this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
201 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37739 readers
500 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PotentiallyAnApricot@beehaw.org 92 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I really struggle to take seriously what these tech people say about ‘not wanting to censor’. They made a business calculation, and maybe an ideological one, and decided “we want that nazi money, it’s worth it to us.” which really tells you everything about a company and how it is likely to approach other issues, too.

[–] flumph@programming.dev 41 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's also disingenuous because they already decline to host sex workers newsletters. So if the censorship angle was true, they're already censoring.

[–] PotentiallyAnApricot@beehaw.org 16 points 11 months ago

RIGHT. Thank you for pointing this out.


:::

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Right, and if the profit motive angle were true, they’re already violating that by censoring the sex workers you just mentioned.

So that eliminates profit as the reason for their actions here

[–] janabuggs@beehaw.org 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes! I love this simplification!

[–] PotentiallyAnApricot@beehaw.org 17 points 11 months ago

I feel like they always try to make it sound more complicated and high minded. I really don’t believe it is!

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What do you call a company that puts profits above all? A company.

Last time I asked for advice about registering a nonprofit, I was told "but you don't yet have enough profits to use a nonprofit for tax evasion" 😒

[–] numberz@mastodon.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure I understand your point here. Everyone from a sole proprietor to a mega corporation is in it for profit. Just because the upper one percent is dodgy as hell and plays fast and loose with the tax code doesn’t mean every single company in existence is terrible or out to do sketchy business. I’m pretty happy with mine. I wouldn’t be there if I wasn’t working with honest people.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

My point is that it's nothing to be surprised about when a company makes a decision to increase its profit.

As for the rest, getting a profit from your work, is called "a job". Companies are created to get a profit in excess of whatever job the owners are doing, otherwise it's called a "non-profit"... for the owners in excess of their job at the company, which they still get paid for.

I don't know the company you're working for, but if it has any profits that don't revert to the people doing the job, or the amortization of the initial investment, then the owners are "skimming off the top" from everyone.

The people I asked for advice, from the corporate world, were so entrenched in that same "profit first" mentality, that they couldn't even grasp the idea of only getting paid for your actual work, and only saw non-profits as a tool for tax evasion.

[–] numberz@mastodon.social 2 points 11 months ago

Thank you for clarifying your position. I'm not in full agreement but I respect the points you brought up here. Cheers 🍻