4 ms·
The author is wrong. The CEO perfectly understands Stack Overflow. What the author of this blog doesn't understand is that the CEO is pursuing a perfectly valid
by vouaobrasil 3y ago
The author is wrong. The CEO perfectly understands Stack Overflow. What the author of this blog doesn't understand is that the CEO is pursuing a perfectly valid strategy: maximize its short-term gains by squeezing it unsustainably with the latest hype, and take the money, and run.
The good of the community and the well-being of the users are completely irrelevant in this strategy.
- pwdisswordfishc 3y agoYou have a pretty strange definition of ‘valid’.
- palata 3y agoWell, 'rational', I guess.
- dmvdoug 3y agoI’m glad you put it in quotes at least.
- emptyfile 3y agoI'd say it's actually pretty typical of corporations operated by global investment groups.
- inopinatus 3y ago“not outright illegal in every jurisdiction”
- brycewray 3y agoClassic Star Trek (TOS) exchange [0]... Anan 7: I'm glad you approve. Spock: I do *not* approve. I understand. [0]: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon_(episode)#Memorable_quotes https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon_(...
- vouaobrasil 3y agoIt was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean valid in terms of morally right. I meant valid in terms of economically rational in today's climate.
- starbugs 3y agoI think it's about time that we no longer accept this strategy as valid.
- mcv 3y agoValid according to the type of capitalist economy the rich, powerful and money hungry want: one where everything revolves around shareholder value, rather than societal value. In that economy, it doesn't matter how destructive your business model is, as long as the shareholders get value out of it. Friedman's idea that corporations that maximising shareholder value has clearly been the single most destructive ideal that has plagued this planet for the past half century, but to too many people in power it is still the rule. It's also the reason why we still keep burning coal and oil, despite knowing that we're destroying our planet that way.
- nerdponx 3y agoPeople were doing this long before Friedman was even born. People were doing it before capitalism as we know it even existed. Friedman's idea is just retroactive justification for one of the fundamental evils in human nature.
- paxys 3y agoWho is "we"? Unless you have a large financial stake in the company you aren't part of the discussion at all.
- noelherrick 3y agoWe live in a society. If you want to build a company in international waters cut off from the rest of the world, by all means. I hear there was a nice anti-regulation company that has a boat they don't need anymore, so maybe you could take over the lease. There's a reason why we decided banks have to have be monitored and if they're insolvent they can be taken over, or why you have to IPO and provide a bunch of information to investors if you want to sell stock in your company. There's "private" transactions that create enough systemic risk so that we have to regulate them.
- p4bl0 3y ago> The good of the community and the well-being of the users are completely irrelevant in this strategy. Nor is the well-being of the company's employees, or at least the stability of their job and the foreseeability of their future. It is one more example of a situation where a worker's union fighting for the interest of both the workers and the company (in the sense of the platform/product, not the shareholders) would be to the benefits for the longevity of the business and for the users too.
- rahidz 3y agoWhy is this so common with tech companies? I'm not an economist by any means, but I never hear of McDonald's, Honda, Home Depot, etc. etc. pulling these kinds of stunts. They're perfectly happy being large companies that pull a constant year-over-year profit. Meanwhile tech companies seem to deliberately have a lifespan of years, not decades, with rugpulls like this being accepted as the norm.
- moomoo11 3y agoWashing
- rahidz 3y agoCan you clarify/expand on this please? Like money laundering or something else?
- paxys 3y agoThis happens pretty frequently with all kinds of companies. Look at anything touched by private equity, for example.
- bluedino 3y agoLook at what Lowe's did with the Craftsman brand.
- Aurornis 3y agoYou won’t read about the boring, sustainable companies in the headlines. These stories are common in headlines because it’s newsworthy, not because it’s common in general.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago>Why is this so common with tech companies? Venture capital.
- malfist 3y agoVulture captial
- throwawaymobule 3y agoThank goodness everything on the site is licensed creative commons, so you can stand up a replacement pretty quick. Mathoverflow even owns their own domain.