Return to Answer

##Money

• Stop using Stack Exchange paid products at work (e.g. Teams)

 
• Advise everyone to enable Ad-Blockers on Stack Exchange.

##The law

Money

• Stop using Stack Exchange paid products at work (e.g. Teams)

• Advise everyone to enable Ad-Blockers on Stack Exchange.

The law

Don't worry about the company. The company is a means to serve the community, not the other way around. If the company breaks down, a new company will be very interested to support our community. This community can be used to make profit with very little investment, they just need servers and a listening ear. The other way around is harder, the company cannot do much without the community, it will have to pay its employees and without money coming in, for which they rely on having a community, that's hard.

That's probably not enough. They'll get the bulk of their money from investors, attacking that supply is hard as you'll have to convince investors not to invest. It's clear what's needed to change investors' minds, make clear that it's a bad investment. The 'problem' is that it's not, SE has unique access to a great community.

Alternatively, you can make investors be more picky. They pay, they can demand. This is again tricky, how do you convince investors that they'll have a better investment if they condition their money on certain demands? Can you even convince yourself that the requested changes have a meaningful impact on return on investment? If so, please provide the argument, then share that en masse. Note that such an analysis is probably enough to convince many in the current leadership to change. As Clinton strategist James Carville coined it:

It's also a good way to convince others in the community who aren't aware of wrongdoing. Nobody likes injustice, not even those who work for Stack Exchange. It may compel change and it may empower others to stand up.

That's great, teams are expensive, legal teams even more so. Let investors know they're spending their money in the courts, I'm sure they'll wonder if that's really necessary and if it wouldn't be more economical to have better policies that don't end up in court.

And if SE wants to play dirty, go ahead, we have larger numbers. Some states in the US legal system allow SLAPP, this may be an opportunity to use it for good, to compel the network we love to change for the better. And compelling it is, from Wikipedia's page on strategic lawsuit against public participation:

The only downside to this is that it takes money to take it to court. The upside is that only takes one person with a load of money overwhelm SE. And again, don't worry about the company. Even if it breaks, someone else will buy it and they'll want to keep the good elements. Worry about the community, not the company.

Don't worry about the company. The company is a means to serve the community, not the other way around. If the company breaks down, a new company will be very interested to support our community. This community can be used to make profit with very little investment; they just need servers and a listening ear. The other way around is harder; the company cannot do much without the community and it will have to pay its employees, and without money coming in, for which they rely on having a community, that's hard.

That's probably not enough. They'll get the bulk of their money from investors, and attacking that supply is hard as you'll have to convince investors not to invest. It's clear what's needed to change investors' minds. Make clear that it's a bad investment. The 'problem' is that it's not; SE has unique access to a great community.

Alternatively, you can make investors be more picky. They pay, and they can demand. This is again tricky. How do you convince investors that they'll have a better investment if they condition their money on certain demands? Can you even convince yourself that the requested changes have a meaningful impact on return on investment? If so, please provide the argument, and then share that en masse. Note that such an analysis is probably enough to convince many in the current leadership to change. As Clinton strategist James Carville coined it:

It's also a good way to convince others in the community who aren't aware of wrongdoing. Nobody likes injustice, not even those who work for Stack Exchange. It may compel change, and it may empower others to stand up.

That's great. Teams are expensive, and legal teams even more so. Let investors know they're spending their money in the courts. I'm sure they'll wonder if that's really necessary and if it wouldn't be more economical to have better policies that don't end up in court.

And if SE wants to play dirty, go ahead. We have larger numbers. Some states in the US legal system allow SLAPP, and this may be an opportunity to use it for good and to compel the network we love to change for the better. And compelling it is. From Wikipedia's page on strategic lawsuit against public participation:

The only downside to this is that it takes money to take it to court. The upside is that it only takes one person with a load of money to overwhelm SE. And again, don't worry about the company. Even if it breaks, someone else will buy it and they'll want to keep the good elements. Worry about the community, not the company.

Alternatively, you can make investors be more picky. They pay, they can demand. This is again tricky, how do you convince investors that they'll have a better investment if they condition their money on certain demands? Can you even convince yourself that the requested changes have a meaningful impact on return on investment? If so, please provide the argument, then share that en masse. Note that such an analysis is probably enough to convince many in the current leadership to change. As Bill Clinton said:

It's the economy, [censored]

Alternatively, you can make investors be more picky. They pay, they can demand. This is again tricky, how do you convince investors that they'll have a better investment if they condition their money on certain demands? Can you even convince yourself that the requested changes have a meaningful impact on return on investment? If so, please provide the argument, then share that en masse. Note that such an analysis is probably enough to convince many in the current leadership to change. As Clinton strategist James Carville coined it:

The economy, [censored]