5 ms·

We deeply believe in the core mission of the Stack Exchange network: to provide a repository of high-quality information in the form of questions and answers, a

We deeply believe in the core mission of the Stack Exchange network: to provide a repository of high-quality information in the form of questions and answers, and the recent actions taken by Stack Overflow, Inc. are directly harmful to that goal Unfortunately, this seems a naive take; the core mission of the network is to serve the commercial purposes of the business.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
How about a principled and optimistic take? And/Or, the basis under which moderators have been offering their services. We may have been duped by a company's lies, of course. Seems like they've committed a mix of copyright infringement and fraud in that case.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Like I said, "unfortunately".
2-718-281-828 3y ago
That's a very snarky way to put it. It's very well within the rights of the SE community to express their perspective and demand this to be respected. That's not naive. Naive would be assuming this is guaranteed to work. But if they actually implement a moderation strike then SE is going to fall apart sooner than later. So, it's not like they have no leverage.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Its not at all "snarky". Expecting a business - with infamous episodes of contempt towards moderators - to behave in the idealistic way presented here is naïve. Might it submit to pressure? Perhaps. But the wording of this letter in its presumption of the motives of a private organisation misunderstands the reality of the commercial world.
  - pydry 3y ago
    They're not just expecting the business to behave this way they are attempting to force its hand. Are you familiar with strike tactics?
    - mellosouls 3y ago
      Of course, but strikers are paid workers operating within a legal process, they can't just be easily supplanted by free alternatives as can moderators. But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality.
      - pydry 3y ago
        >strikers are paid workers Not in this case. The exchange is real but non-monetary. >But that's getting off the topic No, not really.
      - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
        > But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality. not off-topic at all - but I think you just noticed that your argument doesn't hold.
        mellosouls 3y ago
        My original point was about an incorrect reading of what the network is there for; the distraction into strikes and whatnot might be of interest but not on that specific point - which holds regardless of your rather silly supposition.
        2-718-281-828 3y ago
        go ahead and file a complaint with the ministry of silly suppositions
      - bluGill 3y ago
- xaerise 3y ago
  it is every business mission and goal to deliver value to its owners.
  - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
    nobody questions that - not even the open letter.
  - NoboruWataya 3y ago
    Sure, which is why it is not helpful or interesting to point it out. When companies talk about their "mission", they are referring more to how they intend to deliver value to their owners, usually by identifying some social need and satisfying that need in exchange for value.
leroman 3y ago
I think this is a naive (or cynical?) take on a business, its also their goal to hire and retain both employees and customers. If the latter is done based on a lie, then you cant align your “commercial purpose” and people who fulfill it..
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Unfortunately (again), there are plenty of people who will buy from and work for businesses that don't subscribe to the same views as those in the letter.
lozenge 3y ago
How does allowing AI content inherently and unquestioningly serve the commercial purposes of the business?
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Well this is off the topic of the quoted passage in my comment, but your use of "unquestioningly" - is a strange choice of word, and reflected elsewhere in the letter in "unchecked". I found that quite a dubious wording as well. That's exactly what moderation is for, checking, questioning, etc, its not an argument against AI-generated content. There seems to be an emotional reaction, but people will still value the highest quality content, whatever its provenance. If the argument is that the workload will be too high, well make that argument - don't sidetrack with misleading and idealistic appeals to emotion.
layer8 3y ago
Business viability should be a means to realize the core mission, not the other way around.
danaris 3y ago
To the extent that this is true, it's a corruption of the purpose of companies in our society. The reason we created "corporations" as a concept was not simply to have a vehicle to make as much money as possible, any way possible. It was to serve society by providing services and making products, which would then be sold, and, if they were good enough, would make the company a profit. This idea that no business should ever be expected to do anything but what makes them the most money the fastest is toxic and is ruining our economy and our society.
TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
Well then maybe "the business" shouldn't depend on the gratis effort of hundreds of thousands of unpaid volunteers. If I read between the lines, it would seem to me that management has decided they can make more money by allowing AI-generated content. I don't think this is true. Yet. But whether it is or isn't, this is a revocation of the implied contract we, the users, have had with the site.
UtopiaPunk 3y ago
The core mission for the c-suite executives and owners is commercial. But they neither build nor use the thing. They're just in charge. Workers taking back some of that control is a great thing.
idiotsecant 3y ago
The core mission of the system that is stack overflow is in the eye of the beholder. If you ask a army of unpaid volunteers who maintain it or one of the even larger army of contributors who actually provide expert level content for free, I think you'll be a different answer than the C-suite will give you. The business is a helpful abstraction layered over the top of all these people doing the actual work. It's useful as long as it keeps the lights on. When it stops doing that the community has the right and the responsibility to move the work product of the huge quantity of people actually doing the thing here somewhere else.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

How about a principled and optimistic take? And/Or, the basis under which moderators have been offering their services. We may have been duped by a company's lies, of course. Seems like they've committed a mix of copyright infringement and fraud in that case.

mellosouls 3y ago
Like I said, "unfortunately".

2-718-281-828 3y ago

That's a very snarky way to put it. It's very well within the rights of the SE community to express their perspective and demand this to be respected. That's not naive. Naive would be assuming this is guaranteed to work. But if they actually implement a moderation strike then SE is going to fall apart sooner than later. So, it's not like they have no leverage.

mellosouls 3y ago
Its not at all "snarky". Expecting a business - with infamous episodes of contempt towards moderators - to behave in the idealistic way presented here is naïve. Might it submit to pressure? Perhaps. But the wording of this letter in its presumption of the motives of a private organisation misunderstands the reality of the commercial world.
- pydry 3y ago
  They're not just expecting the business to behave this way they are attempting to force its hand. Are you familiar with strike tactics?
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    Of course, but strikers are paid workers operating within a legal process, they can't just be easily supplanted by free alternatives as can moderators. But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >strikers are paid workers Not in this case. The exchange is real but non-monetary. >But that's getting off the topic No, not really.
    - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
      > But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality. not off-topic at all - but I think you just noticed that your argument doesn't hold.
      - mellosouls 3y ago
        My original point was about an incorrect reading of what the network is there for; the distraction into strikes and whatnot might be of interest but not on that specific point - which holds regardless of your rather silly supposition.
        2-718-281-828 3y ago
        go ahead and file a complaint with the ministry of silly suppositions
    - bluGill 3y ago
xaerise 3y ago
it is every business mission and goal to deliver value to its owners.
- 2-718-281-828 3y ago
  nobody questions that - not even the open letter.
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  Sure, which is why it is not helpful or interesting to point it out. When companies talk about their "mission", they are referring more to how they intend to deliver value to their owners, usually by identifying some social need and satisfying that need in exchange for value.

leroman 3y ago

I think this is a naive (or cynical?) take on a business, its also their goal to hire and retain both employees and customers. If the latter is done based on a lie, then you cant align your “commercial purpose” and people who fulfill it..

mellosouls 3y ago
Unfortunately (again), there are plenty of people who will buy from and work for businesses that don't subscribe to the same views as those in the letter.

lozenge 3y ago

How does allowing AI content inherently and unquestioningly serve the commercial purposes of the business?

mellosouls 3y ago
Well this is off the topic of the quoted passage in my comment, but your use of "unquestioningly" - is a strange choice of word, and reflected elsewhere in the letter in "unchecked". I found that quite a dubious wording as well. That's exactly what moderation is for, checking, questioning, etc, its not an argument against AI-generated content. There seems to be an emotional reaction, but people will still value the highest quality content, whatever its provenance. If the argument is that the workload will be too high, well make that argument - don't sidetrack with misleading and idealistic appeals to emotion.

layer8 3y ago

Business viability should be a means to realize the core mission, not the other way around.

danaris 3y ago

To the extent that this is true, it's a corruption of the purpose of companies in our society. The reason we created "corporations" as a concept was not simply to have a vehicle to make as much money as possible, any way possible. It was to serve society by providing services and making products, which would then be sold, and, if they were good enough, would make the company a profit. This idea that no business should ever be expected to do anything but what makes them the most money the fastest is toxic and is ruining our economy and our society.

TheRealDunkirk 3y ago

Well then maybe "the business" shouldn't depend on the gratis effort of hundreds of thousands of unpaid volunteers. If I read between the lines, it would seem to me that management has decided they can make more money by allowing AI-generated content. I don't think this is true. Yet. But whether it is or isn't, this is a revocation of the implied contract we, the users, have had with the site.

UtopiaPunk 3y ago

The core mission for the c-suite executives and owners is commercial. But they neither build nor use the thing. They're just in charge. Workers taking back some of that control is a great thing.

idiotsecant 3y ago

The core mission of the system that is stack overflow is in the eye of the beholder. If you ask a army of unpaid volunteers who maintain it or one of the even larger army of contributors who actually provide expert level content for free, I think you'll be a different answer than the C-suite will give you. The business is a helpful abstraction layered over the top of all these people doing the actual work. It's useful as long as it keeps the lights on. When it stops doing that the community has the right and the responsibility to move the work product of the huge quantity of people actually doing the thing here somewhere else.