast-growing business.
BTW, the above doesn't have to be interpreted some cynical, 5-dimensional chess game analyzing user segments. Individual and brand identities and ethics are part of how people make purchasing/participation decisions, whether they are calculated or sincere. Sometimes a part of what makes people and their companies succeed really includes values they articulate that don't seem like part of the core product. You may dismiss those ethics as chasing some sort of trivial coolness-or-PC-ness, but enough other people take them seriously to move a lot of the world's money and time around. If it's tempting to dismiss that chunk of peoples' motivation as some sort of NPC ignorance (edit: apologies for putting words in your mouth if not), you might actually be defending your lack of effort to understand and adapt.
- jtbayly 8y ago“So, you think these businesses took an existential risk with their reputation for the ephemeral benefit of looking cool?“ Well, yes and no. As you pointed out, they are the 800lb gorilla in the room now. Sort of like FB and Twitter. Others have pointed out that Twitter, for example, started out championing free speech, and that’s part of how they grew to their huge size. Now they have no need to grow in that way, and staying that way can do damage. But beyond potential damage to their platform, you also have the fact that they can afford to lose money now to stay “cool” in a way they couldn’t before. This is somewhat similar, but we’re talking about a company for money transfer, not communication. Google grew by saying they wouldn’t be evil. The fact that they are being evil now poses very little short or medium term danger to them. Long term? Yes. I think they chose short-term profit that will come with a cost later on. Not necessarily in people leaving. (They are the 800lb gorilla, after all.) Maybe in regulation or who knows what. Having said that, I’m now thinking about other options. As is EasyDNS.