3 ms·
This is complicated, because it's not really SO that's the essential part. The knowledge on SO is essential. That's not to say that SO isn't playing an extreme
by danShumway 7y ago
This is complicated, because it's not really SO that's the essential part. The knowledge on SO is essential.
That's not to say that SO isn't playing an extremely valuable role in helping to collect that knowledge and organize the community. Community management is hard. I do want SO to make money, I want the devs to be successful, I think they should be compensated for their work.
But products that are built on (what I would call) the commons are in a weird place. I'm cognizant of the fact that most of SO's value comes from the fact that ordinary people contribute to it without any compensation, and that part of the reason ordinary people contributed to it in the first place was because the developers were able to capitalize on a kind of social spirit.
That's not to say that SO is wrong here. TBH, I don't think advertising your own products on a home page is crossing any reasonable line, particularly when most people are getting to SO from search engines anyway. But I do want to push back a little bit against the idea that SO created something magical out of the ether. (Not that I think you're saying that, or trying to say that).
SO is essential only because the devs were able to get ordinary people to give up large swaths of information, for free. And part of the reason they were able to do that was because they projected a kind of business style that resonated with those people. Would SO be as successful today if it had run ads with trackers in them from the beginning? I don't know where the line is, but there has to be some degree of give-and-take, or there's no point in complaining when that same community decides, "nah, we don't think we want to give you free information any more."