8 ms·

No. This is not how we build a better internet. You can try to say "These companies will be responsible, and about people." all you want. But if the fundamen

No. This is not how we build a better internet. You can try to say "These companies will be responsible, and about people." all you want. But if the fundamental structure is still a for-profit corporation with equity investors expecting a return then that will inevitably trump whatever public good these companies were supposed to have at heart. The only way we can actually achieve a better internet and a better tech sector is by changing the fundamental structure of the companies that build it. That doesn't have to mean they don't make money, but it does mean that making a profit for investors cannot be part of it. Non-profits funded by grants. Employee owned businesses funded by loans. These might actually change the dynamics. But investor owned, for-profit companies funded by venture capital will not. No matter how much we might wish it otherwise.

boole1854 4y ago
> Non-profits funded by grants. Employee owned businesses funded by loans. Serious question: is there any evidence to suggest that non-profits and employee-owned businesses are on average better at serving the public good? There are power asymmetries inside non-profits and employee-owned businesses, and these can lead to the 'power brokers' inside these organizations steering or commandeering the organizations for their own benefit.
- fabianhjr 4y ago
  Yes, GEO Coop keeps a fact-sheet: https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet With most citations being from: https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives For example: > Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, it is more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm. Since cooperative business objectives are needs oriented, cooperatives are more likely to stay in the community (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).
  - boole1854 4y ago
    Awesome, thanks
    - dbingham 4y ago
      Yeah, there's definitely quite a bit of evidence. But also, they're better - not perfect. The issue you pointed to is real and does happen. But it's not as ubiquitous as "investor funding companies putting aside all other concerns in pursuit of profit" and the harms that stem from it tend to be more contained.
      - subradios 4y ago
        It's a different set of problems too, cooperatives tend to have issues doing anything bigger than a local Bodega. Even in software, once you're big enough to have a real user base you need infrastructure, servers, people to keep those servers alive, and on and on and it dilutes the mission because even while there's no scumbag investors, factions within the company will want more for less and vote that way internally.
  - artificialLimbs 4y ago
    >> it is more likely to promote community growth What does that mean?
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      I think of things like: a cooperative is unlikely to ship all their jobs overseas, so they will invest locally in the business instead. They will probably also be less inclined to pollute because the decisions are not made by people who live in the fancy clean neighborhood, but live all over the area.
laurex 4y ago
There's perhaps a third way that looks more like Mozilla itself (setting aside the problematics with Google), or Ghost, or Signal. Funding a trust/nonprofit that owns the companies and itself has accountability to the greater good. That bakes in transparency and pays people fair market wages but isn't built in a way where investors or even founders are driven to 'get rich.' Where business goals are around sustainability rather than hypergrowth. The current VC model simply doesn't align with human-need driven software products, at least in the consumer sector.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
harryvederci 4y ago
I agree 100%. I think my website[0] would be a perfect candidate for something like this, but I'm not going to apply because taking VC money would mean I won't be able to guarantee to my users that I'll keep the soul of it intact. [0] https://withoutdistractions.com/cv/faq https://withoutdistractions.com/cv/faq (Note: it's still in beta)
redox99 4y ago
I don't know about employee owned businesses funded by loans. But Mozilla (ignoring the foundation/corporation technicality) and Wikipedia, showed me how generally flawed these kinds of non profits are. They have some insane mismanagement of funds, which don't go where they are most needed, and where user want funds to go. Firefox's market share has dropped tremendously under Mitchell Baker. If it were a traditional company, she would have been fired ages ago (instead she has had her pay increased). The way they work they just have to convince their benefactor (Google) to keep giving them money. There are no investors that demand growth, so it's all just internal politics with no performance incentives. I could maybe understand it if at least, unlike most for profit business, Mozilla would actually be amazing with privacy and treating their users well. But they are barely better than Chrome. It's almost impossible to disable and keep disabled all telemetry. They've pushed things like Pocket, a Mr Robot plugin into users, and so much bullshit.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > They have some insane mismanagement of funds, which don't go where they are most needed, and where user want funds to go How is that any different from 'efficient' private companies...
- Andrex 4y ago
  I'm curious about your gripes with Wikipedia. I donate regularly because it's still growing more useful to me year after year and has resisted ads and obscene partnerships.
  - redox99 4y ago
    It's definitely better than the Mozilla situation, but here[1] is a good look at what I'm referring to. Basically their spending is insane and increases a lot each year (although it seems that 2020-2021 was the first period that it didn't increase). Their spending and rate of increase doesn't really make sense. I really like Wikipedia and use it a lot, but remember that the content comes from people that doesn't get paid, so when you think of what the funding gets you, think of the tech, servers, etc, not the articles themselves. And I definitely don't see as an user, what Wikipedia does with their 110M/year spending, that they couldn't do with their 30M/year spending in 2011 or even less. I mean they spend 110M/year, have a fairly simple website, and they couldn't manage to implement dark mode?[2] I also dislike that they run donation campaigns pretending like if you don't donate they're going down, when actually their financials are extremely good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... [2] Outside of their "gadget" or whatever that is, for logged in users, which I just found exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode
josh_carterPDX 4y ago
As someone who is building a VC firm with a focus on social impact I can say unequivocally that this can be done. You can be focused on doing good while also being a capitalist. It's not a binary. If an investor is interested in only making lots of money, there are plenty of funds that do that. However, there are a tremendous amount of investors who are happy getting a lower return on their investment if it means they can contribute into something that is making a difference. I don't see how this is any different.
- adastra22 4y ago
  It starts that way with good intentions. Pro-profit structures inevitably corrupt, however. It has always been this way with very, very few exceptions.

boole1854 4y ago

> Non-profits funded by grants. Employee owned businesses funded by loans. Serious question: is there any evidence to suggest that non-profits and employee-owned businesses are on average better at serving the public good? There are power asymmetries inside non-profits and employee-owned businesses, and these can lead to the 'power brokers' inside these organizations steering or commandeering the organizations for their own benefit.

fabianhjr 4y ago
Yes, GEO Coop keeps a fact-sheet: https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet With most citations being from: https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives For example: > Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, it is more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm. Since cooperative business objectives are needs oriented, cooperatives are more likely to stay in the community (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).
- boole1854 4y ago
  Awesome, thanks
  - dbingham 4y ago
    Yeah, there's definitely quite a bit of evidence. But also, they're better - not perfect. The issue you pointed to is real and does happen. But it's not as ubiquitous as "investor funding companies putting aside all other concerns in pursuit of profit" and the harms that stem from it tend to be more contained.
    - subradios 4y ago
      It's a different set of problems too, cooperatives tend to have issues doing anything bigger than a local Bodega. Even in software, once you're big enough to have a real user base you need infrastructure, servers, people to keep those servers alive, and on and on and it dilutes the mission because even while there's no scumbag investors, factions within the company will want more for less and vote that way internally.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  >> it is more likely to promote community growth What does that mean?
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I think of things like: a cooperative is unlikely to ship all their jobs overseas, so they will invest locally in the business instead. They will probably also be less inclined to pollute because the decisions are not made by people who live in the fancy clean neighborhood, but live all over the area.

laurex 4y ago

There's perhaps a third way that looks more like Mozilla itself (setting aside the problematics with Google), or Ghost, or Signal. Funding a trust/nonprofit that owns the companies and itself has accountability to the greater good. That bakes in transparency and pays people fair market wages but isn't built in a way where investors or even founders are driven to 'get rich.' Where business goals are around sustainability rather than hypergrowth. The current VC model simply doesn't align with human-need driven software products, at least in the consumer sector.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

harryvederci 4y ago

I agree 100%. I think my website[0] would be a perfect candidate for something like this, but I'm not going to apply because taking VC money would mean I won't be able to guarantee to my users that I'll keep the soul of it intact. [0] https://withoutdistractions.com/cv/faq https://withoutdistractions.com/cv/faq (Note: it's still in beta)

redox99 4y ago

I don't know about employee owned businesses funded by loans. But Mozilla (ignoring the foundation/corporation technicality) and Wikipedia, showed me how generally flawed these kinds of non profits are. They have some insane mismanagement of funds, which don't go where they are most needed, and where user want funds to go. Firefox's market share has dropped tremendously under Mitchell Baker. If it were a traditional company, she would have been fired ages ago (instead she has had her pay increased). The way they work they just have to convince their benefactor (Google) to keep giving them money. There are no investors that demand growth, so it's all just internal politics with no performance incentives. I could maybe understand it if at least, unlike most for profit business, Mozilla would actually be amazing with privacy and treating their users well. But they are barely better than Chrome. It's almost impossible to disable and keep disabled all telemetry. They've pushed things like Pocket, a Mr Robot plugin into users, and so much bullshit.

unity1001 4y ago
> They have some insane mismanagement of funds, which don't go where they are most needed, and where user want funds to go How is that any different from 'efficient' private companies...
Andrex 4y ago
I'm curious about your gripes with Wikipedia. I donate regularly because it's still growing more useful to me year after year and has resisted ads and obscene partnerships.
- redox99 4y ago
  It's definitely better than the Mozilla situation, but here[1] is a good look at what I'm referring to. Basically their spending is insane and increases a lot each year (although it seems that 2020-2021 was the first period that it didn't increase). Their spending and rate of increase doesn't really make sense. I really like Wikipedia and use it a lot, but remember that the content comes from people that doesn't get paid, so when you think of what the funding gets you, think of the tech, servers, etc, not the articles themselves. And I definitely don't see as an user, what Wikipedia does with their 110M/year spending, that they couldn't do with their 30M/year spending in 2011 or even less. I mean they spend 110M/year, have a fairly simple website, and they couldn't manage to implement dark mode?[2] I also dislike that they run donation campaigns pretending like if you don't donate they're going down, when actually their financials are extremely good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... [2] Outside of their "gadget" or whatever that is, for logged in users, which I just found exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dark_mode

josh_carterPDX 4y ago

As someone who is building a VC firm with a focus on social impact I can say unequivocally that this can be done. You can be focused on doing good while also being a capitalist. It's not a binary. If an investor is interested in only making lots of money, there are plenty of funds that do that. However, there are a tremendous amount of investors who are happy getting a lower return on their investment if it means they can contribute into something that is making a difference. I don't see how this is any different.

adastra22 4y ago
It starts that way with good intentions. Pro-profit structures inevitably corrupt, however. It has always been this way with very, very few exceptions.