4 ms·

I see a problem, though I have no alternative to offer, with the current model of organizations. It seems you are either for-profit, and then you have no ethic

by neiman 7y ago

I see a problem, though I have no alternative to offer, with the current model of organizations. It seems you are either for-profit, and then you have no ethics and do everything you can to centralize the world around you with no concern for users or their benefits. Or you're a not-for-profit foundation or the Internet Archive, where you do good things but are destined to be "poor". Are there are any "shades" between those two organization models?

beefield 7y ago
Co-ops.
Despegar 7y ago
Profit or non-profit doesn't really have anything to do with it. The issue is market power. Chrome has 70-80% market share according to this article. That's monopoly levels of market power and it's maintained through Android, which also has 80% market share. It's up to regulators to restore some semblance of balance to the market. If the browser market were less concentrated and there was more equal distribution, it wouldn't really matter whether you were a non-profit or not. In fact the web would be better off with competing interests jockeying over each other.
nine_k 7y ago
If you don't plan to be poor, then you need many paying customers. For a browser, the customers could be either end users, corporations with many end users, or marketers who want to sell to the end users. The latter case is Chrome, which works through a long chain of Google services. The corporate case used to be IE, geared towards deep windows integration. The case of the paying end users used to be the original Netscape. It did not work well for a number of reasons. Paying for a product when free-as-beer alternatives are available takes understanding, which is sorely lacking outside some segments of tech circles. I personally buy Mozilla a figurative pizza by a yearly donation. I do it because I understand their importance and feel grateful for their products. If more people did that it would help, but most people who are to benefit from Mozilla's efforts are not technical.
mistrial9 7y ago
this -- but, the categories lack detail.. a real systems diagram would quickly show a hundred influences and variables affecting both models. Without enumerating and advocating the position, rather skip to the important results .. there must be ENFORCEMENT on the Corporate, and SUSTINANCE for the not-for-Profit, to hope for any balanced future.
oefrha 7y ago
> Or you're a not-for-profit foundation or the Internet Archive, where you do good things but are destined to be "poor". Not necessarily. Wikipedia is actually pretty damn rich with a large war chest.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...
- cthor 7y ago
  Wikipedia is the single greatest website on the Internet. That's what it takes for donations to keep you afloat. $100MM revenue? Google makes that in a day. That aside, it's not entirely clear that Wikipedia can live off donations forever.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    The article you link to points out that only a small part of what Wikipedia spends is directly used to keep the website up. Spending in 2008 was less than 5% of today, and the website was just fine.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    Interestingly I was thinking about that article when I posted my comment. One takeaway is that Wikipedia shouldn't even be spending as much as they are.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    > $100MM revenue? Google makes that in a day. Almost as if one of them wants to squeeze out every penny they can, while the other one is... I don't know, a non-profit that wants to make something good for the world? What amount of money do you expect a non-profit to make in a year in order for you to consider it as a successful non-profit?
carapace 7y ago
Well, crack open your history books and recall that the entire point of corporations is the relatively-risk-free exploitation of other people's resources (or even they themselves, as slaves.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company - - - - By contrast, most religions are not poor and do a lot of good works. - - - - Some people, like Bill Gates, make a lot of money the exploitative way... (what if Windows was FOSS from the start and Gates only had $100,000,000 instead of $100,000,000,000 or whatever. You'll never convince me that that isn't a better alternate reality.) ...and then turn around and spend it on good works. As for making money vs. doing good, I think there is a fundamental tension, but I find it hard to articulate. What about Elon Musk? He's making money, and arguably do good by humanity overall, eh?
- neiman 7y ago
  > What about Elon Musk? He's making money, and arguably do good by humanity overall, eh? I wonder what will happen when Musk would have to choose between money and the benefit of humanity.
  - carapace 7y ago
    It depends on his values and metaphysics. In the Gita, Krishna says, "He who works for the fruits of his labor is a miser."
- xenocyon 7y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but it's true: the most conventional path for corporations to make money at large scales is to privatize profit while socializing externalities. This has been true for at least a half millenium and continues to be true today.
  - carapace 7y ago
    FWIW, it's got 2 points. It seems bizarre to me that that comment got flagged. Maybe the mention of religion?
the8472 7y ago
There are many legal constructs that provide shades of gray. Mozilla itself is such an example, it's a for-profit corporation owned by a non-profit. Additional examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation

by neiman 7y ago

beefield 7y ago

Co-ops.

Despegar 7y ago

Profit or non-profit doesn't really have anything to do with it. The issue is market power. Chrome has 70-80% market share according to this article. That's monopoly levels of market power and it's maintained through Android, which also has 80% market share. It's up to regulators to restore some semblance of balance to the market. If the browser market were less concentrated and there was more equal distribution, it wouldn't really matter whether you were a non-profit or not. In fact the web would be better off with competing interests jockeying over each other.

nine_k 7y ago

If you don't plan to be poor, then you need many paying customers. For a browser, the customers could be either end users, corporations with many end users, or marketers who want to sell to the end users. The latter case is Chrome, which works through a long chain of Google services. The corporate case used to be IE, geared towards deep windows integration. The case of the paying end users used to be the original Netscape. It did not work well for a number of reasons. Paying for a product when free-as-beer alternatives are available takes understanding, which is sorely lacking outside some segments of tech circles. I personally buy Mozilla a figurative pizza by a yearly donation. I do it because I understand their importance and feel grateful for their products. If more people did that it would help, but most people who are to benefit from Mozilla's efforts are not technical.

mistrial9 7y ago

this -- but, the categories lack detail.. a real systems diagram would quickly show a hundred influences and variables affecting both models. Without enumerating and advocating the position, rather skip to the important results .. there must be ENFORCEMENT on the Corporate, and SUSTINANCE for the not-for-Profit, to hope for any balanced future.

oefrha 7y ago

> Or you're a not-for-profit foundation or the Internet Archive, where you do good things but are destined to be "poor". Not necessarily. Wikipedia is actually pretty damn rich with a large war chest.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

cthor 7y ago
Wikipedia is the single greatest website on the Internet. That's what it takes for donations to keep you afloat. $100MM revenue? Google makes that in a day. That aside, it's not entirely clear that Wikipedia can live off donations forever.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
- zozbot234 7y ago
  The article you link to points out that only a small part of what Wikipedia spends is directly used to keep the website up. Spending in 2008 was less than 5% of today, and the website was just fine.
- oefrha 7y ago
  Interestingly I was thinking about that article when I posted my comment. One takeaway is that Wikipedia shouldn't even be spending as much as they are.
- input_sh 7y ago
  > $100MM revenue? Google makes that in a day. Almost as if one of them wants to squeeze out every penny they can, while the other one is... I don't know, a non-profit that wants to make something good for the world? What amount of money do you expect a non-profit to make in a year in order for you to consider it as a successful non-profit?

carapace 7y ago

Well, crack open your history books and recall that the entire point of corporations is the relatively-risk-free exploitation of other people's resources (or even they themselves, as slaves.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company - - - - By contrast, most religions are not poor and do a lot of good works. - - - - Some people, like Bill Gates, make a lot of money the exploitative way... (what if Windows was FOSS from the start and Gates only had $100,000,000 instead of $100,000,000,000 or whatever. You'll never convince me that that isn't a better alternate reality.) ...and then turn around and spend it on good works. As for making money vs. doing good, I think there is a fundamental tension, but I find it hard to articulate. What about Elon Musk? He's making money, and arguably do good by humanity overall, eh?

neiman 7y ago
> What about Elon Musk? He's making money, and arguably do good by humanity overall, eh? I wonder what will happen when Musk would have to choose between money and the benefit of humanity.
- carapace 7y ago
  It depends on his values and metaphysics. In the Gita, Krishna says, "He who works for the fruits of his labor is a miser."
xenocyon 7y ago
You're getting downvoted, but it's true: the most conventional path for corporations to make money at large scales is to privatize profit while socializing externalities. This has been true for at least a half millenium and continues to be true today.
- carapace 7y ago
  FWIW, it's got 2 points. It seems bizarre to me that that comment got flagged. Maybe the mention of religion?

the8472 7y ago

There are many legal constructs that provide shades of gray. Mozilla itself is such an example, it's a for-profit corporation owned by a non-profit. Additional examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation