4 ms·

Stack overflow was an invaluable resource for me as a developer. I got a wealth of knowledge about a bunch of thorny problems I was encountering with out paying

Stack overflow was an invaluable resource for me as a developer. I got a wealth of knowledge about a bunch of thorny problems I was encountering with out paying anything. The people who answered the questions I had were able to help far more people than they ever could have individually without SO. I’m having a hard time being upset about his financial windfall. It’s really only a bait and switch for people who answered questions with some other unstated expectation than helping others or receiving help.

kijin 2y ago
In aggregate, Stack Overflow probably saved developers far more time than anyone ever put in, and saved companies all over the world far more money than the founders made in their exit.
- milesward 2y ago
  Creating more value than you capture has ways been the jam.
  - keybored 2y ago
    You just need to be working class to fulfill that dream.
- fakedang 2y ago
  Also saved AI companies far more effort in gathering correct code for training.
  - kijin 2y ago
    Not just correct code, but also a whole bunch of incorrect answers, as well as votes and comments to help weigh the trustworthiness of each answer.
belter 2y ago
Your argument has nothing do to with the point I was trying to make.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  What was that?
  - belter 2y ago
    The founders monetized a platform where unpaid contributors built 99% of the value by answering questions for intangible "Reputation". The fact that contributions were voluntary doesn’t negate the issue. It highlights it. A system designed to extract free labor for massive financial gain, while offering only gamified rewards, reflects exploitative design, not fairness.
    - amrocha 2y ago
      This is such an incomprehensible take. Every developer has benefited from SO. I’ve contributed to the site exactly because it’s been so good to me. I don’t need money on top of that. The website is the reward. Nobody cares about reputation. Websites cost money to run, and I’m glad SO was so well monetized that it didn’t run out of money and get deactivated like so many of the old school forums we used to go to for help before.
      - belter 2y ago
        See my analogy below in this thread about the public park... What is incomprehensible is developers confusing the value created by the site, with the means of production of said value. While contributing to the site might provide you with some personal feelings of value, maybe even a rush of altruistic euphoria... :-) An illusory sense of digital sainthood...Your unpaid work directly enhances the value of a platform that profits from selling the collective output, including yours. This means you’re effectively donating your expertise to a for-profit entity, with no equity or share in its success

kijin 2y ago

In aggregate, Stack Overflow probably saved developers far more time than anyone ever put in, and saved companies all over the world far more money than the founders made in their exit.

milesward 2y ago
Creating more value than you capture has ways been the jam.
- keybored 2y ago
  You just need to be working class to fulfill that dream.
fakedang 2y ago
Also saved AI companies far more effort in gathering correct code for training.
- kijin 2y ago
  Not just correct code, but also a whole bunch of incorrect answers, as well as votes and comments to help weigh the trustworthiness of each answer.

belter 2y ago

Your argument has nothing do to with the point I was trying to make.

robertlagrant 2y ago
What was that?
- belter 2y ago
  The founders monetized a platform where unpaid contributors built 99% of the value by answering questions for intangible "Reputation". The fact that contributions were voluntary doesn’t negate the issue. It highlights it. A system designed to extract free labor for massive financial gain, while offering only gamified rewards, reflects exploitative design, not fairness.
  - amrocha 2y ago
    This is such an incomprehensible take. Every developer has benefited from SO. I’ve contributed to the site exactly because it’s been so good to me. I don’t need money on top of that. The website is the reward. Nobody cares about reputation. Websites cost money to run, and I’m glad SO was so well monetized that it didn’t run out of money and get deactivated like so many of the old school forums we used to go to for help before.
    - belter 2y ago
      See my analogy below in this thread about the public park... What is incomprehensible is developers confusing the value created by the site, with the means of production of said value. While contributing to the site might provide you with some personal feelings of value, maybe even a rush of altruistic euphoria... :-) An illusory sense of digital sainthood...Your unpaid work directly enhances the value of a platform that profits from selling the collective output, including yours. This means you’re effectively donating your expertise to a for-profit entity, with no equity or share in its success