6 ms·

I find the article hopeful for the future of free speech on the internet. Even though the ability to host content on the net is one thing and lacking access to

I find the article hopeful for the future of free speech on the internet. Even though the ability to host content on the net is one thing and lacking access to most platforms (where the users actually are) like youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok is another. The most important thing nowadays is access to the siloed user bases for people who try to express dissident opinions, not the access to the net as whole, even though that is important as well. >For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation service we worked with our Proudflare employee resource group to identify an organization that supported LGBTQ+ rights and donate 100 percent of the fees for our services to them. I find this section peculiar. Why does the company have "values"? I though companies were supposed to be looking after the intrests of their shareholders, i.e., profit. Do the shareholders consent to the lost profit being donated to political motives? This broader trend of companies becoming political organizations is terrible, frankly. But even with that said, I find their stance in the article to be hopeful, and sincerely wish that they stay true to their words in this paragraph. >To be clear, just because we did it in a limited set of cases before doesn’t mean we were right when we did. Or that we will ever do it again.

systemvoltage 4y ago
> I find this section peculiar. Why does the company have "values"? I though companies were supposed to be looking after the intrests of their shareholders, i.e., profit. Do the shareholders consent to the lost profit being donated to political motives? This broader trend of companies becoming political organizations is terrible, frankly. This ship has sailed since about 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_cor... I would like to see new companies that completely reject the status quo in every way: - No HR departments - No virtue signaling whatsoever - Cubicles are back, no open offices - Only hire based on competence - Explicitly prohibit any kind of activism at work - No politics at work - No tolerance to anything but work. If you sexually harrass someone, instantly fired. - No woke HR training (no one watches it, yet no one has the courage to say anything about it) - No green washing pledges (these are not as effective as public thinks) I'd sign up for a job there. People need to read 1970's annual reports. They were so amazing.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > - No tolerance to anything but work. If you sexually harrass someone, instantly fired. > - No woke HR training (no one watches it, yet no one has the courage to say anything about it) Given that a chunk of the HR training is about reminding people not to sexually harass, I'm not sure how you can achieve both of those? Especially when you don't have an HR department. Who's investigating the allegations? In practice this kind of culture leads to "if you are sexually harrased, you have to keep your mouth shut or you will be fired".
  - hooverd 4y ago
    Who gets to decide what is "political", too.
    - afiori 4y ago
      Topics that cause disagreements not related to the job can be classified as personal and/or political. We should not take X as client, they are bad -> political We should not take X as client, my ex work there -> political We should not take X as client, they are unreliable with payments -> not political We should not take X as client, clients W, Y, and Z will drop us -> not political
      - kevinh 4y ago
        Is a man talking about his wife political? Is a man talking about his husband political? Is a person transitioning political?
        afiori 4y ago
        Talking about eating apples could be political in the definition I gave. I don't think it is a good idea but it is a solution to the question of who get to decide what is political and what it not: everything not job related is political.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
afiori 4y ago
Caring about PR is in the interest of shareholders. If companies had to always maximize short term profits there would be very few companies around. wrt shareholders for public companies they have a duty not to defraud them[0]; for everything else they are another stakeholder between employees, the public, the company itself as an institution, and other. [0] For example how Musk had Tesla overpay for the failing SolarCity to save face [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUQhfYv3wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUQhfYv3wc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYGgeRxVS_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYGgeRxVS_E [3] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-eVf9RWeoWHFuSgmmpMlMlVfMM_kFnm6 https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-eVf9RWeoWHFuSgmmpMlMlVf...
subsistence234 4y ago
There are many successful protection rackets going around that work by generating bad PR and threatening more bad or worse PR, unless you donate to them and/or hire them as consultants.
maxboone 4y ago
There's a growing amount of shareholders and boards that care about more than direct monetary profits. They also care about providing value / reducing costs in terms of e.g. sustainability.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  There is a growing amount of shareholders that pretend to car about more than profits in times of plenty and economic growth Lets see if these feelings over profits survive the next recession, I am press X for doubt on that one
berjin 4y ago
> Why does the company have "values"? Look into ESG scores and Black Rock.
skybrian 4y ago
Companies have values because they are not machines. They are organizations of people, who do have values. (And sometimes even agree on them.) Also, you're decades out of date on shareholder capitalism. ESG is big now. Even the shareholders don't necessarily want to you to maximize profit.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  ESG is primarily a mechanism for shareholders to get even more influence. This is not altruism. On the contrary, they leverage their financial advantages. Road to hell in my opinion.
fleddr 4y ago
I'm with you that they did the right thing by taking this neutral stance, the peculiar section you should see as "managing optics" and keeping hysterical activists off their backs.
neuracnu 4y ago
Regarding Cloudflare donating their service fees to an LGBTQ support org, that's some genuine D-grade advocacy. I feel bad for the ERG members who were put in the position of choosing that charity. If someone keeps starting fires on my property, I don't want you to donate to the local fireman's fund, I want you to stop giving that person matches.
- killyourcar 4y ago
  It's carbon offsets for hate. And just like carbon credits, it's not really solving any problems. It's the minimum they could do that was literally not zero.

systemvoltage 4y ago

> I find this section peculiar. Why does the company have "values"? I though companies were supposed to be looking after the intrests of their shareholders, i.e., profit. Do the shareholders consent to the lost profit being donated to political motives? This broader trend of companies becoming political organizations is terrible, frankly. This ship has sailed since about 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_cor... I would like to see new companies that completely reject the status quo in every way: - No HR departments - No virtue signaling whatsoever - Cubicles are back, no open offices - Only hire based on competence - Explicitly prohibit any kind of activism at work - No politics at work - No tolerance to anything but work. If you sexually harrass someone, instantly fired. - No woke HR training (no one watches it, yet no one has the courage to say anything about it) - No green washing pledges (these are not as effective as public thinks) I'd sign up for a job there. People need to read 1970's annual reports. They were so amazing.

pjc50 4y ago
> - No tolerance to anything but work. If you sexually harrass someone, instantly fired. > - No woke HR training (no one watches it, yet no one has the courage to say anything about it) Given that a chunk of the HR training is about reminding people not to sexually harass, I'm not sure how you can achieve both of those? Especially when you don't have an HR department. Who's investigating the allegations? In practice this kind of culture leads to "if you are sexually harrased, you have to keep your mouth shut or you will be fired".
- hooverd 4y ago
  Who gets to decide what is "political", too.
  - afiori 4y ago
    Topics that cause disagreements not related to the job can be classified as personal and/or political. We should not take X as client, they are bad -> political We should not take X as client, my ex work there -> political We should not take X as client, they are unreliable with payments -> not political We should not take X as client, clients W, Y, and Z will drop us -> not political
    - kevinh 4y ago
      Is a man talking about his wife political? Is a man talking about his husband political? Is a person transitioning political?
      - afiori 4y ago
        Talking about eating apples could be political in the definition I gave. I don't think it is a good idea but it is a solution to the question of who get to decide what is political and what it not: everything not job related is political.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago

afiori 4y ago

Caring about PR is in the interest of shareholders. If companies had to always maximize short term profits there would be very few companies around. wrt shareholders for public companies they have a duty not to defraud them[0]; for everything else they are another stakeholder between employees, the public, the company itself as an institution, and other. [0] For example how Musk had Tesla overpay for the failing SolarCity to save face [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUQhfYv3wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUQhfYv3wc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYGgeRxVS_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYGgeRxVS_E [3] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-eVf9RWeoWHFuSgmmpMlMlVfMM_kFnm6 https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-eVf9RWeoWHFuSgmmpMlMlVf...

subsistence234 4y ago

There are many successful protection rackets going around that work by generating bad PR and threatening more bad or worse PR, unless you donate to them and/or hire them as consultants.

maxboone 4y ago

There's a growing amount of shareholders and boards that care about more than direct monetary profits. They also care about providing value / reducing costs in terms of e.g. sustainability.

phpisthebest 4y ago
There is a growing amount of shareholders that pretend to car about more than profits in times of plenty and economic growth Lets see if these feelings over profits survive the next recession, I am press X for doubt on that one

berjin 4y ago

> Why does the company have "values"? Look into ESG scores and Black Rock.

skybrian 4y ago

Companies have values because they are not machines. They are organizations of people, who do have values. (And sometimes even agree on them.) Also, you're decades out of date on shareholder capitalism. ESG is big now. Even the shareholders don't necessarily want to you to maximize profit.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
ESG is primarily a mechanism for shareholders to get even more influence. This is not altruism. On the contrary, they leverage their financial advantages. Road to hell in my opinion.

fleddr 4y ago

I'm with you that they did the right thing by taking this neutral stance, the peculiar section you should see as "managing optics" and keeping hysterical activists off their backs.

neuracnu 4y ago

Regarding Cloudflare donating their service fees to an LGBTQ support org, that's some genuine D-grade advocacy. I feel bad for the ERG members who were put in the position of choosing that charity. If someone keeps starting fires on my property, I don't want you to donate to the local fireman's fund, I want you to stop giving that person matches.

killyourcar 4y ago
It's carbon offsets for hate. And just like carbon credits, it's not really solving any problems. It's the minimum they could do that was literally not zero.