What is happening with #Reddit should not be surprising, it is a for-profit corporation. They are legally required to maximize profit. There are no requirements to respect the community that uses it. This is the danger of hoping that #internet companies will do the right thing. Corp. officers will not take on personal liability to defend communities, because corp laws say shareholder profit comes first. #WhatsApp showed this by selling out to #Facebook. #Telegram looks very ripe for the same.
🇺🇦 🇹🇼
@eighthave
As this argument of "legally required to maximize profit" is often used, I'm honestly interested in which law this is referring to. I haven't seen it so far, and there are examples of founders not optimizing for profit alone. Do you happen to have a reference?
@rene_mobile The Corporation movie is one good breakdown https://www.thecorporation.com
Otherwise, it is pretty standard corporation practice, so just choose your favorite reference and dig in. In Austria, first thing I can think of is that different kinds of companies are required to have a minimum level of profit. In other scenarios, it legally defined board/officer control over the corporation, then the board/officers declare "maximizing shareholder value" is the goal, as stated in earnings calls
@rene_mobile so perhaps it is not technically accurate to say "profit" as in dividends paid out to shareholders. Companies like Amazon choose to maximize stock price growth over paying dividends. But in layman's terms, that is still maximizing profit. Another good reference is the "B corp" movement, which aims to spread new legal entities where social benefit can be codified in a for profit company.
We can set up #internet communities with hard requirements to respect the community. This is why #FDroid is legally structured to put #FreeSoftware first and foremost, via legal structures set up by Commons Conservancy.