5 ms·
Ever hear of a non-profit entity <edited - see below>? So much of what the users want from social media is not technologically innovative and thus doesn't requ
by wintermutestwin 3y ago
Ever hear of a non-profit entity <edited - see below>?
So much of what the users want from social media is not technologically innovative and thus doesn't require the profit motive to fuel that innovation.
I cannot see one reason why Facecrook, Twits, or Spreddit requires a for-profit business model. Can you?
- hfkwer 3y ago> non-profit business That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. A business is literally an activity that is undertaken for the purpose of profit. There are activities that are entered for reasons other than profit, but they're not businesses.
- wintermutestwin 3y agoYes, from a taxonomy perspective, you are correct. I'll edit to be precise because the definitions don't change the point of my post.
- Sharlin 3y agoDepends on the definition. If an organization is arranged as, say, a limited-liability company, then it is a business no matter what its goals are. And "profit to shareholders "is neither definitional nor mandatory; the value produced can be whatever the shareholders want it to be. Of course, most of the time it’s profit.
- grepfru_it 3y agoIf it is an LLC, then each employee would have to be a member to exercise control and have the legal standing to request profits from the company. An LLC does NOT have a requirement to maximize shareholder profit because there are no shareholders, just members. An LLC has a max number of members and members are required to maintain their portion of tax liability (this means they will owe a % of tax due or receive a % of tax refunds). This overwhelmingly means employees are NOT part of the LLC, as all it would take is one employee not paying their taxes for the entire LLC to be at risk (also this is why investors will run like the wind from an LLC raising money). An LLC CAN have an employment contract where they offer paper shares, which can translate to profit sharing but they are called paper shares because they are unsecured debts and are literally worth nothing in the event of bankruptcy. They could be a C corp (could also be an S corp but that comes with a 100 share holder limit), but then they have a duty to maximize profit to the shareholders. In a private corporation, the shareholders may be less inclined to sue, but the option is still there and as such the CEO must work to ensure the company is profitable. If they decide to share all profits with the employees, and the employees are majority shareholders, then this likely falls within the sphere of maximize profits. There are things like a publicly-traded LLP which allows employees to own a portion of the company while offloading tax liabilities to the shareholder, but that is usually limited to companies which depend on depleting natural resources (think oil, gas, coal, lithium, etc)
- lsaferite 3y agoAny multi-party LLC I've been part of, and it's been more than a few, has provisions about tax liabilities and allowed the LLC to forcefully pay them. Additionally, LLCs rules would control equity holde payouts, and provisions around equity liquidation.
- grepfru_it 3y agoLLC rules do not apply during bankruptcy. Equity holders are unsecured in bankruptcy, employee salaries and secured debts have a higher priority. You can have provisions about tax liabilities, but that is a specific risk that must be mitigated in an LLC that a corporation does not have to deal with, thus it’s an added risk
- Freak_NL 3y agoI work for a business owned in whole by its employees. Its goal is to pay its employees a good salary and generally act in the interest of the employees in addition to providing its core services to its customers. There is no pay out of any profits (by design), but it's a commercial enterprise (i.e., a business) nonetheless.
- Frummy 3y agoSo the employees profit
- sirsinsalot 3y agoHey now let's not being technical correctness in to this!
- DangitBobby 3y agoPeanut gallery comments really don't add anything to the conversation. Unless this isn't sarcasm and your point is that being technically correct is practically worthless.
- sirsinsalot 3y agoMy point was that when commenting correctness by technicalities people often leave themselves open to dismissal in favour of more emotive arguments. A "How dare you be technically correct!" variation is both an expression of mob-correctness trumping technical correctness _and_ an acknowledgement of being technically correct. A sort of, you're right, I support you, but the crowd might not. Read shit how you like tho
- Freak_NL 3y agoNot more than in any other company, with the exception that the company puts its employees needs first (but this is not exclusive to companies like mine).
- lsaferite 3y ago
- mumblemumble 3y agoIf we're talking about the United States, it's not an oxymoron at all. I've got some extremely profitable 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations I could show you. Autism Speaks comes to mind. They may not be making money for public shareholders, but they're making a lot of money for the people who run them, all the same. Also plenty of organizations look like businesses in every way except their tax status. Thrift stores, for example. Goodwill isn't a nonprofit anymore, but even when it was it also employed all the same abusive labor practices and suchlike that you'd expect from a for-profit business.
- Dalewyn 3y ago>I cannot see one reason why Facecrook, Twits, or Spreddit requires a for-profit business model. Can you? Web hosting ain't free, especially at their scales.
- Ardon 3y agoThat's not what nonprofit means. You can still make money to cover expenses, you just don't go past that.
- kijin 3y agoNonprofits try really, really hard to make money well beyond their near-term expenses. Wikimedia Foundation is (in)famous for this. First, they want a rainy-day fund to cover fixed expenses when income fluctuates. Second, and more importantly, they might want to create a massive endowment that provides them with stable income so that they're not beholden (or accountable) to donors or their usual business partners. The only difference, at the end of the day, is whether they ever want to IPO.
- jtbayly 3y agoThe other reason a non-profit tries to more than cover its expenses is to accomplish its mission. The point of non-profits is that their goal is to accomplish something other than profiting. Sometimes the goal can cost a lot of money to accomplish, often much more than just the cost of paying its employees. For example a non-profit that raises money for cancer research might have very low costs and raise tons of money without raising eyebrows. Because they put the majority toward their goal, and everybody understands the goal, and "profit" is not that goal.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoAn interesting experiment would be to make all companies non-profit. Could you imagine that world! I wonder if there would be less spam.
- deleted 3y ago
- WeylandYutani 3y agoNon-profit in a capitalist society? Seriously? This ain't Star Trek.
- rolandog 3y agoLiving in an unregulated capitalist society doesn't mean we should reward people or companies that are racing to the bottom putting values and customers aside, once their market has been "cornered" (these companies bet on the unlikelihood of users being incensed enough to dethrone their monopoly).
- WeylandYutani 3y agoSilicon valley is based in a country that balks at universal healthcare FFS. And I have no faith in the techno priest class that is just as corrupt as the Jesuits of old. They'd sell out their principles for a Lambo as we have seen time and time again. But stay positive if that's what keeps you sane.
- tchalla 3y agoNon profit doesn’t mean no profit.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ChatGTP 3y agoActually a pretty good point.